Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH of New York

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WALSH of New York. I certainly appreciate the chairman's dilemma. I have it also. But I would like to take just a moment to congratulate Vern Ehlers and Rush Holt for their leadership. When you come here, there are certain things that are important to you, and when you have an opportunity to effect them, you should. They are consistently supportive of this issue. This is a national crisis that we have. They are only trying to prepare our kids for the future. And as I understand it, we have already cut the Labor Department by about $4 million. This would be another 15, so approximately an 8 percent reduction in their overall $400 million budget. A slight increase in this, I think, is worth a slight decrease on that side, so I will support the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and I rise in support of his amendment.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WALSH of New York. We have no objection to the amendment. We accept the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Let me also thank the chairman for his foresight in providing additional resources. There is a $400 million increase to the Social Security Administration to provide this invaluable service to our constituents. I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership. I represented the city of Auburn for 10 years. Due to the vagaries of reapportionment, Mr. Arcuri is now their Representative, but I still have constituents who go there and rely upon that office. It is a good office, well served, well staffed. It is a professional staff, and it is needed. So I thank him for standing up for the people of Auburn. I do, too, and the rest of the people of Cayuga County and that region who rely so heavily on that office. I thank the chairman for providing the additional resources.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WALSH of New York. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think it's interesting to note that there are three returned Peace Corps volunteers here today, one Democrat, two Republicans. In the Congress, there are three of each, three Republicans, three Democrats. But, more importantly, our appetite for public service was not whetted just by Peace Corps. It certainly broadened our lives. I joke with people. I never crossed Main Street in Syracuse from the east side to the west side until I was 16 years old. I went to college, went into the Peace Corps. The world got a lot bigger. I have come back, and I have met people in every walk of life who were Peace Corps volunteers. I suspect the same will happen with AmeriCorps volunteers. In fact, 90 percent, almost 90 percent of former AmeriCorps volunteers come back and volunteer on their own. They continue to provide, to work in public service. They continue to support organizations in their own community. This is a citizen- building organization. So few of our young people today focus on what they can do for their country. This is a great way to get them to focus on it. It's $250 million, a lot of money, but it's an investment. You hear that a lot, but you can see the investment. Whether you agree with our politics or not, you can see the investment paid off, in that individuals like ourselves from very different backgrounds wound up here at the highest level of public service. My hope is that this program will continue to produce young Americans who are idealistic, but realistic enough to know that they have to work hard to serve their community and give back something to their society. So I have great respect for my colleague and my friend from Arizona. I just strongly disagree. Volunteerism is alive and well because of programs like this. We need to maintain it and retain it. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WALSH of New York. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Madam Chairman, we have been down this road before. I believe public television has an important role to play both culturally and, more importantly, educationally. And as my colleague from Oregon mentioned, this is an essential and growing aspect of our public safety system and our ability to communicate. In Rochester, New York, WXXI is using its digital signal to provide a network for local public service organizations, public safety organizations, first responders, not only for communication but for training, and also to help in coordinating large-scale emergency activities so that everyone is communicating within the same network and on the same bandwidth. So it is a very flexible system. I have had my issues with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I had a very serious disagreement with them over the publication of what I thought was a very important movie regarding the lack of response by moderate Muslims to the radical Islamic fundamentalist zealots who are around the world today. The story I thought was a very well-told story, and it wasn't resolved certainly in my favor and in my view. But that aside, this would be a mistake to support this amendment, and for other reasons I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I do so knowing full well that this earmark issue is a very, very controversial issue these days. What prompts me to oppose the amendment is that I believe, having served here for now my 19th year, that the Constitution was very clear. The power of the purse resides in the Congress, in the House of Representatives. The Appropriations Committee is responsible for allocating those funds. Members of Congress know their districts and the needs of those districts better than anyone else does. Now, historically the administration has, through its budget director and its department heads, directed spending through the budget resolution in conjunction with Members of Congress and the budget committee. And I respect that. But they need to respect our priorities also. And I think all Members should respect the priorities of those individual Members who know their districts best. I think, as the chairman mentioned, this is a very small percentage of the overall Federal budget, remembering that the discretionary portion of the budget is only one-third of the entire Federal budget. And earmarks are a small percentage, less than 1 percent, I believe, of that discretionary portion of that one-third of the Federal budget. But these dollars make a difference in communities. They help with economic development; they provide housing where the Federal programs just don't fit. I came here as a city councilman. I saw all kinds of Federal programs that did not work for my community. And I said to myself, if I ever get to Washington and I have the ability to affect Federal policy, to make it more flexible, to make it work for my community, I will do that. Now, my dad served as mayor of Syracuse and then came here and served for three terms. He was here when revenue sharing began. Revenue sharing was all about helping local communities direct spending so that it better suited their needs. That was under the Nixon administration. It was a breakthrough. It was Federalism taken to its lowest common denominator so that the cities and the counties had the ability to make a difference and get some of those taxpayer dollars back and put them to work in their communities. So I think that the chairman is making a point here. I hope Members will oppose this amendment. And let me just say this: for the 40 years that the Democratic Party controlled the Congress, they may not have had earmarks in these bills, but they were not pure as the driven snow, Madam Chairman. The way they did it in the old days was the old bulls, who were primarily from the southern part of the country, who served as Chairs of the full committees and subcommittees on appropriations, and were here for 25, 30, 40 years, they would just put the money in the bill. They knew where the money was. The chairman of that Department knew where the money was; and after the bill was signed, the chairman called up that Department Secretary and said, here's where you're going to spend the money. Now, what we did, I suppose, is we made a mistake by democratizing this process. We opened it up. We Republicans opened it up so that all Members would have the same opportunity, maybe not as much money, but the same opportunity to help their local communities. And, yes, there has been abuse. But the Members who've abused this, by and large, go to jail, and that's as it should be. If they break the rules, if they benefit themselves, if they stoke their own greed with taxpayers' dollars, they belong in jail. But let's not bring this whole appropriations process into question, because there is a rotten apple in every barrel, and we've got to find them out, and we do. And the system works in that respect. So let's oppose this amendment. We'll take votes on the individual earmarks. There's going to be lots of amendments to talk about. Those Members will come and they will defend them and, hopefully, make good arguments for them. But let's defeat this amendment and get back to work. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I think this amendment is somewhat inappropriate, and I say that at my own peril. I have great respect for the chairman of the Commerce Committee. He is a wise man, far wiser than I. He has been here for many, many years. He knows how to make a point. I think he has made it. I'm aware that this appointment is somewhat controversial, but the best way to get the Social Security Administration to perform as the Congress wishes is to pass laws and to bring them in for oversight hearings. I don't think that a rifle-shot cutting of one individual's salary is the right way to proceed. I'm not intimately familiar in this case, but this type of amendment does cause me some pause. I can't recall in my years here any time when an amendment like this passed, although the chairman, who has been here far longer than I, could probably cite them. If we want to deal with this issue of recess appointment, let's do so in an authorizing bill and not in this manner. And for that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut so he can wrap up. I see Mr. Honda, another Member on his feet, who also wants to comment.

Mr. WALSH of New York

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I certainly can't support further cuts to the Reading First program. It's been cut by $629 million. Further cutting this bill adds insult to injury. There have been problems with the program. There have been abuses. And if laws have been broken, the Inspector General will bring charges against those violators. But we shouldn't punish small children and their teachers for those abuses. We have a need in this country to teach children how to read. I don't think anyone could deny that. So Madam Chairman, for that reason, I will not support any further cuts to a program that teaches those kids to read. And, in fact, I suspect by the time we get to conference, when some of these issues are clarified, we'll be adding money back to this program. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. I thank the gentleman very much for his vote of confidence in the amendment. I would be happy to work with him on that communication with the authorization committee. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Is this statement by the gentlelady from California in regards to this amendment?

Mr. WALSH of New York

Mr. WALSH of New York. I would respectfully request that we return to the amendment before we continue the conversation.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WALSH of New York. I will be very brief, Madam Chairman. I absolutely agree with the chairman's statement. It is a responsible statement. We can't continue to do the nice things on the one hand by looking like we are putting more money into a program, and at the same time cutting the fat, muscle and limbs of the departments that are supposed to administer these programs. So I support the chairman's contention. We will deal with this in conference. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.