Michael Doyle

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a courageous Pennsylvanian, Holly L. Garlitz, a 22-year-old resident of Pittsburgh. On September 17, 1996, Ms. Garlitz, then a student at Penn State University, placed herself in extreme danger to protect fellow student, Nicholas K. Mensah, who had been seriously injured by a woman who had opened fire on Penn State campus while students were walking to and from their classes. Mr. Mensah was seriously wounded when he was struck by a bullet fired by the sniper. After being struck, Mensah fell to the ground. Ms. Garlitz, who had been walking on the same path when the shots were fired, took cover behind a tree. However, seeing that Mr. Mensah remained vulnerable while laying on the ground, Ms. Garlitz left her cover and came to the aid of Mr. Mensah. Ms. Garlitz grabbed the young man by the arm and dragged him to safety while they were both in clear view of the sniper. For her brave and heroic actions, Ms. Garlitz has been awarded the Carnegie Medal by the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission. This bronze medal is awarded to citizens who risk their lives to save the lives of others. I am greatly pleased to see such an act of bravery and humanity on the part of Ms. Holly L. Garlitz, who is one of my constituents. Her action to help a fellow human being is one that we all can be proud of and should commend.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the Taxpayer Relief Act, and I commend the conferees for making substantial improvements to H.R. 2014, the original bill that was considered by the House. I was unable to support H.R. 2014 because it did not provide ample benefits for the middle class and it would have exploded the deficit in the outyears. But this conference report is truly a fiscally and socially responsible tax cut plan. Its costs are controlled in the coming years because the capital gains indexing has been stripped, and the Individual Retirement Account benefits have been targeted to middle-class savers. It is more equitable than H.R. 2014, as it extends the child tax credit to more families earning under $30,000 a year, protects the employment status of workers, and provides more help to families working to pay for their kids' education. I am particularly pleased that this tax bill contains brownfields tax incentives and an expansion of the Empowerment Zone program. In addition, I am grateful to the bipartisan group of over 60 Members of the House who joined me in urging the conferees to adopt these initiatives. Although these provisions were not in the House or Senate tax bill, I applaud the conferees and the administration for agreeing to include them. Both the brownfields incentive and the Empowerment Zone expansion will help to spur economic growth and spark the redevelopment of distressed communities across the country. Washington has been home to partisan sniping for decades, and in recent years it has been consumed in a political war of attrition. In the winter of 1995/1996, when the Government was shut down and it felt like animosity and distrust were the only things that the political parties had in common, it seemed unthinkable that we could come up with a budget that would be supported by the President and nearly three quarters of Congress. But this week we have. No one will find this to be a perfect agreement, and everyone will agree that there are various changes which we will need to work for later. For example, I would like to revisit some of the education provisions, notably the tax increase on TIAA-CREFF pensioners and the failure to extend employer provided education assistance to graduate students. Despite some flaws, I am proud of this budget reconciliation legislation. This is the most significant accomplishment we have made since I came to Congress almost 3 years ago. In fact, it is the most significant accomplishment that Congress has made since most of the Members of this body have served here. However, it is crucial that we all recognize that this is not the time for us to sit back and congratulate ourselves. We have shown what can be accomplished when we recognize that our shared interests outweigh our political differences. Now we must push ahead with the momentum we have built with this budget agreement. There are many great challenges ahead of us, and we are in a perfect position to work in a bipartisan manner to overcome them. I urge everyone to look at this not as the end of the game, but as the beginning. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I invite all Members to make this only the first of many bipartisan achievements.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. I rise today to support this spending package, H.R. 2015. This proposal, combined with the tax package we will consider tomorrow, establishes a framework where, for the first time since 1969, our Nation will achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. Past efforts in Washington to achieve this type of fiscal balance have been met by partisan gridlock and an unwillingness to compromise. This left the American people with a budget problem and no solutions, with a budget deficit growing larger each year. During this most recent effort, however, Members of Congress and the President not only listened to our constituents and other affected parties, we also listened to each other. The result of this effort is the balanced budget proposal we are considering this week. H.R. 2015 represents the spending portion of this bipartisan budget package, which outlines an intelligent solution to not only bring the budget into financial balance, but also to implement other initiatives that improve the lives and health of our most vulnerable citizens. It is never easy reforming a program, such as Medicare, that so many people depend on for essential services. However, if left untouched, by the year 2001, the Medicare Program would no longer be able to pay for the services it provides to eligible beneficiaries. It is because of this financial instability that Congress took action to develop a proposal that extends the solvency of the Medicare Program. The majority of the reforms included in the bill primarily affect health care providers by making changes to reimbursement rates or the method Medicare uses to reimburse these providers. This bill also expands coverage of preventive care for senior citizens, including services related to diabetes, osteoporosis, and certain types of cancer, and it includes provisions to further reduce fraud and abuse in the program. Additionally, to respond to an increasing use of managed care entities in the health care system, the bill institutes important consumer protections for Medicare beneficiaries, ensuring that seniors who enroll in managed care plans are provided adequate medical services. This legislation will not only ensure continued access to health care services for Pennsylvania's seniors, but it also protects the Commonwealth's youngest residents by setting aside $24 billion over 5 years to provide health coverage for uninsured children. This important initiative would provide essential health coverage to as many as 5 million children who are currently living without health benefits. These initiatives will help secure a healthier future for our Nation, and, at the same time, ensure that our Nation's financial health improves as well. I am pleased to support H.R. 2015, which will balance the Federal budget in a manner that is fair and equitable to all Americans.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997. If history is any kind of lesson, it is obvious that the strong targeted enforcement mechanisms provided by this bill are needed to ensure the budget is balanced by 2002. Some 229 Members of this House cosponsored the balanced budget amendment. I cannot understand why any of these Members would not support H.R. 2003. However, we are now hearing from Members who cosponsored the BBA, voted for the budget agreement and voted for both reconciliation bills, that the most serious problem with the Budget Enforcement Act is the fact that it may postpone tax cuts for their supporters. In a sense, they are right. If we enact this bill, tax cuts will indeed be delayed if the country is short of the money needed to balance the budget. But once we are on track, cuts can be enacted. I see nothing wrong with this approach. If we can afford certain tax cuts, let them go through. If we cannot, then we are just going to have to wait. In fact, if Members think it is more important to eliminate the deficit than it is to give away tax breaks that we cannot afford, this should be an easy vote. Let me close by saying I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules has decided to play politics with this issue, rather than debate it on its merits. The sponsors of this bill have discovered some needed changes. However, the Committee on Rules would not allow these corrections to be added to the bill, and it is my understanding they may be included in a motion to recommit. Consequently, anyone who is serious about deficit reduction should support the motion to recommit. In addition, even if this motion is not agreed to, I believe it is still crucial we enact this bill. The underlying principles are too important to ignore, and modification can always be made in conference. I urge my colleagues to vote for responsibility. Support the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997. If history is any kind of lesson, it is obvious that the strong, targeted enforcement mechanisms provided by this bill are needed to ensure the budget is balanced in 2002. During the 1980's and early 1990's, public officials said time and time again that the budget would be balanced in a number of years. But, time and time again, the Government lacked the discipline to follow through on these promises. Attempts were made to hold lawmakers to their word. No one should forget the noble failures of Gramm-Rudman. Unfortunately, these well- intentioned efforts contained a number of loopholes and shortcomings which allowed past Congresses and administrations to tear through the paper ceilings they established. Clearly, something stronger is needed. A balanced budget amendment would be a strong device, but it is obviously not available at this time. While we did not even have the opportunity to vote on a balanced budget amendment this year, we do have the chance to enact the next best thing--the bipartisan Budget Enforcement Act. Some 229 Members of this House cosponsored the balanced budget amendment, and I cannot understand why any of these Members would not support H.R. 2003. However, we are now hearing from Members who cosponsored the BBA, voted for the budget agreement, and voted for both reconciliation bills that the most serious problem with the Budget Enforcement Act is that fact that it may postpone tax cuts for their supporters. In a sense, they are right. If we enact this bill, tax cuts will, indeed, be delayed if the country is short of the money needed to balance the budget. But, once we are on tract, cuts can be enacted. I see nothing wrong with this approach. If we can afford certain tax cuts, let them go through. If not, we may just have to wait. In fact, if you think it is more important to eliminate the deficit than it is to give away tax breaks we cannot afford, this should be an easy vote. I know there are those concerned that H.R. 2003 will lead to reductions in important programs. I would like to ease these concerns by pointing out that this bill does not demand cuts. Instead, it demands that we adhere to our objectives. Congress and the President will be provided with ample time to avert automatic corrections. Similarly, reductions will not be triggered by extra spending that results from inflation or some increased demand for services. To avoid cuts, Congress and the President will have to put more careful consideration into crafting budgets. We will have to work within responsible guidelines, adopt a more long-term outlook, and employ highly accurate economic forecasts. Mr. Speaker, we should have been working this way all along. Now, thanks to a thriving economy and a handful of tough votes, a balanced budget is within our grasp. This time we cannot allow it to slip away. If all parties involved can show more discipline and tenacity than they have in the past, we will achieve this elusive goal. The bipartisan Budget Enforcement Act will provide the incentives to ensure that we do. Let me close by saying I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has decided to play politics with this issue, rather than debate it on its merits. The sponsors of this bill have discovered some needed technical changes. However, because the Rules Committee would not allow these corrections to be added to the bill, they have been included in the motion to recommit. Consequently, anyone who is serious about deficit reduction should support the motion to recommit. In addition, even if this motion is not agreed to, I believe it is still crucial that we enact this bill. The underlying principles are too important to ignore, and modifications can always be made in conference. I urge my colleagues to vote for responsibility--support the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, today marks the twenty-third anniversary of an extremely troubling event; the invasion and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. This takeover was an escalation of unrest and violence that Cyprus had been experiencing since it gained independence from Great Britain in 1960. As a result of this tragic event, 1,614 Greek Cypriots and five Americans have been missing since the 1974 invasion. In 1996 the Turkish Cypriot President Rauf Denktash, reported that the missing Greek Cypriots had been handed over to Turkish Cypriot fighters who carried out revenge massacres, killing all of those who were missing. Turkish troops now occupy thirty-eight percent of Cyprus, a segment that is recognized only by the State of Turkey. This occupation has led to the dislocation of thousands of Creek Cypriots from their hometowns, friends, and families. This is an unacceptable situation, and our Nation should act decisively to right this wrong. The situation in Cyprus continues to get worse. In 1996, the violence in Cyprus reached it's worst level since the 1974 invasion. Violence in the buffer zone increased in 1996 as many supporters from both side were killed throughout the year. In addition to the increase in violence, the Greek Cypriots have begun purchasing SA-10 missiles from Russia, which they will begin receiving in February 1998. This has increased tensions, as the Turkish Cypriots insist they will maintain their troops in Cyprus as the level and the rate of increase of arms in Cyprus continues to increase. Tolerance and reconciliation needs to be stressed to find a solution to this crisis. Again, I urge that we take the necessary steps to obtain a favorable constitutional and territorial settlement.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Along with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], I had intended on offering an amendment to this bill which would have provided EPA with the necessary direction in pursuing a clean air strategy. Out of respect for the appropriations process and the need to move this bill forward without legislative provisions, we have decided not to offer this amendment today. Instead, we will work through the authorizing committees to ensure that we have a focused and rational clean air policy. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to take this opportunity to point out some of the flaws in EPA's approach to the decision to pursue the new national ambient air quality standards. Although an examination of the science behind the standards requires a great attention to detail, it is well worth the Members' time to do so. It may be easy to embrace a press release saying that we are protecting people but the facts do not show that this is necessarily going to be the result of these standards. The Committee on Science held three hearings on the standards and has issued a bipartisan report of its findings and recommendations. The report is available on line at the committee's home page and I encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read that report. Among the most telling of the findings is EPA's inconsistency of the epidemiological studies, as it appears that EPA has placed greater emphasis on studies that support their conclusion while ignoring others that did not conform to their view of science. EPA has claimed that particulate matter studies have shown a wavering picture of adverse health effects. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, members of EPA's own clean air scientific advisory committee have stated just the opposite. In responses to follow-up questions submitted by the subcommittee, Dr. George Wolff, the former head of the CASAC and Dr. Joseph Mauderly, the current head of the CASAC asserted that EPA did not give the same weight to the studies that were inconsistent with the conclusion drawn by the agency. Dr. Wolff's response stated, ``There are many examples where EPA gives more weight to the studies that support their agenda, and they are very skillful, but not always convincing, in providing reasons to dismiss those studies that provide alternative explanations.'' Dr. Mauderly pointed out that EPA used a weight of evidence approach in assessing PM epidemiological study but went on to say that ``while this is not an inappropriate approach, it is true that EPA, and other investigators, have not expended an equivalent amount of energy on studies or data sets which show no relationship between PM and health.'' This irresponsible approach to assessing the public good cannot be condoned. How we go about maintaining air quality is too important an issue to rely on findings reached only by looking at data that supports a predetermined conclusion. In the Committee on Science and in hearings before other committees, we have heard that these standards are being moved in order to ensure that monitoring data is collected and that needed research is conducted. We endorse that goal but we cannot endorse EPA's method of making it a reality. Plain and simple, new standards are not needed to see that monitoring and research are funded. Our amendment would have funded those activities without the need of a presumptive standard. Although we are not offering our amendment today due to the need to move forward with the appropriations process, we will pursue this approach through the authorizing committees. Specifically, it is our intention to move H.R. 1984, bipartisan legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] which would make sure that we have adequate information about health effects of various pollutants before we pursue a regulatory solution. Mr. Chairman, the President and Administrator Browner have said that they want to work with us on implementing the new standards so as to minimize their economic impact. What they fail to recognize is that even though these regulations will not come into force for many years, these standards will influence the decisionmaking of businesses today. Anyone in the private sector who is doing long-term planning will have nothing to gain by doing business in areas that EPA says will not be in attainment. We are already seeing this in western Pennsylvania and are sure to see it throughout the country as more and more people recognize the significance of the new standards. Mr. Chairman, I am for clean air. I have four children of my own. If I thought for 1 minute that delaying these standards would jeopardize their health, I would not be up here making this speech. However, I have taken the time to examine the evidence and all I am convinced of is that we need to know more. I am committed to finding the funds to do the monitoring and the research needed to develop consensus on policy on air quality.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is attempting to increase funding for Payment In Lieu of Taxes, which is not necessarily a bad initiative, but he seeks to do so in a very reckless manner. The fossil energy program is one of the least understood and most important at the Department of Energy, supporting important cost-shared research and development activities to make energy resources we use the most cleaner and cheaper. This also enhances our energy security as these resources are our most abundant domestic sources of energy. The Energy Information Agency has predicted that we will continue to rely on these resources and these sources of energy for over 85 percent of our energy needs well into the 21st century. Additionally, any commitments the United States makes in the area of global climate change will necessitate that we find ways of reducing emissions without crippling our economy. Thus, it is vital that we maintain this modest commitment to cleaner and more efficient energy. Over the last several years fossil energy has undergone significant downsizing, roughly 10 percent each year. Now is not the time to seek additional savings from this program. This R&D work is conducted throughout the United States by a wide range of small and large companies. This amendment calls for an across-the-board cut, which in no way takes into account the needs of specific programs. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]. This is one of many amendments that foolishly looks for savings in energy security, an area of great importance to our national security. Our economic well-being depends on a secure and reliable energy supply. The Energy Information Agency has predicted that for the foreseeable future, we will be getting over 85 percent of our energy from fossil sources. So if Members are looking to adjust the Federal investment in R&D in this area, then Members had better understand the ramifications of what they are trying to do. The Royce amendment is a textbook example of how not to interfere with a program. After hearing hours and hours of testimony, the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations decided to alter the administration's budget. Some programs were increased in order to more effectively meet their missions. In order to pay for these increases, the Committee on the Interior has acted responsibly by finding offsets for these cuts. The Royce amendment takes a simplistic approach to deficit reduction. It simply looks at any line item which the Committee on Interior increased, ignores the fact that the plus-ups were offset, and eliminates the increase. So the point of this amendment is to cut any program that the committee determined to be of the highest priority. Let us look at the programs it cuts: The low emission boiler system, a cleaner-burning, high-efficiency technology that is moving into its final stage of development. This is exactly the type of technology our country is going to need to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and international emission reduction requirements. This stage requires the construction of an actual plant, an undertaking that requires more funding than did the planning and design phase of earlier years. The committee recognized this, found an offset, and provided the necessary funding. The Royce amendment also cuts research on particulate matter monitoring. Any Member who is concerned about the Clean Air Act compliance should care about this. Our current monitoring capability is insufficient, and an effective understanding of our air quality situation requires an improved monitoring expertise. The committee recognized this as a high priority area, but once again, this amendment seeks to ignore the priorities of those who best understand these programs. Mr. Chairman, in this era, where we must emphasize domestic solutions to the challenge of meeting our ever- increasing energy needs, the Royce amendment is a decisive step backwards. I urge its defeat.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. This amendment claims to save money while helping clean up our environment. What we have in fact here, Mr. Chairman, is a case of false advertising. Will this amendment save taxpayers money? The simplistic view is yes, but the truth of the matter is that it will end up costing more than it purports to save. The clean coal technology program is comprised of a number of cooperative agreements between government and industry. These agreements are legally binding contracts. Maybe some Members do not understand what a contract is, but the Federal Government is going to remain liable for its share of these agreements regardless of what action we take here in this bill. So if we pass this amendment, not only will we likely end up paying for the cost of the programs, but we are going to saddle the American taxpayer with the cost of the Federal Government defending itself against litigation. Let us look at whether this amendment really does much for environmental protection. It is all well and good to support R&D in areas such as solar and biomass, which is something I have fought for, but it is not realistic to expect that these options will be a significant segment of our energy supply for the foreseeable future. The Energy Information Agency in its examination of trends in the energy sector has determined that in the year 2010, 88 percent of our energy is going to come from fossil resources. Consider this while taking into account the likelihood that the United States is going to commit to emissions reduction targets later this year in Kyoto. How are we going to meet these limits? The answer is through technological innovation in areas where emission reductions can be realized. Since coal is our most abundant domestic resource, it makes sense to try and develop methods to burn it cleaner. The type of large- scale efforts we need to do are too risky for the private sector to assume on their own. That is why Congress came up with the Clean Coal Technology Program to meet this challenge, to find ways to make use of a secure and plentiful energy resource in a clean and efficient manner. The clean coal program is exploring methods that have made burning coal as clean as natural gas and are sound investments. Clean coal technologies can cut acid rain emissions by 98 percent, fly ash emissions by 99 percent and CO2 emissions by over 40 percent. Obviously, continuing with this effort is the better environmental alternative and cutting it would be shortsighted. Let us look further at some of the arguments put forward by the proponents of this amendment. They criticize the Clean Coal Technology Program because some of the projects have failed. Of course some of the projects are going to fail. These are high risk endeavors. That is why the government is involved, to leverage an investment that the private sector would not otherwise make. If their success were guaranteed, there would be no need for government participation. Keep in mind, when a project fails, the industrial partner also does not profit. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the Democratic substitute. My constituents in western Pennsylvania and I believe that the budget deficit is one of the most important issues facing our country. Consequently, it is absolutely crucial that this reconciliation legislation provides for a budget which is brought into balance and then stays in balance. Unfortunately, this Republican revenue bill, which has been crafted by Chairman Archer, is riddled with gimmicks, back loaded tax expenditures, and false assumptions which will explode the deficit after 2002. The Democratic alternative, on the other hand, will provide tax relief for middle-class families that can really use it and is still compatible with real, long-term deficit reduction. The Republican estate tax provisions are a prime example of the short-sighted nature of their plan. Like the Democratic alternative, the archer bill doubles the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million. However, the chairman's plan implements this change over the course of an entire decade. In doing so, Chairman Archer is able to mask the real costs of his proposal, which will not be felt until well after 2002. Because the Democratic estate tax provisions are more clearly focused, the costs are manageable and affordable, even when fully implemented. As a result, the Democratic alternative provides for nearly immediate reform of estate taxes. Rather than waiting until 2007, the small business people and farmers, who desperately need estate tax relief, would be able to utilize the $1 million exemption next year. This nearly immediate phase-in could help thousands more family owned businesses than the Archer plan. In addition, I believe that we can spur economic growth and empower millions of middle-class investors by reducing the capital gains tax rates in an economically conservative manner. However, the Archer capital gains plan is not only socially inequitable, it is fiscally irresponsible. In fact, it is timed to provide a fleeting increase in revenues, which helps bring the budget into balance in 2002. But then, in the following years, the costs of this program sky rocket. This gimmick is part of the chairman's proposal to index capital gains for inflation after 2002. In order to qualify for the indexing on assets held before 2001 investors will have to pay between $10 and $12 billion in taxes, as part of a one time mark-to-market levy. With the help of this one time infusion, the Archer capital gains plan will actually result in an overall revenue increase of $2.7 billion from 1997 to 2002. However, in the 5 years following the 2002 target date, the capital gains provisions will cost $37.5 billion, and they will continue to increase steadily for years to come. I am troubled by these tax cuts which will explode in the out years because, for some time, I have subscribed to the view that we should balance the budget first, and then consider tax cuts. However, this bipartisan budget agreement demands that tax cuts be enacted this year. I recognize this compromise is perhaps our best chance to balance the budget, and I do not wish to risk scuttling the process by fighting such a substantial component. I believe it is crucial that we all work within the defined parameters, so I will support prudent, responsible tax relief for middle-class families which adheres to the budget agreement. The Democratic substitute provides such relief. Because it abides by the budget accord, it advances capital gains tax cuts, estate tax relief, and a per-child tax credit. But, it is a stronger measure than the Archer plan in that it goes further in helping middle-class families cope with the costs of owning a home and paying for their kids' college education. Similarly, it contains initiatives not included in the Republican plan which I strongly support, such as incentives for environmental cleanups, economic development, and local school construction. However, the biggest difference is the fact that the alternative is more economically responsible and fair. It does not lay the groundwork for decades more of mounting debt, and it gives relief to the working, middle-class families who have been struggling to get by. While over 71 percent of the benefits in the alternative go to families earning under $100,000 a year, these same families receive only around one-third of the benefits under the Republican plan, when fully phased-in. In light of this, I think it is safe to say that this Democratic substitute is the real middle-class tax cut. The Archer tax proposal would cause the deficit to behave like a rubber ball that is dropped from high in the air. Rather than hitting the ground with a dull thud, the Archer cuts will cause the deficit to bounce right back, out of control once again. It seems to me that if the leadership were serious about holding the deficit down, they would include strict deficit enforcement provisions that go beyond an exentison of the pay-as-you-go requirements. As a cosponsor of the Budget Enforcement Act, a bill that would lock in deficit reduction, I have been working with Members from both sides of the aisle to have this measure attached to this reconciliation legislation. The Republican leadership has said that the Budget Enforcement Act will be brought to the floor next month. While I am disappointed they would not allow us to offer it as an amendment to there conciliation legislation, I am pleased it will be considered. However, the Rules Committee chairman has indicated that the bill may be altered before coming to the floor. I believe it would be a grave mistake for the leadership to weaken the Budget Enforcement Act in any way. Given the structure of the Archer plan a return to deficit spending appears nearly inevitable, and if we allow the deficit to bounce up again after 2002, we will have accomplished nothing. Actually, we will have done something worse than nothing. We will have cynically brought the budget into check for one passing moment just to reap political rewards. Mr. Chairman, this would be unconscionable. We must balance the budget and keep it balanced. If we are going to have tax relief, we must be fiscally responsible and we must target those truly in need of relief. The Democratic alternative meets these criteria. The Archer plan does not. I urge my colleagues make a vote for the long-term economic health of this country and support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Democratic tax cut plan. I came to Congress in 1995 committed to balancing the budget, and in an effort to move the budget process forward, I was one of the 51 Democrats who voted for the reconciliation spending bill yesterday. I subscribe to the view that we should balance the budget first and then consider tax cuts. However, this bipartisan budget agreement demands that tax cuts be enacted this year. I recognize we must work within these given parameters, so I will support equitable, responsible tax relief that adheres to the budget agreement. The Democratic alternative will provide tax relief for middle class families that can really use it and is still compatible with real long- term deficit reduction. It is a stronger measure than the Republican plan because it goes further in helping middle class families cope with the cost of owning a home and paying for their kids' college education. However, the biggest difference is the fact that the alternative is more economically responsible and fair. It does not lay the groundwork for decades of mounting debt. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members support the Democratic plan.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania Ron Klink, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I share with the gentleman great disappointment today about learning of the President's decision to endorse the new national ambient air quality standards. Unfortunately, this is a victory for politics over science. Earlier today the Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, of which I am a member, released a detailed report of our findings based upon three hearings we have held on the NAQS. Under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Ken Calvert, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Tim Roemer, we conducted an exhaustive examination of the scientific bases for the new standards. I believe that the recommendation of the subcommittee's reports are a more responsible and balanced approach than that of the administration. The plan outlined by EPA and now backed by the President commits us to standards that will be of great economic cost before we know enough to be sure that they will yield any public health benefit. The existing body of scientific knowledge is clearly lacking, especially for particulate matter. Even the EPA agrees with that assessment. In its 1997 update to its Office of Research and Development's strategic plan, EPA identified PM as one of its six high priority research topics because of, and I quote, ``A high degree of uncertainty about the size and the composition of the particles that may be responsible for adverse health effects.'' Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that there is a great need for more research. In fact, in all the testimony I heard from all the experts in front of the Committee on Science, the only thing they all agreed upon was that we need more research. The Committee on Science has already addressed this issue by authorizing $50 million more for PM research. This would lead Members to wonder, why should we move forward with a regulatory approach before we know if there is a problem that needs to be regulated? In the Committee on Science's first hearing on the standards, Dr. Joseph Motterley, the new head of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, spoke for many when he stated that going ahead with the new standards was necessary in order to ensure that monitoring and additional research is funded. Is this any way to operate? A new standard should be science-based, not a tool to promote the installation of PM monitors or to fund more research. This is putting the cart before the horse. First you do adequate monitoring and research, then you draw conclusions, not the other way around. Mr. Speaker, as we continue with this special order, I will get into greater detail about what the Committee on Science found.

Mr. DOYLE. I would just close by saying that in 1994, when I came to this Congress, I promised the people of western Pennsylvania, who I am so privileged to represent, that I would put their interests ahead of the interests of my party and my President, and I also say to my wife Susan and my 4 kids, if they are watching this tonight, Michael, David, Kevin, Alexandra, that I am here for you, too, and for other families in western Pennsylvania. This is important. This is about our future. This is why we stand here tonight opposing our President and our party on a decision that is going to be so wrong for the future of our country. I would urge Members in both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] and I myself in sponsoring H.R. 1984. Together let us turn these rules back, let us give our children a future in this country.

Mr. DOYLE. I think it is so important that we get people on H.R. 1984, and I think it is important, too. What I fear is that because it is going to be a number of years before we start to see some of these effects because there is going to be a period of installing monitors and collecting data and things like this that, we are not going to see this immediate impact. I mean I think we are going to see businesses saying, well, if they were thinking to come to western Pennsylvania, that is going to be out, and we are not going to see investments in existing plans. But I fear the public is going to be lulled into some complacency because they do not realize what we are talking about 10 years down the road. It is not going to immediately hit them, and when it does they are going to say what happened to us and where was everybody when this was taking place? This is not a partisan issue. Here we both stand, Democrats, talking about our own administration, our own President, our own EPA administrator, and at some political risk saying we have got to come together, Democrats and Republicans from all regions of the country, and we are seeing cosponsors now on this bill from all regions of the country and from both parties. This is not a partisan issue.

Mr. DOYLE. I see nothing in the standards that would address it. This is a prime example of why more research is necessary. What we see in today's standards is not going to do anything. Administrator Browner when we had her before the committee, too, never wanted to discuss economic impacts, because she said, ``I've got to make this decision based solely on a health decision and not on economic benefits.'' I am sorry, but I have to look at the economic impacts to this legislation because we have got real people out there living in western Pennsylvania and all across this country that are going to suffer severe impacts as a result of these standards. I want to just read a study that has come out. There is some ongoing research by environmental economists such as Dr. Vernon Henderson, Brown University; Fred Reuter from Consat Research Corporation and the EPA's own draft regulatory impact analysis for PM. And the following economic impacts could well result from the proposed NAAQs which have just been okayed today by President Clinton. What are some of these consequences? Increased business operating costs, job losses, reductions in worker compensation, decreases in industrial output, and increased expenditures on road cleaning and air quality monitoring by local governments. They go on to say the areas experiencing these effects will be those that do not and in many cases literally cannot comply with the proposed PM-2.5 standard. Several hundred counties and as many as nearly 90 metropolitan areas will be in nonattainment when the full implementation period begins. As local, regional and controls yet to be developed are applied, these numbers will ultimately be substantially reduced, though 30 to 40 areas are likely to remain in nonattainment for many, many years and consequently much economic pain and damage will result lasting many, many years. They say initially 20 to 25 percent of the entire U.S. population and labor force will reside in these nonattainment areas. Approximately 4 percent of the jobs in these areas will be lost if the proposed NAAQ's for PM-2.5 are adopted. These job losses will occur in nearly every sector of the economy and will be most substantial in the service industries. Workers who continue to be employed in these sectors in nonattainment areas will likely experience stress and uncertainty regarding their futures and their compensation. Small businesses will be disproportionately impacted and the capital cost in current dollars will exceed $100 billion. Those are real numbers affecting real people, not only in western Pennsylvania but across this whole United States.

Mr. DOYLE. That is really what it is all about. It is about the future and it is about our kids. The politically expedient thing to do would be to just go along with this. Both the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] and myself have been taken to task by the local Pittsburgh newspaper, by environmental groups that somehow we do not want the air to be as clean as they do. We know this is nonsense. This is not only about clean air for our kids, it is about a future for our kids in western Pennsylvania. That is what I think it is all about. The gentleman brought up a good point. I was reading an article just a couple of days ago that was suggesting that maybe one of the key contributing problems to these respiratory illnesses and asthma may not be so much the outside air but these hermetically-sealed office buildings that so many people are living in and as we have these new energy-efficient windows and people have got the air conditioning on and they have got all the windows shut and the air is not getting circulated through the house, that it may well be what we are breathing indoors can be much more damaging to us than what we are breathing outdoors, and people spend about 75 percent of their time indoors instead of outdoors. Particularly the reason a bill like H.R. 1984 makes so much sense. What we are saying is we need to find out about these things, we need to learn what is it that is causing these problems.

Mr. DOYLE. If the gentleman will yield on that, I think it is important for the public to understand, we use terms like CASAC and bright line, CASAC meaning the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, but let us talk a little bit about this bright line thing too because I think it is important for people to understand. What the scientists were telling us is whether you set that standard where it is now or whether you lower it, there is no measurable difference in the health effect on individuals. They could not see any clear level to say, ``Look, if you set it below this particular level, then it will be a great increase in health. This will greatly decrease the adverse health effects.'' They could not find where the line was on ozone to set where it would make any difference in the health. The gentleman brings up a good point. Why would we want to shut down industry? Why would we want to displace jobs, put people out of work to set a line that we are not even certain that the line we are setting has any measurable health effect or any benefit?

Mr. DOYLE. The gentleman is right. And when we talk about the President and EPA saying, ``Work with us, you have got 10 years to make this compliance,'' what type of investments do you think U.S. Steel is going to make in the Clairton Coke Works knowing that this clock is ticking right now? Let us talk about another subject that is very near and dear to both of us and to the very survival of the Monongahela Valley, and that is the Mon-Fayette Expressway. What is going to happen to projects like the Mon-Fayette Expressway when construction projects of that magnitude are going to have to be put on hold, too, because of these new standards? I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the people in western Pennsylvania to believe, and as my colleague said it before, that we will put these new standards in because we have to follow the letter of the law, but now we are supposed to believe all of a sudden EPA is going to throw the rule book out and they are just going to arbitrarily on the enforcement side of things say, ``Do not get nervous about this. You have got 10 years to do this. We are going to be very flexible with you. We are going to work with you on this.'' I have not seen flexibility in the EPA in all the years that I have had to deal with them, and I do not believe for one second there is going to be flexibility once these new regs are implemented. And the losses that we are going to see will be not only to existing industries, but the fact that we are not going to see new industries make investments in this region and we are not going to see existing industries do any upgrading when we know what has happened. We have a 400-county blacklist that is going to take place when these new standards are implemented. There are literally going to be 400 counties whose names are going to be ``don't do business here, don't put a new factory here, don't make any upgrades or investment in your existing plant here, because pretty soon the bar is going to go from here up to here and it is going to cost you a fortune to comply with that.'' What are we asking the President and EPA to do? Are we asking them to stop all efforts to clean the air? That is not what we are asking at all. There are plans in place as we speak. There is a SIP in place, a State Implementation Plan as we speak in western Pennsylvania, in the State of Pennsylvania, making the air cleaner in western Pennsylvania every day that we are here. What were the recommendations which we made to the President? We said, postpone the standards. EPA should postpone the new standard until there is sufficient scientific data collected and analyzed. That is the first thing we asked. Secondly, we said further research is necessary, and we will give you the money to do the research. On the Committee on Science we authorized an additional $50 million. In the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink], we are going to authorize an additional $75 million a year for 5 years to do research so that we can start to collect 2.5 and analyze it. We are doing that in this bill. We said we need a monitoring system to fund it and deploy it. The gentleman addressed that in his bill. Then we say EPA should make these data sets available. There are data sets that were in the Pope study, the Harvard six-city study that have yet to be released for independent review and analysis. Here we are asking the EPA, asking President Clinton, the administration, not to stop cleaning the air, not to roll back any regulations that are in place. This is not going back to the old days. We are simply saying to them, let us continue to clean the air in western Pennsylvania and across the United States and while we are doing that, let us do some more research. Let us collect the data. Let us be certain that the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be spent on these new regulations are at least addressing a problem that is real and that when we get that new science and research, that once we have identified the cause of the problem, they do not know what it is about the particle. The studies on 2.5 and 10 in one study both showed the same health effect. A lot of people were suggesting maybe it is not the size of the particle that is the culprit. Maybe it is not 2.5 we should be regulating. It may be something else within the particulate matter. All we are asking for is some more research, more science, more common sense as we continue to make the air cleaner in western Pennsylvania and across the country. I do not think that is a radical position. I think that is the common sense position that we have taken with this administration.

Mr. DOYLE. My colleague is so much on the point. It is not only new jobs, it is existing jobs too. I think right in the Monongahela Valley, the Clairton Coke Works. When we talk about the proud heritage that Pittsburgh had in the steel industry, as we all know, anyone that has lived in western Pennsylvania, we understand what has happened in the steel industry when the downsizing took place, when many hard-working western Pennsylvanians found themselves without work because of the collapse of the steel industry. But we still have some plants up and operating. Edgar Thompson Steel Mill in Braddock, the steel mill that dad worked at; and the Clairton Coke Works, supplying coke all over the country, it is in production and it is at peak capacity. Right now, if these new standards are implemented, a place like the Clairton Coke Works are going to be shut down. We have got five communities around Clairton, Glassport, Liberty, Lincoln borough, towns like that, where the major importer of those five communities is Clairton Coke Works. And that is a situation where U.S. Steel is going to have to make a financial decision that they can no longer operate that plant because the cost of complying with these new regulations would exceed the profit margin. It just would not become economically feasible to do that any longer.

Mr. DOYLE. What is our State supposed to do? We said jokingly, maybe we need to set these giant fans up along the border and blow it back to Ohio. But the sad result of the situation is our young people are leaving western Pennsylvania because there is no opportunity there. And part of the reason there is no opportunity there is the factories are not locating in an area that is nonattainment because of the cost of compliance, and we are losing them to States like Ohio, who are sending their pollution over to western Pennsylvania. I just want to take a second to read the summary. We just had this report released this afternoon. This is the report from the House Committee on Science, of which I am a member, and I want to read the summary because I think it is important for people to understand this: ``We have had regulations on large particulate matter, which is known as total suspended particles, that have been in place since 1971. Particles of 10 microns or less, PM10, have been regulated since 1987.'' Now to give my colleagues an idea of what we are talking about here, a human hair is 75 microns. So we are talking about PM10, 10 microns, versus 75 microns, the size of a human hair. And this issue is a very narrow one, ``whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to impose an exact standard for particles below 2.5 microns at this time. Although much of the research EPA has compiled is suggestive, there are too many uncertainties in the data and the interpretation of that data to form an adequate basis for moving ahead with a strict PM2.5 standard at this time. The weaknesses of the epidemiological evidence discussed above are of particular concern. Our subcommittee has received testimony that, except for PM, EPA has never set a standard for criteria air pollution without clinical, animal, toxicological, and other studies supporting the epidemiological results. Yet studies such as this that do exist are inconsistent, and do not resolve but rather add to the uncertainties about the effects of PM2.5. Moreover, this committee has received testimony on many of the basic questions that still need to be addressed before we have a clear understanding of the impacts of PM2.5.'' Chairman Sensenbrenner I think said it right: ``The citizens of this country have a right to expect that the new air quality standards be science-based. However, in this case, EPA has put the regulatory cart before the scientific horse.''

Mr. DOYLE. I think it is important for the public to understand these issues like transport zones. When we think of Pennsylvania and what has been happening, particularly in our region, as we lost jobs and factories in western Pennsylvania to States like Ohio and States west of us, yet western Pennsylvania is literally the victim of pollution that is blowing from the west over to the east. If we cleaned up each source of pollution, every source of pollution in western Pennsylvania that was being caused in western Pennsylvania, we would still be out of attainment because of the pollution that blows across our borders from western States.

Mr. DOYLE. Not a single exceedance in those 2 years, and only an average of four exceedances a year during the years 1991 to 1995, representing a 64 percent improvement in our air quality. I think it is interesting. This is a letter from the American Lung Association of Western Pennsylvania. In the letter they start by saying, ``We would like to thank you for the support of the work of our organization, and we want to share with you our grave concerns over the position on particulate matter taken by the American Lung Association. ``In its broad brush extremist overview of what it deems to be a widespread problem, the national American Lung Association is ignoring our stunning progress in cleaning up our local environment, and the overwhelmingly good to moderate air quality we enjoy, as well as the potentially devastating effect that this legislation could have on our region's economy.'' This is from the American Lung Association of Western Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to know all of us in the western Pennsylvania delegation have appreciated the gentleman's leadership on this issue. I was just thinking back when the gentleman was talking. I grew up in Swissvale, Pennsylvania. I have spent all 44 years of my life in the community of Swissvale. My father was a steel worker and worked on an Edgar Thompson steel mill in Braddock. He spent all of his life in that same town, as did my mother. When our grandparents came over from Ireland and Italy, that is the town we settled in. That is not unlike many families in western Pennsylvania, who have spent a lifetime in this community. We remember what the air was like. We remember the days when there were orange specks on the car when we would come out in the morning, because the mills had let out, before there were stricter air controls. Nobody wants to return to those days. I know the gentleman has two children, I have been blessed with four. We care about our children. We want them to breathe clean air. I get a little bit disturbed when the people who have been trying to frame this debate and those of us who have been questioning the science of these new clean air standards somehow do not want clean air for the community. The fact of the matter is the air in Pittsburgh is as clean as it has ever been. In fact, in the past 5 years a study has shown that the air in Pittsburgh, just in the past 5 years, is 64 percent cleaner since when the old standards were implemented in 1990. We have already made tremendous progress. I think it is interesting to note, and a lot of people may not have realized, the American Lung Association of Western Pennsylvania has taken a position contrary to the national American Lung Association.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Jim McFarland, a member of my staff who passed away last week. For over 2 years, Jim had served the people of Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District as a member of my staff, but his years of service to the people of Pennsylvania and the Nation began long before my election to Congress. Jim was born in 1928 in McKeesport, PA, and lived his entire life in the area of western Pennsylvania known as the Mon-Valley. He bravely served our country as a member of the Army Air Force during the Korean war and after the war returned to the Mon-Valley where he worked as a tool and die maker for the next 40 years at Fisher Body. His public service continued throughout his life exemplifying his commitment and concern for improving the lives of all people. For 20 years, Jim served as a councilman in his hometown of Jefferson Boro, which honored him with the Crossweight Award in recognition of this service. He also served as a trustee at his church, as the chairman of the Jefferson Boro Democratic Committee, and as president of Local No. 544 of the United Auto Workers. In truth, however, this collection of titles and official positions, while impressive, barely scratches the surface in terms of defining the man. Jim McFarland was a truly compassionate individual the likes of which this world is rarely lucky enough to see. His presence graced the lives of everyone he came in contact with including his wife, Garnet, his son, Kevin, and his brothers, sisters, and grandchildren. On a personal level, I considered Jim to be one of my most trusted and valued friends. I only knew Jim for a small part of his 68 years, but from the day I first met him some 5 years ago I was struck by his rare combination of dedication, intellect, and extraordinary compassion. I was truly honored to have Jim consider me his friend. I know that I speak no only for myself, but for everyone that knew Jim, in saying that while we will miss him terribly, there is still a sense of joy because the world is a better place because of the life of Jim McFarland.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, as Flag Day quickly approaches, I can think of no other legislation more appropriate for the House to consider than House Joint Resolution 54. As an original cosponsor in both the 104th and 105th Congresses, I am pleased to voice my support for the right of our citizens to protect the American flag. While much of what the Congress considers derives its momentum from within the halls of Washington, the genesis and steadfast support of House Joint Resolution 54 comes directly from the constituents we all have the privilege to represent. Hundreds of residents from the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania have expressed to me their support for the U.S. Government to have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag. As House Joint resolution 54 has the support of 284 cosponsors, it is apparent proponents from across our great country have been equally vocal about their support. Given the fact that the cosponsor total is just six votes short of the two-thirds majority required for passage, I am confident that this year's vote will surpass the vote in the 104th Congress. Prohibiting the desecration of our flag does not deny individuals their thoughts or opinions, but preserves our national symbol of freedom as the most visible form of the ideals of the American people. Indeed, our freedom of speech is a result of the supreme efforts of those who contributed to our Nation's independence and unity, and who see our flag as the embodiment of the American spirit. For those individuals who feel differently, I would respectfully urge them to find more productive ways to express themselves, rather than involve themselves in an act of destruction. In the wake of our country's firsthand experience with domestic terrorism and racial tension, House Joint Resolution 54 provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate our commitment to, and respect for, our national history of uniting our diverse population. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of protecting the symbol that embodies liberty, freedom, and democracy: our American flag.