Michael Doyle

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, EPA is moving forward with new clean air standards that are, at best, misguided. How can Administrator Browner say that we know all there is to know about particulate matter when EPA has identified it as one of its six high-priority research topics because of a high degree of uncertainty about the size and composition of the particles that may be responsible for adverse health effects. Mr. Speaker, I have spent my whole life in Pittsburgh, and people there value clean air as much as anyone. We have a State implementation plan in place right now, and the air keeps getting cleaner. With new standards, the air will not get cleaner, as new regulatory deadlines will supersede existing ones. With the stakeholder process, our community has come together to examine how to meet our air quality needs. I would note that, after participating in this rigorous process, the Western Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Lung Association, despite threats from the national organization, opposes the new standards. If anyone at EPA believes that implementing these standards will not have any economic impact, I invite them to walk with me in the Mon Valley section of Pittsburgh and explain to those people where those industries have gone.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with the glidepath towards a balanced budget, it is essential that the Federal Government make every possible effort to decrease costs and increase efficiencies in its operations. This must be done in a way which does not harm the important functions of government. The Science Committee has certainly taken this view to heart, and has served as an example of responsible governance. Chairman Sensenbrenner should be congratulated for moving forward with authorization bills for all the programs in the jurisdiction of Science Committee. And Ranking Member George Brown has demonstrated through his investment budget that it is possible to fund programs that provide pivotal support for education and R&D while remaining true to the constraints of a balanced budget. Today, I am pleased to announce the introduction of another initiative in this spirit of responsible investment. Along with Chairman Calvert of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, I am introducing the Department of Energy Research Consolidation Act. This bill will combine the administrative functions of the Office of Fossil Energy [FE] and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [EE]. This consolidation will achieve budgetary savings while preserving the programmatic efforts of these offices. This merger can be achieved with little disruption to the core R&D initiatives of the two offices as they have similar missions which overlap in areas such as advanced materials, biomass, alternative fuels, high-temperature superconductivity, and hydrogen. More importantly, a unified organizational structure provides opportunities to eliminate duplicate work, improve program integration, and achieve savings in such crosscutting areas as program planning, policy analysis, external communications, and administrative services. For example, there is little need to preserve two autonomous press operations for the scope of work undertaken by FE and EE. A consolidated office would allow reductions in administrative staff in a manner which should not adversely impact our commitment to meeting our future energy needs. This legislation eliminates one assistant secretary position at DOE and would reduce by 25 percent administrative positions at DOE headquarters. When DOE was originally formed, the research conducted by FE and EE were all located under the jurisdiction of a single assistant secretary for energy technology. While at one time there may have been a reason for having two separate offices, that time has clearly passed. Not only have trends in energy R&D policy led towards this consolidation, political developments have also contributed to the need to unify the management of energy technology R&D. In the past, there has been a politically-motivated rivalry between congressional support of FE and EE, one that is based on labels rather than fact. This has been detrimental to both programs. This bill eliminates that rivalry, so we can make decisions about our priorities within this area without being saddled with counterproductive rhetoric. This legislation is another example of the recognition that we all have a responsibility to tighten our belts. Energy R&D is very important to my district, and there are agencies in which it would be a lot easier for me to seek cuts. But having been closely involved with the DOE R&D budget during my time on the Science Committee, I believe that this consolidation is both realistic and necessary. I recognize that downsizing is not an easy task. Last year, a DOE facility in my district combined with a similar facility in West Virginia. While the transition has required both commitment and sacrifice by all those involved, it was a necessary step given current budgetary constraints. The combined entity, the Federal Energy Technology Center, is the best example of what Secretary O'Leary had hoped to achieve with the Strategic Alignment Initiative. In conclusion, let me say how pleased I am with the cooperation and support I have received from Members of both parties and all across the political spectrum. Chairman Calvert has been indispensable in helping garner support for this initiative. He has run our subcommittee in a fair and unbiased manner, which has created the climate which allows for this type of consensus bipartisan initiative. He, and Ranking Member Tim Roemer have provided a shining example of how, when we take the time to listen to one another, we can work together on initiatives that are to the benefit of everyone.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Volunteer Protection Act in both the 104th and 105th Congress, I am pleased that the House is considering this thoughtful approach to voluntarism, as it relates to the disincentive of potential litigation. This measure has significant bipartisan support and represents our commitment to encouraging individuals to contribute to the success of their communities by volunteering their valuable time. In today's climate, schedules are busy and personal demands are great. As Members of Congress, we cannot directly remedy the day-to-day responsibilities of individuals which may pose as obstacles for volunteer service. We can however, remove obstacles for those individuals who have the time and interest in committing themselves to community service. The Volunteer Protection Act provides protection from personal civil liability in reasonable circumstances to volunteers involved in the activities of groups such as nonprofits, community organizations, nursing homes, educational institutions, and local governments. If we are truly serious about encouraging voluntarism, support of H.R. 911 embodies a responsible, concrete first step. The consensus on the merits of this bill is evident by the wide range of philosophical views held by its 152 cosponsors. The Volunteer Protection Act has met with success at every level. The Senate overwhelmingly approved this bill by a 99-to-1 vote. And the House Judiciary Committee reported this measure by a 20-to-7 vote. I am confident that the full House will act today in favor of this provolunteer legislation. In the spirit of voluntarism, I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a message of assurance to those who selflessly provide uncompensated services to those in need by voting in favor of H.R. 911, the Volunteer Protection Act.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my support for the investment budget, sponsored by Representative George Brown. I strongly believe that the budget must be balanced in 5 years, but I also believe it is crucial that we look beyond this limited time frame. The Brown substitute is a far-sighted plan which is both fiscally and socially responsible. It balances the budget in 5 years, and it provides a blue print for economic growth and development for decades to come. It is clear that the Nation's economy is undergoing considerable change. In today's market place, it is essential that businesses and workers be equipped to take advantage of advancements in science and technology. Workers must be better trained, and goods and services must be produced and delivered more efficiently than ever. If we are going to prosper in the context of the economy of the future, it is crucial that we make investments today that will continue to pay dividends well into the next century. However, it is equally important that we do not ignore our current responsibilities. The investment budget continues our commitments to, among other things, our Nation's senior citizens, veterans, and distressed communities. It protects seniors by extending the life of the Medicare trust fund and providing coverage for preventive services. In addition, it preserves our obligations to our veterans by not seeking any budget savings through reductions in the commitment we have made to those who have served our Nation. Similarly, the Brown substitute contains ample economic development funding, which will help to revitalize distressed communities. Initiatives such as the Community Development Block Grant program will be protected, so that we can continue to rebuild infrastructure, improve housing, establish parks, and revitalize commercial opportunities, thereby creating jobs and raising the standard of living in the localities where they are implemented. By providing cities and towns with the tools they need to rebuild themselves, we help people help themselves and we increase our Nation's potential for future growth. We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about how Congress should conduct itself like the average American family. We hear that the House and Senate should, like a family, sit down around some sort of kitchen table and balance our budget. I suppose that is what we are doing this evening. But when a family sits down to balance the checkbook and put its finances in order, it also plans for the future. Families devise investment plans for the future that will enable them to contend with expenses such as college, replacing durable goods, housing, or purchasing a new automobile. The Brown substitute is a prudent investment plan for our entire Nation's future. In addition to finally putting our financial house in order, it will provide help of the country's education, research and development, infrastructure, community development, and transportation. Mr. Speaker, I plan to support House Concurrent Resolution 84 if the investment budget is not approved. I believe that the budget agreement, drafted by the White House and congressional leadership may be the only measure that can attract the diverse support that is needed to produce a balanced budget. It is certainly a substantial improvement over the budget plans offered by the Republican congressional leadership in 1995 and 1996. However, the Brown substitute most accurately represents the priorities of my constituents in western Pennsylvania. It provides greater safeguards for fiscal responsibility by postponing tax cuts until after the deficit is eliminated and providing a steady glide path to balance. In addition, as I have outlined, it makes prudent, far-sighted investments in our Nation's future. Even if it is not adopted by the House, I urge my colleagues to examine the priorities advanced by the Brown substitute and to consider them as we move through the reconciliation process.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chia-Ling Yu from Gateway High School. Chia-Ling is the top winner of the 1997 18th Congressional District High School Art Competition, An Artistic Discovery. Chia-Ling's artwork was chosen from an outstanding collection of entries. Her mixed-media portrait which is entitled ``Jonay'' illustrates her strong individualized style. She is a young woman of considerable talent sure to have many successes in her future. I look forward to seeing Chia-Ling's artwork displayed along with the artwork of the other competition winners from across our country. I am pleased to be associated with Chia-Ling's artistic talents. Congratulations, Chia-Ling. I wish you all the best of luck in the future.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, the Klink-Doyle amendment will provide the general public with a simple practical protection from overzealous bureaucratic decisionmaking. It amends the local cooperation provision of section 202 of the bill to ensure that public housing authorities notify and consult with potentially impacted local governments when initiating new public housing programs, including those which stem from an order, judgment, or decree of any court. Current law does contain limited notification requirements, and H.R. 2 improves on these stipulations. Some might assume that such provisions are adequate to guarantee that communities receive expedient notification and consultation. However, based on experiences in Allegheny County, PA and in cities across the country, we feel that the clarification provided by this amendment is essential. For 2 years now, the citizens of Allegheny County have been working to comply with the provisions of a consent decree designed to redistribute public housing throughout the county. As HUD and the housing authority began to implement the decree, towns and boroughs were often treated as if their interests and input were unnecessary and unwanted. Thousands of citizens and numerous councils of government were outraged by their nearly total exclusion from any part of the decisionmaking process. To address this situation, I brought local officials in Allegheny County together into an intermunicipal working group. This group has come to stand together and demand the notification that the people deserve. Many citizens and elected officials in this group have worked tirelessly and have had some success in bringing more openness to the implementation process. Unfortunately, our extraordinary efforts have not been enough. The people need the force of law to guarantee that, at a bare minimum, public housing authorities will keep them apprised of their activities. Usually, when a housing authority seeks funding from HUD for a new public housing initiative, they must gain some degree of local approval. However, because funding for compliance with a consent decree does not come through normal HUD channels, notification requirements do not have to be adhered to. In other words, housing authorities can and do legally turn a blind eye to local interests. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is clearly a loophole which needs to be closed. Regardless if a public housing initiative is the result of a bureaucratic decision or a judicial decree, the public should have the right to review proposals which will affect their communities. A judicial mandate should not provide a license to ignore the rights of citizens, or be used as a justification to avoid public scrutiny. We must insist these decisions and debates are taking place in the light of day, not behind closed doors, and this amendment does simply that. It guarantees the public's right to know. I thank the Committee for agreeing to include Amendment No. 47 in the en bloc amendment which was earlier today approved by voice vote.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 680, which would give more community organizations the ability to draw resources from the Federal Surplus Program. Families across the Nation donate unwanted but usable items to organizations such as Good Will and the Salvation Army who, in turn, distribute them to families in need. The Federal Government also donates excess personal property, through the Federal Surplus Program. Usable items such as office equipment, vehicles, furniture, clothing, and other supplies are transferred to the States, who serve as collection points and distribute the items to community organizations who assist needy families and individuals. However, current law limits the Government's donations through this initiative by restricting which organizations can receive the property. Subsequently, many organizations that could benefit from this program cannot participate. While the organizations currently taking advantage of this program are deserving of this benefit, so are many other entities that work to improve the safety and well-being of poor families in our communities. I would like to reiterate that this legislation does not give any organization or category of organizations priority to the donated items. It simply gives additional organizations the opportunity to participate in the Federal Surplus Program. Throughout Allegheny County in my home State of Pennsylvania, there are organizations dedicated to helping those who are less fortunate, but they do not fit into categories currently eligible to participate in the Federal Surplus Program. For example, the Twin Rivers and Pittsburgh affiliates of Habitat for Humanity build affordable housing for families with low incomes. Constitution equipment has been available through the Federal Surplus Program in the past, which could go a long way in helping these groups serve more families. However, under current law, Habitat affiliates are not eligible to receive such items. Additionally, food banks, such as the Hunger Services Network, the Lutheran Service Society, and the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, which provide vital nutritional support to so many families and individuals, would become eligible for the program if this legislation were passed. Many organizations, in addition to those I have mentioned today, would be helped by the passage of this important measure. For all of these organizations, and the individuals and families they serve, it is my hope that the 105th Congress can approve this legislation, and it is enacted into law.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Linda Croushore and to recognize her years of outstanding leadership at the Mon Valley Education Consortium. Dr. Croushore's vision of public education has been the source of positive change for the students and communities of the Mon Valley. Under the direction of Dr. Croushore, the Mon Valley Education Consortium has more than lived up to its name by launching innovative projects that engage our children in the learning process while building partnerships among the 20 school districts they serve and the surrounding region. Clearly, Dr. Croushore's belief that every community has the capacity to respond through collaborative action has been proven to be true as evidenced through the countless number of success stories the consortium has helped to write over the past 10 years. Since its inception in 1987, the Mon Valley Education Consortium has grown considerably, but its core commitment to providing every child with a quality education through the leadership, and support of many, has steadfastly remained. While not always an easy task, creating consensus from within has been a hallmark of Dr. Croushore's guidance. More than words can convey, Dr. Croushore's actions illustrate that improving our public schools is not an option, but a necessity. I am pleased to consider Linda a friend, and know that I am not alone in having an enormous amount of respect for her. Congratulations and thank you for your significant achievements on behalf of quality public education, and most of all for your indefatigable spirit.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 688. I want to thank the bill's sponsors, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, and my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for their diligent leadership on this issue. The LUST program was enacted in 1984 to address the potential health and environmental risks associated with antiquated and substandard underground storage tanks. A tax was levied on all petroleum products to create a trust fund to fund these efforts. That tax expired on December 31, 1995, with nearly $1 billion in the trust fund. Unfortunately, the majority of these funds expended so far have gone to offset general Federal spending and not for the purpose to which it was meant to be dedicated. The LUST Amendments Act gives the ironclad assurance that trust fund spending will go to assisting States to pursue compliance and corrective action associated with the LUST program. It also gives the States more flexibility in using these funds, including direct use of Federal LUST trust fund money to help business owners who would otherwise be unable to afford Government-mandated cleanups. These cleanups are pivotal to comprehensive economic revitalization efforts like the one many of us in the Pennsylvania delegation are looking at for Allegheny County and for the Mon Valley region in particular. We have a good program here, and Congress in its wisdom found a sound funding mechanism for it. Let us demonstrate our good faith to small businesses in this sector and move this legislation forward without delay. Last year, the Congress passed this legislation, but the Senate failed to act on it before adjournment last October. Since this year's version is identical to the previously approved bill, I expect the House will act expeditiously to pass the LUST Amendments Act. Hopefully, this will give the Senate ample time to send this legislation to the President for his approval.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to House Joint Resolution 62 as it was considered on the floor of the House of Representatives earlier this week. Although the House considered related legislation, House Joint Resolution 159, during the 104th Congress, the differences between these two measures is substantial. House Joint Resolution 159 would have required a supermajority in Congress to approve any bill which would raise Federal revenue. This year, however, the House leadership decided to include an exception to this rule. While I agree there may have been a need to provide for exemptions to the supermajority requirement, I believe the leadership should have excluded measures which would close tax loopholes or eliminate corporate welfare provisions from the Internal Revenue Code. Unfortunately, House Joint Resolution 62 did not address either of these possibilities. Instead, the resolution was specifically altered to allow for a change in the Tax Code which would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of families in the United States. The night before this measure was considered on the floor, Members of the House leadership drafted language which would, in effect, exempt legislation designed to modify capital gains tax rates. As a result, House Joint Resolution 62 would have made it more difficult for Congress to cut out corporate welfare, while making it easier to enact tax programs that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. When House Joint Resolution 159 was considered during the 104th Congress, it did not contain this glaring inequity, and I was able to support it. However, this is clearly not the same initiative we considered a year ago. I believe it is crucial that Members of Congress commit themselves to eliminating the budget deficit and crafting a fair and equitable Tax Code. Certainly, an income tax hike is no way to accomplish these goals. House Joint Resolution 62, as it was first drafted, was a well- intentioned initiative, designed to protect the American public from such an increase. However, in the end, it became a disfunctional, inequitable measure which could have obstructed our path toward these objectives. I am pleased the House defeated this measure, and I urge my colleagues to turn their attention to eliminating unwarranted revenue subsidies and putting our Nation's financial house in order.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this measure, H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. This legislation simply clarifies current Federal policy and practice in this area, prohibiting the use of Federal funds for activities explicitly involved with assisted suicide. Often when we think of protecting human life, we think of protecting the unborn. However, every life deserves that same protection. Our efforts must be refocused on helping people alleviate their suffering, not by ending their lives, but by increasing our understanding of medicine and mental health to give these individuals a better alternative than death. While H.R. 1003 prohibits Federal support of assisted suicide, it also works to solve some of the problems associated with depression and other conditions that can move someone to consider taking their own life. The bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to increase its efforts on this front. Funds for this initiative would come from existing resources within the agency and would fund activities aimed at reducing the rate of suicide, including assisted suicide, among all segments of our society. Some of the activities these funds could support include training for health care professionals in pain management techniques and identifying depression in patients as well as activities related to mental health and suicide prevention. There are many people across the Nation suffering from medical or mental health conditions who are in need of assistance, but I do not believe that suicide assistance is the help that the Federal Government should be promoting. Once again, I reiterate my support for this legislation, which puts our Nation on a path to truly help those in need.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Greek Independence Day. Throughout the 20th century, Greece has stood strong, first in the face of imperialism during World War I, then against the Fascist incursion of the Axis Powers during World War II, and finally in facing down the Communist threat during the cold war. The shared victory of Western democracies in defeating communism would not have been possible without the dedicated participation of Greece. Also, as Americans, we must continue to recognize the pivotal role played by Greece in meeting our goal of maintaining and enhancing the economic and political stability of Europe and the Mediterranean. Greece continues to stand firm as a bulwark of stability in an otherwise volatile region. Just today, Prime Minister Costos Simitis has called for a summit of Balkan leaders to deal with the crisis in Albania. It is this type of action--working for regional stability when it is most needed--that clearly demonstrates the important role the people and Government of Greece continue to play in the modern world. Again, I congratulate the people of Greece on their ongoing positive contribution to peace and democracy throughout the world, and wish them all the best on their independence day.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend one of my constituents, Mr. Kurt Angle, for his heroic athletic achievement at the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta, GA. Mr. Angle represented his family, his community, and his country with dignity and honor in earning a gold medal in the 220-pound division of Olympic freestyle wrestling. As one of America's best hopes for a medal and the defending 1995 world champion in the 220-pound class, Mr. Angle withstood the intense pressures of competing against the best wrestlers in the world and persevered to achieve his dream. Mr. Angle has been a National Collegiate Association of America [NCAA] champion from Clarion University as well as a world champion. He was worked many hours sharpening his skills and practicing his trade, striving to be the very best that this country has to offer. He has shown leadership, as a 3-year captain of his collegiate squad, and displayed the ability to work with teammates toward a larger goal. Kurt Angle has competed on many levels, in many international tournaments and has always performed to the best of his abilities. That he has finally achieved the gold medal in a competition as important as the Olympic games is a true testament to his courage and character. The community of Mt. Lebanon has long known of Kurt Angle's athletic gifts and now we are happy to share them, and him, with the rest of the world. His strength and determination are qualities that all Americans can look upon and be proud. I join many in the 18th Congressional District, and across the United States, in congratulating Kurt Angle for this glorious achievement. Thank you, Kurt, for proving that hard work can bring us closer to our dreams.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend one of my constituents, Mr. Leo McDonough, for his numerous years of dedication to the small business community of Pennsylvania. As president of the SMC Business Councils, Mr. McDonough has been an effective advocate for the more than 4,800 owners of small businesses in the Commonwealth. More than 123,000 persons rely on those businesses for their employment, which is a remarkable proof that small business is the backbone of the national economy. Leo McDonough served his Nation in the U.S. Navy in the South Pacific during World War II. He pitched for the Pittsburgh Pirates and later worked in the insurance business. For more than 27 years, my Swissvale Borough neighbor, Leo McDonough has worked tirelessly on behalf of the small business movement. From the moment he assumed the helm of the Service, Manufacturing, and Commercial Business Councils, Leo McDonough compelled many Americans to value the role of the small business in our Nation. Former Governor Robert P. Casey appointed Leo McDonough as a member of the Health Policy Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in April 1993. He also was in the forefront of organizing the Governor's Small Business Conferences in Pennsylvania and served on the Governor's Small Business Advisory Council. He achieved many other goals and received awards for service to business too numerous to mention. I join many from western Pennsylvania in wishing him the rewards of an enjoyable retirement. Thank you, Leo, for your steadfast work.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues from Wisconsin and Florida. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress reaffirmed its commitment to the nuclear option by authorizing a program for research and development of standardized inherently safe reactor designs. At that time, Congress recognized the artificially high cost of developing and certifying new reactor designs to meet the government's extremely stringent requirements. EPACT proceeded with this program precisely to ensure that new passively safe reactor designs would be readily available when U.S. utilities were prepared to order new baseload generating plants. The authors of this amendment would like to say that this is funding for the sixth year of a 5-year program. They know this is not true. EPACT was authorizing legislation and was passed in 1992, but this program did not have funds appropriated for it until fiscal year 1993, which means that this will be the fifth year of a 5-year program. Thus, DOE is fully authorized to fund the advanced light water reactor program in fiscal year 1997 No taxpayers' dollars have been used to pay NRC fees. NRC's increased review and testing requirements forced the program to perform additional technical work. While most of the extra work was funded by industry, part of the added cost was supported by the DOE advanced light water reactor program. The additional technical work expanded the work scope for the program but was clearly authorized by EPACT. Mr. Chairman, this would be a very entertaining debate if it were not for the fact that we are talking about a major component of U.S. energy security, as well as the certification of a technology that holds the potential for the creation of thousands of high-paying jobs here in the United States. The construction of one AP-600 employs 5,000 people for 5 years. Now let us look at how much money we are going to save if we terminate this program. I have a letter here from the Department of Energy which I will submit for the Record that shows that terminating this program would cost the taxpayer more than it would to complete this program. Mr. Chairman, this is an ill-advised amendment, and I urge that we defeat it. Mr. Chairman, I submit the letter referred to earlier for the Record: Department of Energy, Washington, DC, July 24, 1996. Hon. Michael Doyle, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Doyle: The Department of Energy opposes the amendment to eliminate funding for the Department's Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) program from the FY 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. We strongly urge the House of Representatives to reject this amendment and support FY 1997 funding for the ALWR program. This program is nearing a successful conclusion. The First- of-a-Kind Engineering program, for example, was authorized by Congress in FY 1993 to be conducted for five years. FY 1997 is the last year that the Department plans to request funds for this effort, and one of the two plant designs in the program--the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)--is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. In addition, we expect that Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) design certification of the ABWR and the System 80+ will be granted in FY 1997. Design Certification for the AP600--an advanced, modular plant with passive safety features--is scheduled for completion in the following fiscal year. Taxpayers have invested about $300 million in ALWR research and development since 1986 and U.S. industry, led by electric utilities from across the country, has contributed an additional $500 million. Much of this investment could be wasted if the goals of the program--Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification and completion of First-of-a- Kind-Engineering were not met because of a decision to terminate funding in FY 1997 when the program is so close to conclusion. lwr program termination costs The Department has requested $40 million to conduct its Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) program in FY 1997. These funds would allow the Department to complete its First-of-a- Kind Engineering (FOAKE) program for the AP-600 and Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and accomplish Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification of two of three ALWRs. Since 1986, U.S. industry has contributed approximately $500 million to the federal ALWR program, with taxpayers contributing another $300 million. This program is nearly completed and must of the benefit of this $800 million public/private investment could be lost if it is terminated in its final stages. The Department believes that this effort should be allowed to conclude successfully, providing the United States with a viable, safe, and economic nuclear energy option that will be available before the end of the decade. If these programs are terminated at the end of FY 1996, the federal government will have to plan for the following impacts: Tens of millions of dollars in other termination costs would be sought from the Department by program contractors and other participants. Westinghouse, for example, estimates that the termination of their portion of the design certification program would cost about $28 million. Westinghouse also estimates that its FOAKE termination costs would be approximately $10 million. Other contractors would be expected to seek lesser amounts, as their participation in the program is nearly complete. The Advanced Reactor Corporation, which manages the FOAKE program, has indicated that its termination costs could be as much as $24 million if the program is terminated at this stage. The Department would seek to negotiate these costs, but legal action on the part of program participants to recover termination costs can be expected. A maximum of $125 million in lost potential cost-recovery from industry. Termination of the program at this late stage would mean that the federal government would lose the right to collect funds from industry based on future plant sales. Westinghouse, for example, has agreed to pay $25 million to the government with the sale of its first AP-600 to repay design certification funding and an additional $4 million for each reactor sold to repay federal FOAKE contributions. General Electric recently sold two reactors to Taiwan; the federal government expects to collect $3 million from this transaction. All of these cost recoupments would be forfeited if the ALWR program is terminated now. Unless new work assignments are found for federal and national lab staffs working on the program, DOE will require about $1.5 million to terminate personnel at DOE headquarters in Germantown, MD; at the field offices in Oakland, CA and Chicago, IL; and at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and the Sandia National Laboratories. The ALWR program is essential in order to maintain the nuclear energy option in the United States. Without FY 1997 funding, we will not achieve the design certifications that we have worked toward for years, and a huge public/private investment will have been largely wasted. We will also be forced to terminate our contracts with the program's industry participants, and risk a potentially expensive legal response. Further, termination of the program at this late stage would mean that the federal government would lose the right to collect funds from industry based on future plant sales. Westinghouse, for example, has agreed to pay $25 million to the government with the sale of its first AP600 to repay design certification funding, and an additional $4 million for each reactor sold to repay the Department's contributions. Taiwan recently awarded General Electric a contract to build two new reactors, and the U.S. government expects to collect $3 million from this transaction. All of these cost recoupments would be forfeited if the ALWR program is terminated now. For a modest sum in FY 1997, the program can be brought to a logical and successful conclusion, and the taxpayer and industry investments in these technologies will result in the form of detailed, certified designs of next-generation nuclear power plants. Sincerely, Ray A. Hunter (For Terry R. Lash, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology).

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Once again, here we are for the fourth, fifth, maybe sixth time in which we see amendments which seek to plus up accounts at the expense of the Fossil Energy Program. While I do not stand here on this particular amendment or on any of the others, Mr. Chairman, to say that I oppose the funds which they propose to plus up, once again I am here to urge Members that this cannot be done at the expense of the Fossil Energy R&D Program. We have taken our hits, Mr. Chairman, over a 20-percent cut, in fossil energy R&D in the last 2 years. Every year we are seeing that amount go down in real numbers. We just cannot afford to give anymore from the fossil energy R&D budget. While these programs that are being proposed in this amendment and others may be worthy programs, to fund them at the expense of our long-term energy interests, at the expense of fossil energy R&D, is simply not acceptable. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment, as we have all the other amendments which put fossil energy R&D in jeopardy.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment takes 38 percent from the budget. The Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, in a letter that I would be happy to share with the gentleman, says clearly here that we are talking about gutting, terminating, eliminating, fossil R&D programs for this country, right here from our own Secretary of Energy.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Yates, for the bill they bring before us today. They have done their best to protect a wide variety of important programs in a difficult budgetary climate. While there are many parts of this legislation I support, there is one in particular that I want to highlight, and that is the Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D. During the debate today many Members will come to floor and seek to plus up other accounts at the expense of fossil energy. While I do not necessarily disagree with the programs they seek to plus up, I believe that their efforts to cut fossil energy are misguided at best. As you can see from this chart, the Energy Information Agency has predicted that 20 years from now, we will still be dependent on fossil energy for 89 percent of our energy needs. Since this will still be the primary source of our energy supply, it make sense to pursue technological advancements that will allow us to make better use of these fuels. There is one area which I wish had received greater funding than is in the bill, and that is energy conservation R&D. For the same reasons that I support fossil R&D, I think it is important that we maintain a strong commitment to conservation R&D, as they deal with improving combustion-based energy. However, I will oppose efforts to raise the conservation line at the expense of fossil. I believe that such efforts are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of these two programs. Those who propose to increase conservation by reducing fossil are proposing no net gain for meeting our energy needs, they only move funds from one good program to another. The only difference is the name ``conservation'' sounds more politically-correct than fossil. I realize that because fossil fuels have been around for awhile, that there is a tendency to think that the utilization technologies have been improved to their maximum. If this logic was applied to nuclear R&D, you would come to the conclusion that since atoms haven't changed since the beginning of time, that there is no more work to be done in this area. Or in the case of renewables, since wind has been around since the formation of the planet, we shouldn't fund wind energy research. While these arguments make no sense, neither does the argument that we should cut fossil R&D, because they are currently in use. We are not talking about the fuel, but the way in which it is used. The Department of Energy, should be praised for the way in which they have managed to live within the confines of last years Interior Appropriations bill, which calls for a 10 percent reduction per year for the next 4 years. This is allowing for a gradual phase-out of the fossil energy program, without throwing away tax dollars already invested in research projects that yet to be completed. The amendments being offered to reduce fossil are being offered by those who either don't understand or don't care about the way their proposals will impact our energy security. I urge Members to oppose them all, as fossil energy should not be penalized with further reductions for adhering to its downsizing plan.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. While I do not have anything against the programs it seeks to plus up, I once again believe we should not do this at the expense of fossil energy. This amendment has almost a fictional quality about it. Here we have the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who has never been a proponent of big government, seeking to fund social programs at levels above the President's request. I welcome the sudden concern of my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, in the last months in Congress for programs he seeks to increase funding for, especially since he has never been a vocal advocate for them in the past. However, I doubt his true motivation lies with the programs he is increasing. Rather, it lies with the program he seeks to cut, fossil energy. I want to praise the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for the clever approach. He may succeed in getting his amendment passed, although I hope who voted against the Farr amendment will remember the Walker amendment is just about identical, and we should defeat it also. I have here a letter from Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy Project in support of the Walker amendment, and I quote, ``Coal and oil are extremely dirty energy sources and are significant sources of air and water pollution.'' Mr. Chairman, I could not state a better argument for fossil energy R&D than this. This statement makes it sound as if fossil research was trying to find more ways to make it harmful to use these fuels when that is the very purpose of these programs, to find more efficient ways and cleaner ways to burn fossil fuel. Let us look at why the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] claims we should cut fossil to roughly $221 million. He said the Committee on Science did not act on these accounts in fiscal year 1997 because he knew he did not have the votes in committee to defend his vision of energy policy. When we debated H.R. 3322, the science authorization, the committee chair claimed we handled the energy accounts on the floor last year. He refers us back to H.R. 2405, which passed the House last October without prior notice, and let me quote from that debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] said, ``I never contended I brought this matter before the committee. I brought it to the floor as my own amendment.'' The Committee on Science never agreed to the authorization levels. Mr. Chairman, I would ask all Members to do what they did with the Farr amendment, and let us soundly defeat this amendment.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Farr amendment. I want to echo some of the comments made by the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. Let us make no mistake about what is happening from this amendment. I have a letter here from the Secretary of Energy that I would like to quote from. We are talking about almost a 40 percent cut in the fossil energy R&D accounts. This is a quote from Secretary Hazel O'Leary. A cut of this magnitude would effectively eliminate the Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D programs and limit our Nation's ability to manage its energy future. We have already cut this program to the bone. The administration's FY 1997 budget request of $348 million represents a 10.5 percent reduction from fiscal year 1996 funding levels and a 20- percent reduction from FY 1995. Taking an additional $137 million from this program, plus the estimated $30 to $40 million in termination costs, would essentially stop it dead in its tracks. So, Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about this. What we are talking about in the Farr amendment is the elimination of the fossil energy research and development program in this country. Mr. Chairman, we just talked about, into the future, 85 percent of our needs; fossil energy is going to play a major role in providing 85 percent of the energy needs of this country. Many people in the environmental community say, well, coal and oil, they are dirty fuels. That is exactly our point. Why would we stop research and development in ways to burn coal cleaner and cheaper and to use fossil fuels more efficiently, in environmentally sound ways, right at the time when our dependence on them is increasing, not decreasing? Mr. Chairman, let us not be fooled by this. I urge all Members to understand, a vote for the Farr amendment and later on for the Walker amendment is a vote to eliminate fossil energy R&D programs in this country. I think that would be terribly shortsighted.

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

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, last night here on the House floor we witnessed an extraordinary sight. The pending business was the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], which would have singled out India for special criticism. What was extraordinary was that there was literally a line of Members--on both sides of the aisle--waiting to speak against the amendment. Not only was the overwhelming majority opposed to the Burton amendment, but the depth of their feeling was so strong that they felt the need to speak out publicly. I was one of those who came to the floor last night expecting to speak. However, in the interests of maintaining the schedule, I deferred until now. Let's look at what is happening in India. We recently had free and fair elections, which has led to the peaceful transfer of power. We have seen steady progress by India in improving its human rights record. We have seen steady progress in the opening up of Indian markets to American products. Now that there is a new government in India, we should ask ourselves what sort of message should we send to them about recent events there. How did the Burton amendment propose to respond to this progress? By singling out aid to India for special treatment and doing so in a way that would reverse the trend that has got us to where we are today. This is a nation with a population of over a billion people--a nation forced to deal with a multitude of ethnic groups and miles of disputed borders. Despite all these hurdles, India has maintained its democratic tradition, and has continued the difficult challenge of implementing broad economic reforms. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House has acted so decisively in expressing support for the continued evolution of Indian society.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 3376, a bill of great importance to our Nation's veterans. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Stump for the leadership he has shown. In politics, there is never going to be an unanimity, but he has done a great job in addressing any issues that have arisen in our committee. He has gone out of his way to make sure that every member of the committee, regardless of party affiliation, has had an opportunity to help shape our legislative product. As a freshman in the minority, I want to say that the House Veterans' Affairs Committee should serve as a model to other chairmen as how to run a committee. Also, I want to express my most heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to work alongside the man they call Mr. Veteran--Sonny Montgomery. I just want to say to Sonny that it has been an honor to serve alongside you, and I consider it an awesome privilege to have been your colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. In this bill, we are naming the VA medical center in Jackson, MI, after the former chairman--and I just want to let the chairman know that while members might come and go from this Chamber, that a good name lasts forever. I think it is safe to say that the name of Sonny Montgomery is a good name. There are many reasons to support this bill. Of all our commitments to those who served in our Nation's armed forces, none is more important than the guarantee of health care. For those Members who do not think there is a difference between the medical needs of veterans and those of the general public, I invite you to take a tour of a VA hospital with me. I guarantee that you will come away with a much different view of veterans' medical care. We must realize that private hospitals would never provide the type of patient care that is provided by VA hospitals as they could never make it profitable. The underpinning of the VA health care system is maintaining the physical facilities needed to provide adequate service. Even in this difficult budgetary climate, veterans medical facilities construction must remain a high priority. Thus, I urge members to support this bill, and to support appropriations in this area when the VA-HUD bill comes to the floor later this Spring. There are two parts of H.R. 3376 I want to highlight. First, this bill has incorporated H.R. 2760, my bill to name the nursing care facility at the VA hospital in Aspinwall, PA, after the late Senator John Heinz. The Heinz family is one of the most notable in Pennsylvania, and Senator Heinz' commitment to public service was a tremendous example to many of us in western Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, he was taken from us too soon when his plane crashed outside Philadelphia 5\1/2\ years ago. During his time in Congress, John Heinz had many accomplishments, too many to try to list. However, as far as the people in and around Pittsburgh are concerned, one of his greatest contributions to our community was his leadership in the making the Aspinwall Veterans Hospital a reality. Some may think that it is hyperbole to say that the construction of a veterans hospital is a great event to a region as populous as Pittsburgh. Those people obviously do not know a lot about Pittsburgh. Ever since I can remember, my life has focused on veterans' issues, and their role in the Pittsburgh community. As I have often mentioned in this committee, I would not be here today if it wasn't for the benefits my family received from the VA in return for my father's service. These benefits were not without a steep price, because of the wounds my father received in combat, his life was made shorter than it should be. My family and I are not unique. Throughout southwestern Pennsylvania, young men and women have served in our Nation's Armed Forces at a greater rate than almost anywhere. They and their families have counted on the VA to be there for them, and the VA has almost always been there. As those who served in World War II and Korea grew older, and their numbers were augmented by those who went to Vietnam, the needs for veterans services, especially health care, grew considerably in western Pennsylvania. It was Senator Heinz, a native of Pittsburgh, who recognized that veterans in our area were being underserved, and that the situation would only get worse without decisive action. From his seat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing, and Independent Agencies, he made the construction of the hospital in Aspinwall his No. 1 priority. Today, throughout Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, and West Virginia, countless veterans are having their health care needs met thanks to the efforts of John Heinz. I think it is only fitting that he receive this posthumous tribute to his good work. And I am not alone in this belief, as H.R. 2760 was cosponsored by all of my 20 colleagues in the Pennsylvania delegation, including Congressmen Mascara and Fox who serve with us on this committee. This legislation is supported by the Pennsylvania chapters of all the congressionally chartered Veterans Service Organizations. I have letters here from each of them, which I will include for the Record at the appropriate point. I want to thank the American Legion of Pennsylvania and, in particular, Department Adjutant Stanley Reinhardt for bringing this idea to my attention. I also want to express my support for the authorization for environmental improvements at the University Drive VA Hospital, located in the Oakland section of the city of Pittsburgh. Mr. Speaker, I could describe in graphic detail the conditions that currently exist at these wards at University Drive, but I do not believe that it is appropriate subject matter for the floor of the House of Representatives. I hope it will suffice to say that this action is needed to allow each nursing unit at University Drive to meet current VA standards for life-safety, patient privacy, and handicapped accessibility. Also, there is a need to meet the needs resulting from the increasing number of female veterans requiring care. The main building of University Drive was constructed in 1954, and has gone unchanged since. With the passage of time, this has produced numerous space, functional, and technical deficiencies in meeting the specifications of today's health care standards. The importance of University Drive goes well beyond the boundaries of the City of Pittsburgh. It is the tertiary care, medical/surgical referral facility for the 65-county Western Pennsylvania Network, and is the National DVA Referral Center for Liver Transplantation. This project is essential to maintaining this hospital's capability to meet the needs of the 380,000 veterans in Allegheny County, as well as those throughout Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, and West Virginia who rely on the services provided by University Drive. As a supporter of the constitutional balanced budget amendment that passed the House last year, I understand that we need to be extremely scrupulous in how we spend money. Even when there is a clear need that could be funded, we must determine whether or not something has to be funded. Keeping that admonition in mind, I hasten to point out that in the DVA internal rating for major construction projects, the University Drive project scored 19.8--out of a highest possible score of 19.8. For your consideration, I have attached a copy of this analysis. There is no way in which this project could have been rated any higher of a priority. In conclusion, this bill is in the best interests of the people of Pennsylvania and the Nation as a whole, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there are many problems with this legislation. One of the most significant is the lack of title dealing with the Department of Energy's R&D programs. Why not? I believe the explanation is that a bipartisan majority of the committee, and probably the House, would fund them at a much higher level than the chairman would like. These members recognize the role energy plays in preserving our economic well-being and national security. What Mr. Walker purports to be the relevant House action in this area guts funding for almost every sector of energy research: conservation, solar and renewable, nuclear-- including fusion--as well as important fossil R&D efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of what will continue to be the source of over 85 percent of energy production. If we were to follow the Walker budget, we would be practically zeroing out conservation, solar and renewables, and fossil energy. When we marked up this bill in committee, we were promised a subcommittee markup on an energy authorization in the ensuing weeks. This did not happen. Then, when H.R. 3322 was originally scheduled for floor action, we were told that there would be a subcommittee markup the following week. It would be cynical to suggest that this announcement was made merely to allay the concerns of numerous members of the majority who are concerned over the chairman's vision of energy R&D. However, it is interesting to note that once H.R. 3322 was pulled from the floor schedule the energy markup was canceled. It is also interesting to point out that it has been 3 weeks since the Energy and Environment Subcommittee has met for any reason, so it is not as if we have been overwhelmed by the schedule. Perhaps someone who is setting the committee's schedule could tell us when energy policy is going to be a high enough priority for us to act. When we began the debate on this bill, the committee chairman claimed that we handled the energy accounts on the floor last year. He refers us back to H.R. 2405, which the House passed last October. Let me remind Members that the genesis of this so-called vision of our energy future--a vision that calls for a $500 million reduction in energy research--not from the request, but from fiscal year 1996--was based on an amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania brought to the floor on his own and did not reflect the will of the committee. Let me quote Mr. Walker from the debate over the inclusion of fiscal year 1997 authorization in the Walker amendment, Science Committee Chairman Walker stated, ``I never contended that I brought this matter before the Committee. I brought it to the floor as my own amendment.''--Congressional Record, October 11, 1995--H9847. The claim of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, because he wrote a fiscal year 1997 energy R&D budget on the floor last October, there is no need to review these accounts is incredible. This is an absolute contradiction to our treatment of the National Science Foundation budget, which like the DOE accounts received 2 year authorization in last year's science authorization, but unlike DOE, which is apparently not worthy of our consideration, the NSF budget was included in H.R. 3322. What is the reason for doing so? I imagine it may have something to do with the lack of support for the chairman's vision of our future energy research needs. I had considered offering an amendment on energy R&D, but have decided not to, as it has become apparent that it is a waste of the Members' time to in any way improve upon this meaningless and irrelevant legislation. Instead, I will submit for the Record, at the proper place and time, a letter to Appropriations Chairman Livingston from members of the Science Committee, Republicans and Democrats, expressing our concern over energy R&D authorization levels and the continued irrelevance of the back-of-an-envelope budget the committee chairman has endorsed. In closing, I want to reemphasize that this is in no way an ``Omnibus'' bill. Semi-omnibus would be a more accurate description, and in many instances, what is contained in the bill is not worthy of our support. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 7, 1996. Hon. Bob Livingston, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As Members of the House Science Committee, we are writing to express our concern over House- passed authorization levels contained in H.R. 2405 for civilian research and development activities for the Department of Energy. Even if there is no further action by the Science Committee on its DOE accounts, your Committee needs to understand that the Science Committee provided for flexibility in the setting of FY 1997 funding levels in H.R. 2405. This is due to the continued relevance of the Davis amendment to these authorizations. The Davis amendment clarifies that authorization for these programs should be reconsidered if in the budget and appropriations process, more funds become available. Last October, when the House considered H.R. 2405, an amendment offered by Chairman Walker was adopted which raised authorization levels for FY 1996 to meet the previously appropriated level, but also set FY 1997 levels. While the action taken regarding FY 1996 levels was in keeping with the Davis Amendment adopted during Science Committee mark-up, the Committee had not considered DOE funding for FY 1997 at all. In the debate over the inclusion of FY 1997 authorization in the Walker amendment, Science Committee Chairman Walker stated, ``I never contended that I brought this matter before the Committee. I brought it to the floor as my own amendment.'' (Congressional Record, October 11, 1995--H9847) Since the House acted on H.R. 2405, there have been several developments which warrant reconsideration of these numbers. For example, the Congressional Budget Office has revised its economic assumptions, resulting in greater flexibility in making discretionary spending decisions. Also, the Energy & Environment Subcommittee has held a series of hearings on energy research and development, which have proven to be very helpful in our ability to judge the value of the various programs in question. We are very grateful to Energy & Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher for scheduling these hearings. However, they will be for naught if the Committee is unable to act on this hearing record in a timely manner. The need to revisit DOE R&D funding is apparently shared by Chairman Walker and Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher, who have publicly pledged their willingness to move a FY 1997 DOE R&D authorization bill. While we support this action, we are concerned that the mark-up of this legislation will occur too late to influence your Committee's consideration of these accounts. We recommend that your Committee not consider itself bound in any way by the FY 1997 levels passed in HR 2405. Energy policy is too important to our national security and economic strength to be based on last year's information. Thus, Congress should not act presumptively to drastically reduce these vital accounts. Sincerely, Mike Doyle; Sherwood Boehlert; John Tanner; John W. Olver; Steve Largent; George E. Brown, Jr.; Tim Roemer; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Paul McHale; Zach Wamp; Lynn N. Rivers; Zoe Lofgren; Bart Gordon; Jane Harman; Tim Holden; Mike Ward; Robert E. Cramer, Jr.

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