Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4635 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material therein.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for recognizing me to work with my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Judge Pryce), who has guided this rule through the House now for 2 years in a row. She does it with aplomb and grace. We appreciate her help not only today but also in the full Committee on Rules. I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for giving us a fair and honest rule, for giving us an opportunity to bring this bill to the floor with an open rule, and to protect what should be protected and not protect what should not be protected in the bill. This is, as has been discussed, a very complex bill. It is always easier to bring a bill through the House with lots of extra money in it. Positive things seem to happen when we do that. But we do not have lots of extra money. I would submit that, if we provided all the money that the President requested for this bill, our surplus would be far smaller than it is projected. And it says something about the way we have attempted to present this bill and the other bills. We know that, no matter how much we spend, the White House will want to spend more. That is a fact. Everybody knows that. So when we get to the end of this process, if we are up here with the House bill or the conference report, the President will get us to here. So if we start here, then we maybe get a little bit higher because we know there is an unlimited thirst for more spending down there. So do we have enough money in this bill to meet all of our needs? Barely. Will we probably spend more by the time we are finished? I suspect that we will. History would tell us that that is true. What we tried to do was present an honest bill with honest numbers, and the House will make its judgment on this today. What we did do, Madam Speaker, is we put in a fully funded Veterans Medical Care package, $1.355 billion. That is what the President requested. That is what the subcommittee presented. Now, I would remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, last year the President wanted to level fund the Veterans Medical Care. We put in over, I believe, $1.7 billion last year above the President's request. I think the President learned from that. Now he has realized that the veterans are a priority with the House; and he came back with, I think, an honest request, and we honored it. So I think we have done well for veterans in this bill. I think that any Member who supports this bill, the main reason they will do so is because they want to keep our commitment to our veterans. As my colleagues know, there are a number of other areas in this bill that we address. One of them is HUD. The President asked for a 20 percent increase in HUD funding, 20 percent equals a $6 billion increase in HUD. Now, my colleagues can imagine what would happen if we did that with every bureau in the Federal budget. There would be no surplus. We would be back in deficit spending. So we tried to pare that request down to meet the absolute needs of the housing and economic development aspects of this bill. We fully funded section 8 housing. There was a request on the part of the administration to put an additional 120,000 section 8 vouchers into this bill. Madam Speaker, they did not even use $2 billion worth of section 8 money last year; 247,000 section 8 vouchers went begging last year. Now, what kind of service is that to the American public? What kind of service is that to the people who deserve and need the help of their government to provide for their housing? 247,000 section 8 vouchers unused. And they are asking for another 120,000 this year. We will be glad to discuss those at the end of this process, but HUD needs to do a lot better job of using these billions of dollars that we are appropriating to provide for housing for those among us who have the most need. Within the Community Development Block Grant program there was a slight reduction of $20 million in the Block Grant program. So there will be a very tiny reduction in this Community Development Block Grant program for our cities and our entitlement communities. EPA's operating programs have been funded, while the various State programs which assist the States in implementing Federal law have been more than fully funded. The Clean Water SRF program that was gutted by the President's budget request has been restored to $1.2 billion, while State and local air grants and section 13 non-point source pollution grants have been significantly increased. Perhaps most importantly, we proposed a $245 million expenditure, more than double last year's amount and $85 million more than the President requested, for section 106 pollution control grants. These grants offer the States maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult TMDL issues facing the States. One of my distinguished colleagues on the other side said that FEMA was underfunded by over $2 billion. I would remind my colleague that there is $2 billion in the FEMA pipeline unspent, unobligated, authorized, and appropriated. Those funds are waiting for an emergency that we all know will come, and we are ready for it. And those $2 billion are waiting for that to happen. When it happens, FEMA will begin to pay out. And if $2 billion is not enough, we will do an emergency supplemental, which we do every single year, at least one. So I think $2 billion waiting in the pipeline is sufficient to handle any emergency; and if it is not, we can provide the balance through the emergency supplemental. Madam Speaker, there is one point regarding this bill which needs to be made. I stated at the outset that we face a tight allocation. Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that we had a tremendously huge increase in our allocation, over $5 billion. I would like to try to clarify that. The reality is that our allocation is $78 billion in new budget authority. The reality is that CBO reported our freeze level at $76.9 billion. We have, therefore, a net increase of just a little over $1 billion in actual budget authority over last year. I hasten to add that that increase has been eaten up by the VA Medical Care increase of over $1.3 billion, and the section 8 housing vouchers, which we fully funded even though they are not spending it. We wanted to be fair; and hopefully, HUD will do a better job of getting that money out to the people who need it; and increases in National Science Foundation and NASA. NASA is increased by over $100 million and National Science Foundation by $167 million, very substantial increases. Lastly, I would just like to make a point on this issue of tobacco in this bill. There has been a lot of rhetoric. We are going to hear a lot more today. I would just like to point out that this subcommittee has struggled mightily to make sure that we have the resources available to provide for our veterans' medical care, to meet the commitments that were made years and years and years ago to those men and women who put their lives on the line for their country. Now the administration is shopping from one budget to the next to find the money to run this suit against the tobacco companies. If they want to do that, that is fine. All we are saying is do not use medical care money, do not use our veterans' medical care funds. There is not one single veterans' organization that has come out and said, yes, it is okay to use our medical care money for this lawsuit. Not one. We are going to hear something possibly to the contrary. But listen closely. What the veterans are saying is, we have no objection to this lawsuit. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not, either. But do not use veterans' medical care, because those dollars are precious. And we can tell our colleagues in each and every area of health care what impact those losses of $4 million to $6 million per year as long as that suit goes on will mean to our veterans. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. Is it perfect? No. If it were, I would not have my name on it, because I do not think I have ever done anything perfect. But it is a good start. I would appreciate very much the support of both parties across the aisle. If we do not get that, I think we can pass this bill anyway. But I would like to have bipartisan support. I think we will by the time we are completed.

Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I just wanted to respond. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is correct. I think the Justice Department should use their own funds, not veterans' medical care funds. I would remind the gentleman that there is absolutely no guarantee that any of those funds will come back to the veterans. In fact, if the administration's policies are consistent, those funds will go into the Treasury, just like the funds that are available from the Veterans Millennium Health Care Fund that plows private insurance back into the Treasury. We want those funds to go into the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, this issue of tobacco which I suspect will dominate the debate today, unfortunately, because we are spending billions of dollars to meet our commitments to veterans, the focus will tend to be on the 4 or $5 million that the administration wants to take out of veterans medical care and spend on this lawsuit. I have a letter here from the American Legion. I would just like to read excerpts from it. It says: ``In the VA-HUD and independent agencies for fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill is language prohibiting the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transferring Veterans Health Administration funds to the Department of Justice for the purpose of supporting tobacco litigation. Although we support tobacco litigation efforts as an alternative, the American Legion strongly supports the use of VHA funds for the provision of health care to veterans. ``The American Legion strongly encourages Congress to identify $4 million in the projected surplus to be earmarked in the Department of Justice appropriations bill to pay for the VA's share of any litigation. VA funding should be used for its intended purpose, `to care for him who shall have borne the battle.' '' Pretty clearly, the largest veterans organization in the country does not want veterans medical care funds used for a lawsuit to pay lawyers. That is another department's responsibility. These funds are precious. Let us keep them where they are.

Mr. WALSH. The date of this letter is today, June 15. It is today.

Mr. WALSH. That was not the point of the letter. The point of the letter was do not use veterans medical care.

Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 20, 1999, the Westhill High Warriors defeated the St. Thomas Aquinas of Rochester 2-1 in sudden death overtime to win the New York State Class B Girls Soccer Championship. This was a great win for the Warriors, who were outshot 23-7, but still managed to hold on for the victory. Although there were few scoring chances, Westhill's all-time leading scorer Courtney Spencer put the Warriors on the scoreboard first. Then, in the second overtime, Meagan Rogers, a senior midfielder, scored the game winner on a great header from teammate Leanne Guinn. On defense, Westhill sophomore goalie Ally Walker had a stellar showing to keep the Warriors in the game and was applauded for her talents as goalie of the game. The entire team gave an outstanding performance throughout the season, putting Westhill's soccer team among the best in the country. Not only did the girls win the championship but just two months earlier gave their coach Ann Riva her 300th career win. However, winning the championship was extra special to her. According to the local newspapers, Coach Riva said this state championship was the most memorable in her career. Many parents and fans felt from the very beginning that this team with its special chemistry was destined for great things. I am very proud of these young women, who have exhibited discipline, sportsmanship, and love of sports while representing their school in the very finest Westhill tradition. I am equally proud of the Westhill Athletic Department, the parents, and administrators who are so supportive of this outstanding group of fine young athletes.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, on 31 August 2000, Maj. Matthew M. Modleski is retiring as the Air Force Advisor for the 174th Fighter Wing, New York Air National Guard in Syracuse, NY. He assumed this position in February 1998. In this capacity, he serves as the active duty personnel representative for the 9th Air Force Commander, as well as assisting the 174th Fighter Wing in preparing for mobilization, while attaining the highest possible level of combat readiness. Major Modleski was born on 22 September 1962 in Hudson, NY. He graduated from West Seneca High School, West Seneca, NY in 1980 and enlisted in the Air Force in July of that same year. He was a Jet Engine Technician until 1983 when he crosstrained into Air Traffic Control. He served as a controller at Dover AFB, DE from April 1984 until September 1987, and was awarded Controller of the Year honors in 1986. Major Modleski earned his Bachelor of Science degree from Wilmington College, DE in May of 1987 and went on to earn a Masters of Aeronautical Science Degree from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida. Major Modleski attended Officer Training School in 1987 and was the Honor Graduate for his class. He completed Undergraduate Pilot Training at Williams AFB, AZ and went on to fly the A-10 Warthog at RAF Bentwater/Woodbridge, UK. He was an instructor Pilot in the 78th TFS and a Flight Examiner in the 81st TFW. Major Modleski was then assigned to the 355th Wing, 357th FS at Davis Monthan AFB, AZ as the Chief of Standardization and Evaluation and a Flight Commander. In 1993 Major Modleski was the 355th Wing Instructor Pilot of the Year and in 1995 he was selected to be a member of the United States Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron, The Thunderbirds. Major Modleski flew as the Opposing Solo during the 1996 Show Season and then as the Lead Solo during the Air Forces 50th Anniversary celebration during the 1997 Show Season. He then began his current assignment as the 174th Fighter Wing Air Force Advisor. Major Modleski is a senior pilot with more than 2,850 flying hours in the F-16, A-10, T-38, and T-37. His military awards and decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross, Meritorious Service Medal, Aerial Achievement Medal with 1 device, Air Force Commendation Medal with 1 device, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, AF Outstanding Unit Award with 3 devices, Combat Readiness Medal, Air Force Good Conduct Medal with 1 device, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with 1 device, Humanitarian Service Medal, Air Force Overseas Long Tour Ribbon, AF Longevity Service Award Ribbon with 3 devices, NCO Professional Military Education Graduation Ribbon, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with 1 device, and the Air Force Training Ribbon with 1 device. Major Modleski is a member of the Air Force Association as well as the Air Force Daedalians. He is also a member of the Experimental Aircraft Association, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Major Modleski resides in Baldwinsville, NY, and is married to the former Dianne Reilly of Schaumburg, Illinois.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I think, would be a terrible mistake if we passed it. The Founding Fathers over 200 years ago put this system together, a system of checks and balances, and there are consequences to our actions and also to our inactions. The concern here is that if we fail to pass an appropriations bill or several appropriations bills, that portion of the government will not be funded. That has happened once in my 12 years here and I am told the last time it happened before that was 1986. It was not the end of the world. Did it cause some disruptions? It did. The fact of the matter is, there has to be some discipline in the system, and if we do not get our bills done on time and an automatic continuing resolution takes over, all impetus, all momentum, all consequences to not completing our budget work are lost. It is a Band-Aid approach to a very complicated, delicate balance of power that has been working for over 200 years. This idea of a 2-year budget, the Founding Fathers rejected that. An automatic continuing resolution, I am sure they did not envision that but they would have rejected it, too. What we do here, if we put the government on automatic pilot, the pilot is the President of the United States and we, as the legislators, our job is to be independent of the executive, fiercely independent. Now, we already had reform in a recent Congress where we passed a line item veto, where we gave power to the President and the Supreme Court said do not do that, you idiots; do not give that power to the President. That is your power; and they gave it back to us, thank God. Now we are going to yield more power to the President by putting the government out on automatic pilot. We lose our control of the budget process and the President just runs us around. That is not what we want. We want to maintain our independence. Please defeat this bill.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time on this critical issue of importance to this House and to the balance of power in this country. I could not agree more with my colleague from Wisconsin who just spoke. There are many, many times when he and I disagree, many, many times. But on this he has never been righter. At the heart of this is the constitutional power of the House of Representatives. Just a couple of thoughts, Mr. Chairman. The Budget Act of 1974, it was a reform. This also is posed as a reform. Since that reform in 1974, we have created $5 trillion in deficit spending. So that budget reform has been a disaster. The second item is by allowing for 2-year budgets, we are now going to have to make assumptions on revenue and spending over 2 years. We cannot get it right over 1 year now. How in God's name are we going to plan for 2 years? So we go to a 2-year budget, we do not get our budget completed, we run on these automatic continuing resolutions. It is a mindless, Band-Aid approach to budgeting. We lose all incentive to resolve the budget issues each year because we go on automatic pilot. What happens when we are on automatic pilot? One supplemental Christmas tree after another. Without the thought process that goes into the authorizing bills and the appropriations bills, we are on automatic pilot, we conjure up these supplementals, we cover them up with Christmas tree ornaments at the taxpayers' expense to get them through the process, and we completely blow the budget process even further wide open. If we want to continue to produce trillions and trillions of dollars in deficit spending, this is the right reform, Mr. Speaker, but if we want to exhibit and exert fiscal control, allow us to continue annually, one year at a time, to create a budget and to do it with the proper balance by using the authorizing committees to authorize the appropriations and the appropriations process to continue as it has the past several years in a proper way.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I received a letter two weeks ago from a constituent, The Honorable Lucille Craine, who is supervisor of the town of Victory, New York which is in my district. Included in the letter was an essay, written by Amanda Nodine, a thirteen-year-old student who attends Red Creek Central School. Amanda's essay, titled ``Our Flag, Why Should We Respect It?'', has received various acclamations, including recognition by the Wolcott Elk Lodge and other American Legion organizations. I am very proud of Amanda for her patriotism and loyalty to our country. She exhibits discipline, sensitivity, and love for her country while also representing her school and her community. I am equally proud of Red Creek High School, the parents, and administrators who are so supportive of this outstanding young citizen. I have included her essay for the record. Our Flag, Why Should We Respect It? (By Amanda Nodine) The American Flag has many reasons why it should be respected. Yet many people don't understand the meanings of the American flag. Many Americans fought for our country risking their lives. People died so they could save our country. The soldiers wanted all of us to be free now, in the future, and back then. The American flag shows honor and support for the people who fought, died, and suffered, all for our country. The flag has many meanings. The flag symbolizes independence, freedom, justice, America, and democracy. The flag has 50 white stars on a navy blue background, and 13 alternating red and white stripes. The 13 strips represent the original 13 colonies. It has 50 stars for all of the 50 states. The flag's colors are red, white, and blue. Red standing for heroism, zeal, and faith; white for hope, purity, and cleanliness of life; and blue the color of heaven, in honor of God, loyalty, sincerity, justice, and truth. We show patriotism when we salute the flag, fly it on/at important events, government buildings, schools, American legions, Elks Clubs, and other important buildings. Without our flag we wouldn't be a free country. We could be owned by another country and ruled by one too. The flag should be respected because it is an important monument and also because it symbolizes the freedom of our country. Respect the American flag!

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a very important player in the war against drugs in our nation. The Eckerd Corporation has for many years now sponsored a Drug Quiz Show that reaches over 30,000 middle school students in New York State. This program teaches students important lessons about the dangers of substance abuse in a creative `game show' format. In years past, the Eckerd Corporation has received recognition awards from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and New York State Governor George Pataki. I believe that the local efforts of the Eckerd Corporation are in line with the company's national campaign, and I believe that the Eckerd Corporation deserves to be recognized for its long-standing commitment to the Drug Quiz Show format. Finals for this year's competition are scheduled to take place on Monday, May 8th, 2000 in Syracuse, New York. I would like to thank the coordinators of the event, especially Executive Director, Ms. Susan Meidenbauer, the Eckerd Corporation, the students, the schools, the parents, and administrators who are so supportive of this outstanding and exciting opportunity to educate young and old about the dangers of substance abuse.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his very constructive response. I look forward to working with him as we go down the path towards the conference to make sure that our committee's responsibilities are not hamstrung. I thank the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. I thank the gentleman for the important work he is doing today. Homeownership is the American dream, and this legislation will help to make that American dream possible for many, many more. Just one issue that I would like to discuss briefly. That is Section 402 of this important bill. Because the language of the appropriations bill funds several programs as set-asides within the CDBG account, the language could be construed to prohibit funds for authorized programs such as Youth Build, Habitat for Humanity, and so on. I know that is not the gentleman's intent, but it is my understanding that the authorizing committee does not intend this as a result. I would just like to ask if my understanding of that is correct.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time. As chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction on the Committee on Appropriations, I rise to express some concern about this amendment. It is a well-intended amendment aimed toward helping fire fighters throughout the country. But I would caution on several points. One point is on FEMA. FEMA is not prepared to do burn studies. That is clearly an area where they do not have the expertise to perform. Secondly, and even of more concern, the issue of Community Development Block Grants, as I understand it this amendment would waive the requirement that Community Development Block Grants go to low- and moderate-income recipients only. This has never been attempted before. This change in the Community Development Block Grant, legislation has never been attempted to change this before. So I would express caution on this amendment. I would hope that as we go through the process, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) would be willing to work with us to try to resolve some of these issues. Clearly, the intent of the amendment is good, but the effect may not be.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with many of my colleagues in recognizing a man who has served this House with great distinction for over 30 years. Cary R. Brick, chief of staff to our colleague Rep. John McHugh, will retire on Friday of this week after three decades of service to this House and the people of the 24th district of New York. He has done this with great skill, dedication and determination throughout his tenure. For just a moment I'd like to tell everyone why I wanted to come here and partake in this special tribute. It has been said that this world is made up of many special characters. In Cary Brick, better known to his New York friends as ``The Dean'', we have just such a person. No one can ever accuse Cary of being dull and boring. He has the ability to make one laugh and tell great true life adventures relating to his work here on the Hill. More importantly he gets his point across and makes you feel like the end result was really your solution all along. That is a tremendous asset when working with people who might not be like minded. There is a certain sadness to face when someone of ability and stature retires from the House. It is difficult because we lose more of the institutional memory around here that's so badly needed. There aren't many senior staff people in individual Member offices any longer and that doesn't help us to effectively do business around here. In closing let me extend personal good wishes to ``Dean'' Brick from myself and all of his many friends both on and off the House campus. Cary, I hope you and your wonderful family enjoy fully the years ahead. You have earned the respect and admiration of those who know you. I look forward to seeing you often in beautiful Upstate New York. Congratulations for a job well done!!

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of St. Patrick's Day, I am inviting all my colleagues to become a Friend of Ireland. The Friends of Ireland is a bipartisan congressional organization established in 1981 by the late Speaker, Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill. Every successive Speaker has carried on the tradition with Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Gephardt serving as honorary chairmen of the group. The purpose of the Friends of Ireland is to increase the bonds of friendship and understanding between the American people and the people of Ireland. We look for a peaceful solution to the problems of this troubled land. Our organization is open to all Members of the 106th Congress who share its principles and has attracted widespread support over the years. There are also several Senators who are members of the Friends. Over the years, the statements of support for peace in Ireland, condemnations of human rights abuses, assistance to the International Fund for Ireland and general expressions of goodwill have made a difference. The voice of the U.S. Congress is listened to very attentively in Ireland both in the Republic and in the North. I submit this year's St. Patrick's Day Statement for the Record: Statement by the Friends of Ireland--Saint Patrick's Day 2000 On this first St. Patrick's Day of the new millennium, the Friends of Ireland in the United States Congress join 45 million Irish-Americans of both traditions in celebrating the unique bonds between our two nations. We send greetings to the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese and warmly welcome the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, on his third St. Patrick's day visit to Washington. We share the hopes of the Irish people that the current impasse in the Northern Ireland peace process will be broken soon. We are deeply troubled by the suspension of the democratically elected Government of Northern Ireland by the British Government and the stalemate over decommissioning. We urge all political leaders in the North to recommit themselves to the spirit and letter of the Good Friday Agreement. We have provided strong and consistent support throughout the peace process to all parties committed to peace, and we reaffirm our commitment to the full implementation of the Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement was endorsed decisively by the people of Ireland both North and South with majorities from both traditions. It is a mandate given to those working on behalf of peace, justice and the creation of a new beginning in Northern Ireland. Successful implementation is predicated on the concurrent resolution of all the interdependent aspects of the Agreement. The successful implementation of the agreement must be the clear goal for all who want to consolidate the progress that has been made and to avoid the danger of failure for yet another generation in Northern Ireland. At this time, the institutions of devolved government are suspended. The suspension was not caused by any failure of the institutions themselves, nor by any violation of the Agreement, but by an internal political crisis focused on the issue of decommissioning. We encourage the political leaders to bridge this crisis of confidence and secure the reinstatement of the institutions as soon as possible. Their absence creates a gap which the enemies of peace can and will exploit. It is vital that they are not permitted to succeed. The ongoing cease-fire are major confidence building measures, and it should be made clear that any return to violence is not an option. We condemn unequivocally all acts of violence. We call on all sides to implement additional confidence building measures. Root causes of violence--prejudice, religious intolerance and sectarianism--must also be eliminated. The nationalist and unionist communities must see that politics is working and believe their future can rest with the actions of their democratically elected representatives in the Assembly. The issue of confidence in the integrity of the democratic institutions set up under the Good Friday Agreement must not be seen as confined to the agenda of any one side. It is a shared requirement which all have a vital stake in restoring. Each party is committed under the Agreement to ensure the viability and effective operation of the political process pledged in the Agreement by persuading those who hold weapons that such weapons can have no role whatsoever in a democratic system. In spite of discouraging setbacks, we believe that a way forward can be found on this difficult issue by building on the progress already made. We welcome the acknowledgment by the IRA that ``the issue of arms needs to be dealt with in an acceptable way and this is a necessary objective of a genuine peace process.'' We also welcome the work in identifying and advancing the context where this goal can most successfully be achieved. We consider a crucial test to be whether the electorate in Northern Ireland can be reassured that their democratic wishes will not be undermined by actual or threatened recourse to guns from any side. We believe there is now an acceptance of this fundamental principle across the entire political spectrum which offers a basis for reaching an accommodation, provided the parties approach it in a spirit of reciprocal action, and with sensitivity about the real constraints on each side and the need for skillful and patient management of these constraints. We urge renewed dialogue in this spirit using the Independent Commission headed by General de Chastelain. The paramilitaries must put weapons beyond use and make progress on the decommissioning issue. The British Government must reasonably scale down its military presence in the North. We also give particular importance to the timely implementation of the Patten Report, including the urgent appointment of an Oversight Commissioner and assistants, the early publication of a detailed implementation plan, and the speedy passage of legislation. We believe the publication of the Criminal Justice Review should begin a program of significant reforms. We support changes that ensure a police force with representation from both communities and a criminal justice system which will command loyalty from all people living in Northern Ireland. These are the essential ingredients necessary in the creation of a just and peaceful society. We also note the importance of moving forward on human rights and equality issues under the Agreement. This includes the creation of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and the obligation to promote equal opportunity. We emphasize the continuing need to demonstrate public commitment to human rights and accountability through the establishment of independent inquiries into the Finucane, Nelson and Hamill cases. We support the initiative taken by the Irish and British Prime Ministers at the beginning of this month to launch a round of intensive consultations to restore the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and deal with the arms issues as quickly as possible. Over this St. Patrick's Day period, we will be urging all the leaders from Northern Ireland to recognize the importance of what is at stake, the danger of delay, and the need for a genuine and sincere collective effort to overcome these last remaining obstacles to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. All Friends of Ireland in the United States stand ready to help in any possible way.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding time. I have a prepared statement that I would like to enter into the record regarding Cary Brick, and it was penned by a good friend of his, my chief of staff, Art Jutton who has served almost as long as Cary has. Cary was always referred to as the dean of the delegation because of his seniority. I suspect Art may be in line for that, although Mr. Brick may not want to give up that title. Cary has been a true exemplary public servant, someone who has served the country well, served his Members of Congress well, served the people of the North Country well. He is a role model for anyone who would be willing to enter public service and suffer the slings and arrows that we take in this business; but he never lost his sense of humor, never lost his wisdom and his ability to stand back from the fray and make a cognitive decision that is always of benefit, not only to the Member of Congress in whose office he served, but to other Members who were smart enough to ask. So I would like to join my colleague. I identify with everything that he said. I wish the gentleman well in his selection of a replacement, although it is a tough pair of shoes to fill. Mr. Speaker, my best to Cary and his family as he retires.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my very deep concern about the character of the debate in our country today with regards to religion. For the past 5 years, I have been very involved in the Irish peace process, and at the root of the hatred and the mistrust in northern Ireland is the differences in religion. We can see what damage and the trouble that it has caused to that country. Indeed, our own troops have been involved in Kosovo separating warring religious and national groups. We are witnessing a war in Russia that has a great deal also to do with religion between Christians and Muslims. To continue this debate in our country with elected leaders criticizing religious leaders and religious leaders criticizing political leaders and political leaders criticizing other political leaders for taking sides with other religious leaders, I thought we had put that behind us. I thought that that sort of debate in this country was over, but obviously it is not. Hubert Humphrey said a long time ago, the great happy warrior Democrat, he who throws mud loses ground. Unfortunately, there is a lot of mud being thrown around today, and a lot of it regarding this issue of religion. I would like to address my comments to the choice by Speaker Hastert of our chaplain. I do not understand why anyone, anyone would be critical of the Speaker's choice. It is a very personal decision. He made a choice and now he is being accused of being anti-Catholic. I cannot fathom why anyone would raise that issue. He is an honorable man. He is a decent and honest man, and he made an honest decision. And we should respect that decision. But it seems that people will reach at anything to get political gain, and it is a downward spiral. If this debate continues, we are headed nowhere but down with a very difficult situation ahead of us and no way to get out of it. Let me just give my colleagues a little history regarding the choice of chaplain in the Congress. For the first 100 years of this country, we had 50 chaplains. Basically, one chaplain for each Congress. For the last 105 years, since around 1895, we have had five chaplains. Five. So the duration of their term in this position has become much, much longer. It is a different position than it was. And I am not so sure that the original Congresses did not have it right, one chaplain per Congress, one Congress per chaplain. But to make the political points here, the Democratic party, the modern Democratic party, which began in the middle of the 18th century, has appointed 20 chaplains in its time. Republicans, the modern Republican Party, beginning around the same time, has appointed eight chaplains. In none of those cases, those 28 chaplains that were appointed, was there a Catholic priest appointed. There has never been an outcry before. Never been an outcry. There are Members of this Congress currently criticizing Speaker Hastert for his choice of a Protestant minister, a Presbyterian, criticizing him for that choice when they were seated in this House when other speakers appointed Protestant chaplains. Where was the outcry then? Where was the Democratic party, the criticism then? Why is it coming now to Speaker Hastert? I think he made a wise decision. I think he made a wise choice, and I think we owe him the respect and the honor of making that decision. The Speaker tried to open this process up. He appointed a committee to help him to make the choice. The committee came back, it was a bipartisan committee, with three names. Three individuals. No rank, no unanimous support for one, but they gave the Speaker three choices. He made a choice among those three, and he picked Reverend Wright. Maybe it was a mistake to open it up to a so-called democratic process. Obviously, I could talk a lot longer about this, but suffice to say that we owe the Speaker the respect that he is due. We owe the choice that he has made the respect that that is due. And I would urge people to stop throwing mud and to stop this downward spiral of anti-religious talk in our country.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his participation in this special order tonight, and for contributing his thoughts and ideas. His summation of the situation is very, very clear and accurate. There is the need to stick to the agreement, the initial agreement that got us this far. I would like to also thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for participating. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with a brief story about a personal experience that I had. My family and I adopted a Project Children child from Northern Ireland back in 1990, a young man I believe about 12 years old at the time. He had never been outside of Northern Ireland. He came to Syracuse, New York, by a plane, flew over, the first time he had ever been in a plane, and lived with us for 6 weeks. He had some trouble adapting to American food and music. He was a terrific soccer player, though, and we stuck him on our summer team as a ringer and he played great soccer. He loved to fish, he loved to be around the water. He just loved the peace and solitude of upstate New York. He went back. I did not see him for 5 years. I went over when President Clinton went to Northern Ireland. On that historic day when they went to City Hall to dress the Christmas tree, I went to Michael Lyons' home and met with his mom and his sisters, and had a wonderful visit. His mother told me that for the first time in his young life, and he was then 17 years old, for the first time in 17 years of his life, other than the 6 weeks he spent in upstate New York, he had never known peace before. This was the first time he could walk to school or go to the store or visit a friend and not have to worry about a bomb going off, a car driving by and riddling his friends and fellow citizens with automatic weapons, fire breaking out throughout the neighborhood, murals on the walls with masked men and rifles. That was his whole life for 17 years. She said he can now walk down the street without being tugged and pulled at by those who want to draw him into this fight. He does not have to make that choice anymore; you are either with us or you are against us. He does not have to make the choice of going to war or going to school. For the first time in 17 years, it is a remarkable event for any country. There are very few places in the world where war has gone on for 30 years, but nonetheless that was his life. Today, 5 years later, there is still peace but it is tenuous. I remember when I first engaged myself in this peace process I said to Jerry Adams, I said to David Trimble, when they were first coming, what do you expect to get from this peace process? He said, peace; a straightforward answer. I said to Jerry Adams, when I met him at a different time, I said, what do you expect to get from this peace process? He said, peace, with justice. Therein lies the problem. Two people who inhabit the same city, believe in the same God, speak the same language, have the same hobbies and habits and interests, one group has justice, one group has no justice. In order for there to be peace, there has to be justice. In order for there to be justice, everyone has to agree on the way forward. The only agreement thus far that everyone has agreed to is the Good Friday Agreement, and just like us, in our country, when crisis comes, impeachment, war, we do not set the Constitution on the side while we work it out. We honor it, we respect it, we live by it, we write our laws by it and we govern by it. The only way for this process to go forward is to have everyone come back and sit down and say, yes, this is the only way we can go, this is the only thing we all agree to, and, therefore, in order to get to that bright future over the horizon, let us again swear to support this agreement.