Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, on April 9, 1999, 220 student performers and chaperones of the Westhill High School Music Department from Syracuse, New York, came to the Washington D.C. area for the ``Festivals of Music.'' This event was sponsored by local corporations to bring schools from around the nation to the District of Columbia. Westhill was one of seven schools to give band and chorus performances in front of three judges. These college professor judges evaluated the groups in writing and listened closely and repeatedly to taped sessions. The Westhill group gave an outstanding performance that day, putting Westhill's Music Department among the best in the country. Thomas Lindemann, Department Leader, said the chorus and band received an ``excellent'' and ``superior'' rating, respectively, in both concert performances and the music reading exam. Out of the seven schools, the band came in second. The Westhill chorus came in third. These high marks signify how well these group of students performed based on these national standards. The Westhill Music Department held their spring band concert on May 25th and the final choral concert on June 2nd. I am very proud of these young people, who have exhibited discipline, sensitivity, and love of music while representing their school in the very finest Westhill tradition. I am equally proud of the Westhill Music Department, the parents, and administrators who are so supportive of this outstanding group.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time and for doing such a great job on providing this rule that gives us the opportunity of a full and open debate. One of my colleagues just raised the issue that the Committee on Rules did not provide the Democratic minority with enough amendments. It has come to my attention that, in fact, a Democratic Member of the Committee on Rules tried to deny one of those Democratic amendments. Two of them, rather; I stand corrected. So I think we have done a good job giving everybody the opportunity to present their amendments. We have to move this debate along. I think we are giving the opportunity for a thoughtful, thorough debate on issues that go far deeper than just guns; that go right to the heart of our society, of our culture, of the direction that this country is headed in, and it is a far more complex issue than just violence. Violence in the schools is the tip of the iceberg. But we are trying to deal with this in an honest and fair way and I think this rule provides us with the parameters to do that.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 200th Anniversary of Cayuga County, located in my home district in upstate New York. It has a proud and distinguished history. Cayuga County was established by the State Legislature as the 28th designated county in New York State. Many of the first settlers were veterans of the Revolutionary War, such as Colonel John Hardenbergh, whose settlement grew to become the City of Auburn. Auburn eventually became the largest community in the State west of Utica in the early years, as it served as a junction of the major turnpikes traveled by the westward settlers. Many prominent political and historical figures who helped to shape our nation were citizens of Cayuga County, including Millard Fillmore, the 13th President of the United States; William H. Seward, the Governor of New York State from 1838-1842, a United States Senator from 1849-1861, and the Secretary of State for Presidents Lincoln and Johnson; Enos Throop, who served as a representative in Congress from 1814-1816, the Lieutenant Governor, and later as Governor of New York State; John Tabor, the last Republican full Appropriations Committee Chairman from New York State from 1952-54, and abolitionist Harriet Tubman. Additionally, inventions that have invaluably contributed to our way of life and which stem from Cayuga County include harvesters, carriage axles, threshing machines, adding machines, and motion picture sound. Today, Auburn is the industrial center of Cayuga County with the production of shoes, carpets, rope, railroad locomotives, air conditioners, and electronic components. Cayuga County has three state parks, encourages higher education through Wells College and Cayuga County Community College, and is home to the Cayuga Museum of History and Art and the Schweinfurth Art Center. The Cayuga County Legislature recently held its May monthly meeting at Wells College in Aurora, the city where the county's first government meeting took place on May 28, 1799. A Harriet Tubman pilgrimage and a Red Cross barbecue were held during the Memorial Day weekend to commemorate the bicentennial, and upcoming anniversary events this summer include the Southern Cayuga Garden Club Tour, The Wall that Heals Vietnam Memorial at Emerson Park, and a Civil War sampler at the Morgan Opera House. In the words of the county legislature, Cayuga County's quiescent, yet noble history, its diversified resources and its scenic beauty reveal that the region remains as impressive and promising today as it undoubtedly appeared to the entrepreneurial settlers 200 years ago. It is my distinct honor to represent the descendants and subsequent residents of this outstanding community.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for explaining the position of the committee clearly. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture for his comments.

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman. With the assurances received from the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee I will at this time not offer my amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I do not intend at least at this time to present. But the tenor of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have prevented Agriculture Secretary Glickman from instituting a new Federal milk marketing order system that would put thousands of dairy farmers out of business by lowering the price paid to farmers for their milk by hundreds of millions of dollars. On March 31, 1999, Secretary Glickman announced his final decision on the Federal milk marketing order reform process that was required under 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. Unfortunately, his decision to adopt what is referred to as a modified Option 1-B has the effect of lowering Class I differentials for milk to virtually all regions of the country with the exception of the upper Midwest. Can my colleagues imagine passing a policy, an agricultural policy that would harm the entire country except for perhaps two or three States. It defies logic. The Secretary of Agriculture's decision flies in the face of broad bipartisan congressional multiregional support for Option 1-A. Congressional intent behind milk marketing order reform in no way anticipated this action by the Secretary. My amendment also would have continued existing law, meaning that it would allow the continuation of the Northeast Dairy Compact. There has been increasing support for similar such compacts around the country as a way to protect against and otherwise prevent the harm that would be done by the Secretary's proposal and the havoc that it would cause in dairyland all across the Nation. So, Mr. Chairman, rather than offer the amendment at this time, I would like to enter into a colloquy with several of my colleagues. I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), chairman of the authorizing committee, the Committee on Agriculture, here; and I appreciate the gentleman coming down to participate in this discussion today. Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) agree that the Department of Agriculture's recommendation of a modified version, Option 1-B, is unacceptable to the majority Members of Congress and more importantly the majority of American dairy farmers and would therefore have to be modified through the regular legislative process?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's statement and clarification of the Committee on Agriculture's position. My concern is that we need to ensure that the legislation is enacted into law before the Secretary's modified Option 1-B pricing reform is imposed on dairy farmers in my district.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would again offer the gentleman the opportunity to, with the help of the Parliamentarian, roll all these amendments into one to accomplish his goal, which is, I think, an honest goal, something he believes in; roll them into one, give us an en bloc amendment, let us vote up or down on this, and then move forward on the really additionally important aspects of this bill, which is the agriculture policies and feeding policies of the Nation.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I would just like to make two points. One is that for those who have mentioned in the debate that the farmers are waiting in the fields for us to resolve this issue, I would remind them that this bill does not become law for at least 4 months, regardless of how long this debate goes on. So no one is going to be harmed by this debate except perhaps the patience of the Members who are participating in it or whose constituents are listening to it back home. So this is not going to cause any breakdown in USDA or in the delivery of services or anything else. This is next year's appropriations bill. The second thing is, the gentleman from Oklahoma has every right to offer these amendments, but that does not mean we have to debate every one of them. This could go on for a long, long time. Why do we not just agree that he has his right to bring the amendments and let us vote them down? The committee, the subcommittee, went through the process according to Hoyle. We did the right thing. Let us just vote these amendments down. If we debate every amendment, it could be 4 months before we complete.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise, and not on a specific amendment, but on this process that we are following under. As I said earlier in the debate, I respect the gentleman's right to offer amendments. I respect the principle that he is trying to uphold by reducing the size of this budget. I do not think he is trying to gut the services and the programs that the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides to our constituents. I would remind my colleagues that this bill does not become law for at least 4 months, so there is nothing wrong with debate. However, there is something wrong with dilatory tactics. That is exactly what this seems to be. But I am going to offer the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) who is offering these amendments a chance to prove me wrong. What I would ask him is, if the purpose of this is to reduce the bill to last year's level, or to get to the level that he would like to see us at with this bill, would the gentleman agree to take all these amendments, make them en bloc, and present them as one amendment so that we can deal with this issue right now, and get the work of this bill done? Would the gentleman take all these amendments and roll them into one, offer them en bloc, $249 million, and give the body the opportunity to vote up or down? If that is the gentleman's point, then I would ask the gentleman to please respect the Congress, respect the House, respect this debate process, respect the chairman, certainly, who has worked endlessly on this, and give us the opportunity to vote on this up or down, one vote.

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise, regrettably, in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, because I think he is attempting to do something that is proper and good, but I would point out to the gentleman that all of these funds are very competitive with each other. We have done our level best to fully fund the nutrition programs which make up the majority of this bill. As the gentleman knows, and we have worked together on funding the Emergency Food Assistance Program, it is a very important program. We have raised the funding for that program, the mandatory programs, food stamps and WIC, and we have done our level best to fund those as close to full funding as we can. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the program the gentleman wants to add an additional $10 million to, is funded above the President's budget request level. So we have gone out of our way to try to find the discretionary funds to meet the needs of these programs. We just do not have enough money to meet everybody's priorities.

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will check to verify which one of us is accurate here, but the fact of the matter is, these nonmandatory funds are heavily in demand by all of these programs. To take the funds from the agriculture research budget and put them into nutrition programs may be penny wise and pound foolish, because the agriculture research, which again, is underfunded, we cannot do enough for the research that needs to be done, but that research, Mr. Chairman, has increased by multiples, geometric progression increases in our yields of crops. If we neglect our agriculture research on things like the green revolution varieties of wheat and corn and rice that are now feeding the entire world, the disease resistance that we are breeding into our crops, the new varieties of fruits and vegetables that our agriculture research institutions produce for the consumption not only of our citizens but of the whole world, if we continue to neglect our research, we are not going to have nearly enough food to feed ourselves and the rest of the world. I understand the gentleman's desires here. Perhaps at the end of the process, if there is a way to provide additional funds, we will try to do that. But for the sake of this amendment, I do urge that it be rejected and that we keep the funds in agriculture research where they belong.

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to carry this on, the gentleman has already conceded that they cannot win all of these, so if there are some amendments that the Members think they can, why do not Members offer those en bloc and not offer the ones that they do not think will pass? Let us try to be a little bit pragmatic here. If Members want to accomplish their goal, then work within the normal constraints of the body and give us an opportunity to move forward on the bill. I would like to offer, again, the opportunity to the gentleman who has put these 100-some-odd amendments forward, the opportunity to enter into a colloquy to determine whether or not he is willing to end this what I perceive as a dilatory tactic, offer this en bloc, and give us one vote up or down.

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the gentleman. We also have concern with this important housing issue, and I agree that the Section 8 program is very important for ensuring that the poorest of the poor have adequate housing. Consequently, I fully intend to appropriate adequate funds for Section 8 renewal. And I would remind my good friend that no one has lost their housing vouchers, and I have no intention of letting that happen.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. It has been intimated to the Members that the offsets in this bill are to take from the poor to give to, I presume, the rich. Let me just try to set the record straight here. First of all, the offsets on the food stamps, the $1.2 billion, was offered by the White House. So if Members have a problem with using the food stamps as an offset, they better call Mr. Lew down at the White House because they suggested these. By the way, these are surplus funds. On the issue of $350 million for Section 8 housing, I would remind my colleagues that no one, and I repeat, no one has ever lost their housing or their housing voucher because of rescissions in Section 8. This is something that has happened each and every Congress. The money has always been restored. Are we going to have a problem? Is it going to be challenging? Absolutely. But we are committed to making sure that that Section 8 money is put back in. Let me just respond on this issue of the supplemental. There are a lot of things in this supplemental to hate, there is no question. I think quite frankly the House did a far better job than the Senate. The Senate wanted to throw everything in but the kitchen sink. I suppose if the kitchen sink came from Alaska, it would be in here. But the fact of the matter is, we held them back and tried to keep this money in check and keep the spending responsible and in terms of emergencies. I would conclude by saying if the President and the administration had taken care of the defense establishment of this country and funded each and every adventure that we are seeing around the globe over the past 6 or 7 years, we would not be at this point right now. Sure this is a supplemental and there are additional expenditures in here, but we tried very hard to keep this as small a dollar amount as we could, targeted at the war and at the other emergencies that we face. The Federal Emergency Management Agency gets some additional funds. That is what this supplemental was meant to provide. There was an issue that was also raised about Federal Emergency Management funding going to Central America. Some people support that. Some do not. But the fact of the matter is, FEMA funds were for American emergencies, not Central American emergencies. But many of us felt that since these were serious, that people were damaged and harmed by this, that we would reach out to them. But those funds had to be offset under our rules. So we had to go out and find additional offsets. The White House offered the food stamps offsets. The Section 8 offsets will be put back in. We are committed to that.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1999, Lt. Col. Scott G. Anderson is retiring as the Vice Commander for the 174 Fighter Wing, New York Air National Guard in Syracuse, NY. He assumed this position on Aug. 12, 1997. Previously, he was the Air Force Advisor for the Wing, serving 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. He assumed this position on March 1, 1996. Lt. Col. Anderson was born on March 2, 1956 in Fargo, ND, but now calls Syracuse, NY, home. He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1978 receiving a commission and Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. After earning his wings in June 1979 at Vance Air Force Base, OK, he was assigned to Hahn Air Base, Germany, as an operational F-4E fighter pilot, first with the 313th and then the 10th Tactical Fighter Squadrons. Following Wild Weasel up-grade at George Air Force Base, CA, he was reassigned to Germany in the 81st Fighter Squadron, Spangdahlem Air Base in 1982. He served as Squadron Flight Scheduler and Weapons Officer and qualified as an Instructor Pilot in the F-4G. In April 1984 he was selected to attend the Air Force Fighter Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, NV, and following graduation returned to Spangdahlem as Chief of Weapons and Tactics for the 480th Fighter Squadron. In August 1985 he was assigned to the 4443rd Test and Evaluation Group, George Air Force Base, CA, as the Tactics Development and Evaluation Officer. Projects included HARM anti-radiation missile, Wild Weasel/F-16 mixed force tactics, and development of F-16 HASRM missile capability. In August, 1990 he received his Masters of Business Administration from Golden Gate University, San Francisco, was selected for the U.S. Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron (Thunderbirds) as the Logistics Officer, and transitioned to the F-16. Flying the number ``Seven'' aircraft, he served as the Deputy Commander for Maintenance, flight check pilot, team evaluator, and safety observer for each air demonstration. He then served as Chief of Weapons and Tactics Documentation Division, 57th Test Group, Nellis Air Force Base, NV, responsible for developing Multi-Command tactics manuals while attached to the 422 Test and Evaluation Squadron as an F-16 Test and Evaluation pilot. Prior to his current position with the 174 Fighter Wing, he was assigned to the Department of State as the Operational Program and Training Manager, Air Force Directorate, JUSMAG-K, Seoul, Korea, acting as in-country liaison and consultant between the United States Government, aerospace industry, and the Republic of Korea concerning defense acquisition projects. His programs included the Korean F-16 Fighter, airborne missiles and munitions, Early Warning and tactical intelligence acquisition systems, and interface for joint exercise and training programs. Lt. Col. Anderson is a command pilot with over 3,400 flying hours. His military decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster, and the Combat Readiness Medal with oak leaf cluster. Lt. Col. Anderson is married to the former Theresa Garrison of Brooklyn Park, MN. They have four children: Clint, Jenny Lynn, Grant and Katie Rose.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing April 28 as Workers' Memorial Day in the State of New York. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to remember an important issue in today's workplace, occupational safety. Every city, town and village in this country was built by the proud efforts of working people. They have contributed to our Nation's wealth and reputation, our national defense and quality of life. In some instances in the past, they have endured harsh and even perilous conditions in pursuit of excellence and their livelihood. Today, we must continue the fight to ensure the safety of all workers. The sacrifices of the past will not be forgotten as we strive to eliminate dangers at the workplace. I want to thank the working men and women of Central New York in particular for their invaluable contributions to our community.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this incredibly important bill. I would also like to thank my good friend and neighbor, colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who chairs the subcommittee, for the hard work he has done in bringing this bill to fruition; also to the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I want to thank them all for this terrific bill. The work that they have done is remarkable, getting it this far, given all the traps along the way. The project that I am supporting has been identified by my community as the number one priority project, and we could not do it without the help of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a critical bill to my community, I strongly support it, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in special recognition of an occasion which will be celebrated in the County of Cortland in my district in Central New York State this summer. On July 18th, the McGraw family, along with the many guests who will join them, will hold their 50th Annual Reunion. This wonderful tradition was begun in 1950 as a means of bringing together the large and distinguished McGraw family. Having settled in Cortland County in the 1850's in the wake of the Irish potato famine, the McGraws quickly became one of the most well-respected residents of the area. The most well-known member of this family, John Joseph McGraw, was the Manager of the New York baseball Giants from 1902 to 1932. Having won more games than any other manager in major league history, Mr. McGraw was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Today, as was the case fifty years ago at the time of the first McGraw reunion, the Central New York area is indebted to the McGraw family for its many contributions to our community. I would like to express the sense of the many visitors and ``honorary McGraws'' who will travel from near and far to share in their celebration this summer in thanking them for making Central New York a better place, and in wishing them well in this and many family reunions to come.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time and for the leadership that he has provided on this most important of issues in our international relations. I would also like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), new to this Congress certainly, but not new to the issues regarding Ireland and the civil rights issues that we have seen come so clear in these past few weeks and months. The Good Friday Agreement, which is what we have been talking about for the better part of the afternoon, seemingly died this Good Friday on its first anniversary. The discussions surrounding bringing the government together, as Jerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein said just yesterday, are in free fall. This agreement is a good agreement. It has brought all sides and factions together to form a government. It has been supported by the Republic of Ireland government, it has been supported by the British government, it has been supported by the Clinton administration and by this Congress, and we have played a very constructive and important role, the Members of Congress, and especially the President. At this point, however, it is in danger of going the way of other agreements and other peace arrangements in the history of Ireland. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what the answer is, but it strikes me, and I don't know if anyone else has suggested this, but it strikes me that maybe what we need to do is go to the President and say, Mr. President, you offered George Mitchell's good offices once before, and he was able to bring everyone together and get everyone working together to resolve this. Maybe what we need to do is see if we can enlist George Mitchell once again, the Senator from Maine, to go back and revisit this issue and try to get people back on track and back on board in implementing the original agreement. The original agreement was so finely crafted that nobody could change a comma, a period, a dot, or the crossing of a T. It was very delicate, and maybe he is the only one that can do that again. But this was a good agreement. It needs to be stayed with. It requires the patience of all parties. But it is clear we are off track, and that even the best efforts of our president and the leaders of England and of Ireland have not been able to get parties back on track. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would also suggest that we need to be patient. We need to pray, and we also need to stay in contact with the leadership of those political parties to try to get them to keep working this out. Mr. Speaker, I have just been advised that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) has reached out to Senator Mitchell to try to bring him back into this. I think that is wise, and I certainly support those efforts. Let me conclude by saying that the issue regarding the murder of the civil rights attorney who has been discussed, Ms. Nelson, which has been discussed this afternoon, that inquiry into her death absolutely must be independent of the RUC. The RUC was implicated, not directly, certainly, but by her own testimony before the Committee on International Relations last year. She was concerned about them, about their statements and their actions regarding her own personal security, her inability to reach out to those, to that law enforcement agency, to help her to defend herself against threats against her life. It just makes good sense that they need to be held at arm's length. We have offered the FBI. England has offered her constabulary in Kent. They need to do the investigation. The RUC needs to take a step back, especially given the volatility of the politics of the times, take a step back and let the professionals outside of Northern Ireland conduct this investigation, and do it fairly. Because if no one has any faith in the inquisitor in this, then there will be no faith in the result. There absolutely must be good faith in this process. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on these important issues. I thank my friends and colleagues for bringing this before the Congress, and I urge unanimous support.