Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just to sum up, we certainly have worked very hard to try to get this bill to where it is today. Basically it is a bipartisan bill. Not everyone is happy with it. Is it the right amount of Federal funds? I believe it is. If we were to reduce another $12 million, $13 million, the District could take that from wherever they decide to take it. We just put $15 million back in for the fire department. I would hate to think that is where it would come from. The fact is this $660 million Federal payment is the amount that was authorized, and is the amount included in our 602(b) allocation. I think it is the right amount, and I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Gutknecht amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Delegate had suggested, very graciously, that she would be willing to limit debate to 40 minutes; that was the number arrived at. We do not need that much time, but I am not sure how much time she will need on that side.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes and that that time be equally divided.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time and the right to close.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased this afternoon to present to the House for its consideration the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. Our many months of public hearings, meetings, and negotiations have produced a strong bipartisan agreement that takes the next step toward reduced deficits, reduced borrowing, and a balanced budget. This is the second budget for the District of Columbia government that I have presented. I am happy to report that the District government, with the help of the Financial Control Board, is making progress, perhaps not as quickly as some of us would like, but progress. In addition to the Control Board, the independent Chief Financial Officer has been in place now for several months and seems to be getting a handle on the District's finances. In last year's bill, we included language that gave him control over all accounting, budget, and financial management personnel. I believe he is doing an outstanding job. He is bringing accountability to the District's finances. He, of course, works closely with the Control Board so that what he does is within the parameters set by the board. Mr. Chairman, we have approved over 99 percent of the consensus budget submitted jointly by the Mayor, the City Council, and the Control Board. This bill will provide the District government with a total budget of $5.155 billion for fiscal year 1997. That amount includes $5.108 billion in operating expenses and $47 million in capital outlay. In the operating expenses category, the bill includes an additional $44 million for police and fire protection over last year's appropriation. We also recommend the requested $8.5 million for increased training of current District employees to improve productivity and management skills. Public school reform was an important part of our bill last year. One of the major items carried in that reform legislation was the authorization of public charter schools. This bill includes $2.8 million to fund 5 charter schools in fiscal year 1997 that will enroll 450 to 600 students. We recommend a total of $718 million in Federal funds consisting of a Federal payment of $660 million which is the same as last year, the regular annual Federal contribution to the police, fire, teachers, and judges retirement funds of $52 million, and $5.7 million to cover the expenses incurred by the District in connection with the Presidential inaugural activities. The bill is within our 602(b) allocation of $718 million in budget authority and outlays. Mr. Chairman, in order to show continuous progress toward balancing the District's budget, we have included language in section 141 starting on page 45 of the bill that holds the deficit down to $40 million rather than the $99 million that was proposed by city officials and the Control Board. I have met separately with the Mayor and the Control Board chairman and I believe this reduction of $59 million in the deficit projection is eminently achievable without affecting basic city services. Some concern has been expressed that we are cutting too much in this budget. Some clarification is required as to what is meant by cutting. What we are cutting, Mr. Chairman, is the increase in spending. We are not cutting below last year's spending level. In fact, the budget reflects increases of $114 million above last year's level. What we are saying to the District in this bill is that it can spend the increase of $114 million if it has the revenues. The message to the District is do not finish fiscal year 1997 with a deficit of more than $40 million. In the financial crisis that the city finds itself in, I believe this is a reasonable approach that will keep the city from going even deeper into debt. This 1-percent reduction pales in comparison to the action taken by the New York City Financial Control Board in its first year. According to testimony we received earlier this month from General Accounting Office officials, New York City's control board in its first year of operation implemented a work force reduction of 13 percent from the previous year's level and it froze the wages of the remaining city employees for 3 years. Philadelphia's control board in its first year renegotiated all labor agreements which led to a 33-month wage freeze and extensively restructured health benefits, paid holidays, and sick leave. I wanted to make that point clear. The reduction we are recommending is from the increase requested, not from last year's appropriation or their base. One of the serious problems with the District's financial management is that it spends up to the appropriated amount regardless of what its revenues are. By doing that, it goes further and further into debt. I do not believe the city can spend itself into prosperity. It must eliminate its deficit spending which amounts to only 1 or 2 percent of the total operating budget. A major concern of several of our committee members is the city's proposal to finance the operating deficits. By saying that, what we are talking about is further borrowing, both long and short-term. This will divert scarce operating revenues from education, from social programs, from public safety and street repair to interest costs paid to the bondholders. The District is considering submitting a proposal to borrow $500 million over 15 years to pay off the accumulated debt and finance future deficits. It would require repayments of $935 million in addition to the $480 million payback on the fiscal year 1991 deficit borrowing. These paybacks shift over $600 million from city programs to interest payments for bondholders. This proposal is not good news for current and future District taxpayers and must be restudied with the objective of spending tax dollars on city programs and not on interest costs. Just as the city cannot spend itself into prosperity, it cannot borrow itself into prosperity. Hard decisions must be made. Mention was made several times last year that our fiscal 1996 bill was a bad bill because we reduced the budget and in effect were telling the District that it could not spend all the revenues it generates. The problem with that criticism is the District's revenue projections were overly optimistic by at least $116 million and possibly by $150 million. Had we not made spending reductions and instead had accepted the city's budget, the fiscal 1996 deficit would now be $270 million rather than the $116 million projected. So we made the right decision last year by reducing the expenditure level because the revenue collections are nowhere near what they had projected. Had we accepted the Control Board's numbers, the deficit would have been $245 million. With the spending we agreed to in conference last year, the deficit was estimated at $20 million, four-tenths of one percent, an amount we thought the city and the Control Board would work with and hopefully eliminate. As we found out since, the deficit will be higher because of the overly optimistic revenue projections. Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that the major structural problems facing the city be dealt with in an aggressive and bold manner. The Federal Government, the District government, and our regional partners all share responsibility for our Nation's Capital. We must address in a comprehensive and coordinated manner the city's delivery of services such as health care, corrections, and other State and county functions. I noticed in the press that the City Council is having some difficulty in doing what has to be done regarding a new retirement system for police officers, firefighters, and teachers. I understand that that has been revisited and some progress has been made but it is only temporary and it must be made permanent. We were promised last October that necessary action would be taken last December. This is an issue that must be resolved in a way that does not bankrupt the city. We have confidence in the Mayor, the Chief Financial Officer, the City Council, and the Control Board to accomplish these difficult but absolutely necessary tasks. In closing, I want to thank all the members of our subcommittee for their assistance in bringing this bill to the House floor--the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]; the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen]; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]; the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]; the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], the ranking member of our subcommittee who preceded me as chairman; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]; and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our ranking minority member, for their assistance in allowing this bill to come to the floor today. Also, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff for a job well done: John Simmons of my staff; Mike Fischetti, who is on detail from the GAO; Mary Porter, who is extraordinary in her technical expertise, she is on detail from the District Government; and Migo Miconi, the subcommittee clerk. They make a great team, and I appreciate all the work they do. Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill we bring to the committee this afternoon is a good bill, one that is fair not only to the city government but also to District taxpayers. I strongly recommend this bill to my colleagues and urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WALSH. asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind consideration of this matter.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. Mr. Chairman, I noted with interest that the report accompanying H.R. 3675 refers to the vessel traffic service system, a VTS 2000. The committee denied the fiscal year 1997 funding request for the VTS 2000 and disallowed the use of the unallocated fiscal year 1996 funds to continue developmnt of the program. This is a program in which government and industry have made significant investments. However, the system as now envisioned was not favorably considered by the committee. Nevertheless, the committee did suggest that the Coast Guard develop a follow-on program as soon as possible to avoid further delay in bringing this valuable technology to the Nation's ports and waterways. I would hope that the distinguished chairman would favorably consider allowing the Coast Guard to use prior year funding to facilitate this effort.

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kolbe amendment and in support of the committee bill. Mr. Chairman, this procurement for the NCAR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, for a supercomputer of Japanese make, Japanese make, NEC, what we are doing is supporting a policy of subsidizing prices of Japanese products by the Japanese Government for sale in the United States. We have a history of this. My background was in telecommunications. I saw it happen in the telecommunications industry. We are talking about a sale of a computer for $35 million that has been estimated to be worth $100 million. If this was a supermarket, this would be referred to as a loss leader. You walk in the door, you buy a quart of milk for 50 cents, and you hopefully, as far as the supermarket is concerned, spend a whole lot more money while you are there. This is a way to get in the door. It is dumping. It is a subsidy. If our laws do not cover this, I would be surprised, but good judgment should. Good judgment should. If the NSF has found themselves a good deal by comparing two fairly similar computers, and they get a similar price so they opt for the Japanese make, that is fine; but the fact is the Commerce Department has determined that NEC is dumping, and we should be supporting that activity. So I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Kolbe amendment, and stop rewarding foreign dumping in the United States.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify a point in the report language of the bill. The report language on the Codes and Standards program would require the Department of Energy to achieve consensus between interested parties before proceeding with any rulemaking, including those mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As Members know, DOE has worked long and hard with manufacturers this year to rethink and revamp its process for promulgating rules to allow much greater industry input into rulemaking. The process improvement efforts will soon come to fruition. I am concerned that a strict interpretation of consensus conveys to any company, organization or interested individual the right to veto any proposed standard, even if DOE has gone the extra mile to address industry concerns or even if there is a broad industry acceptance of the proposal. Mr. Chairman, what does consensus mean in this context?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. amendment offered by Mr. Richardson

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, can we clarify the language in conference to reflect the requirement for consensus is not just a rephrasing of the moratorium that we had last year but a standard of rigor which will be expected of DOE in future rulemakings?

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlemen from Illinois and from Michigan for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I rise today to condemn the arson fires in African-American churches. The good people of central New York whom I represent know that when you see a wrong committed, you must speak out. On their behalf, I want to protest the violence, express our disgust with the hatred, and offer our hand in peace. As we publicly stand with black Americans we hope to show people of violence one thing--that it is they who are in the minority. It is they who will be overcome. It is we, the majority, the peacemakers, black and white, who will inherit the Earth. Hatred that spawns violence is not natural or normal. It is foreign to us at birth. We see that the children do not hate. They do not segregate themselves. They do not act violently toward others of a different skin color--unless they are taught. We can learn from the children. In fact, we must if we are to survive as a great civilization. Today, as the fire investigation continues, I want to say to my friends in this Chamber who are African-American, and to my friends back home, please continue to have faith that most Americans do not hate. With you, we are the majority in the greatest country on Earth. No purveyors of hate or prejudice will take that from us.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. We are not going nearly far enough to support American agriculture. We have 2 percent of the population of this country feeding the world, and we need to do all that we can to support this activity.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have all afternoon heard about these terrible corporate welfare programs. The reformers are out to knock off these corporate welfare programs and sugar and tobacco and peanuts, and now apples and grapes. Do my colleagues not understand that what we are doing is we are going after the American farmer? My distinguished colleague from downstate New York, where all the people are, does he realize that upstate New York is where a lot of the food comes from, and he is well in the same State, and when he comes upstate to talk about whatever it is that he wants to talk about, we are going to remind him that the farmers in upstate New York benefit from these programs. These are small farmers. We heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] talk about the peanut farmer who is going to be hit when we went after these big corporations. American corporations are in a global market. When in a market place, there is need to advertise; if in a global market, advertise globally. The apple farmers in New York State and Washington State and Oregon and Michigan have benefited from this program. Let me just cite one example. A couple of years ago the French apple crop failed. Many of those apples found their way to Israel. The New York State Commissioner of Agriculture, using market promotion funds, was able to go to the Israel marketplace, put our best foot forward, and we sold that market millions of dollars' worth of apples. That was a successful program. There is nothing wrong with American corporations making money. That is what capitalism is all about. And if we are going to make money overseas in a global marketplace, let us advertise globally, and the gentleman paraphrased Santayana about learning from history. If the gentleman would learn from history, he would understand this amendment failed last year and the year before, and I expect it to fail again. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I pledge that I will pursue this aggressively with the Senator from New York and see if we can get these reforms passed.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of our bill, H.R. 3603, and its accompanying report that provides funding for agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. I commend the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. I tell both of them that I enjoyed very much working with them and the cooperation that they have shown me throughout this process and to all of us. I would also like to thank the subcommittee staff for the great work that they did. In this bill we have had to make very difficult choices. The subcommittee had to reduce discretionary spending by over $500 million, causing painful reductions in rural housing and development programs. Nevertheless, we have continued to provide sufficient funding for critical agricultural research. In fact, we increased it by $47 million, and the total amount for ag research is $1.5 billion. Spending on agriculture research enables the American farmer to deliver an abundant and affordable food supply to a largely urban population and to a hungry world and provides for a large portion of the American trade surplus. I am also glad to report that this bill provides critical funding for conservation programs. Conserving, improving, and sustaining our natural resources and environment has to be one of our Nation's top priorities. Agriculture today is facing greater challenges than ever before in meeting public demands for environmental protection. Agriculture has been identified as a major contributor to nonpoint source water pollution. In fact, water quality is the most rapidly emerging issue impacting on agriculture today. This appropriations bill provides the Soil Conservation Service with the necessary resources to provide planning and technical assistance for watershed projects and to help farmers implement conservation compliance plans on highly erodible lands. With many of our Nation's rivers and lakes being threatened by agricultural related nonpoint source pollution, we need to utilize best management practices to conserve our soil and water resources. These practices would include soil erosion control, animal waste management, plant nutrient management, the building of manure lagoons and pesticide and chemical management. The benefits from this conservation planning will result in reduced erosion and sedimentation, cleaner water, reduction of health hazards, improved fish and wildlife habitat, and protection of wetlands and flood prevention. In this bill we are also able to expand the wetlands reserve by providing an additional 130,000 acres of wetlands. Last year the committee was not able to provide any funding for this program. While I would have liked to have seen more lands set aside for wetlands protection, this committee has added eight new States to the Wetlands Reserve Program and enrolled 130,000 additional acres so that we can better preserve and protect our precious wetlands. This bill was a real challenge in terms of our priorities, but we strongly funded our nutrition programs. We increased funding for the School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult Program, Food Program, the Food Stamp Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program; all of these programs were increased in funding. There was a lot of political hay made last year about cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, but a lot of untruths were being told at the time. All of the nutrition programs in fact are increasing. WIC was held constant, however. There was a large surplus carried over from last year that will help to fund the program. We are committed to the nutrition of this Nation and to providing everyone who is in difficulty with the proper nutrition that we can and should provide. Mr. Chairman, I strongly, again, appreciate your hard work on this and the ranking member and urge its adoption.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].