Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to clarify a couple of points just raised. I would remind the distinguished ranking member of the full committee that the Constitution of the United States, article 1, section 8, paragraph 17, empowers the Congress of the United States to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District. Clearly, he would not argue with the founding fathers of this Nation who suggest that this is our responsibility.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on the agriculture appropriations. I would like to congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for the excellent job that they did in conference in holding to most of the House positions. I think they have really worked hard to bring a bill to the floor that even the critics can support, or may have a small problem with, but overall, this is a good, solid bill. Let me give you some of the reasons why we should vote for this. First of all, it is almost $5 billion below last year's level. It supports the reorganization of the USDA. It consolidates and reduces by 25 percent the funding available for USDA congressional affairs activities. It reforms the market promotion plan, the market promotion program. It dramatically increases funding from the original bill for rural housing, which is of critical importance to our rural communities, and in New York, where we do have, believe it or not, rural communities, this is a big help. It provides $488 million for rural water and waste disposal grants and loans, which is critical, given the difficulty that small communities have in meeting EPA standards. It provides additional funding for WIC, which is a very important and popular program. There are so many reasons to vote for this and so few not to. I would really urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. This bill is far too important to recommit it back to the conference because of basically a dispute between Arkansas and California chicken farmers. That is really what it comes down to. Please give us the opportunity to pass this on to the President. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, vote ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WALSH. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], along with my good friend the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. Mr. Chairman, section 401 of H.R. 927 would exclude from the U.S. aliens who have confiscated property of U.S. nationals or who traffick in such property. The report on H.R. 927 by our Committee on International Relations relates that the Department of State is actively engaged in prosecuting hundreds of confiscation claims of U.S. citizens in Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Cuba. The report then states: Persons who are responsible for these confiscations or who are trafficking in such property should be among those initially targeted for exclusion under this section. I have been working to bring to resolution an egregious expropriation executed by the Dominican Republic's military against Western Energy Inc. Western Energy is a U.S. company that was operating an important liquid petroleum gas facility in the Dominican Republic and operates a similar facility in my district in New York. Would the distinguished gentleman agree that the confiscators and traffickers in this case should also be among those initially targeted for exclusion?

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 670 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present in the Chamber, I would have noted ``aye'' on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, Vivien Norman, the mainstay of my district office in Auburn, NY, and my ear to ground in all of Cayuga County in upstate New York, is as much a part of the fabric of Cayuga County as any officeholder, past or present, any businessman or woman, any farmer or merchant, any industrialist, prison guard, or health care professional. In many of our minds, she is the person to call to confirm news, flesh out a rumor, recall details or to set up a meeting. In our hearts, she is intelligent, friendly, uniquely humorous, and eminently dependable. She is retiring now, at a young but wise age. Her history in service to four Congressmen, including my father, William F. Walsh, is a story of helping people. I am as proud to [[Page E 1750]] have been associated with her as I am sad to see her go. Because of her experience, I have been able to run an efficient office on the western border of my district from the very first day. Because of her local knowledge, I have had an intense education--of the area, its people, and its unique strengths and needs. I was able to hit the ground running in Auburn after reapportionment included about half the city of Auburn in my new district in 1992. Even in a confusing situation wherein three congressional districts were designated parts of the city, Vivien provided leadership for all of us, and never forgot that the needs of constituents come first. My wife DeDe and I have found Vivien and her husband Paul Norman, also an active public servant over the years, to be genuinely caring people who are in their private lives every bit as civic-minded as they appear in public. We will miss them. We wish them well in this new and exciting phase of their lives. And we hope that all the good Vivien has done for others comes back to her 100-fold.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Sanders amendment. This amendment would only succeed in preventing potentially promising new drug development that would benefit all Americans. The Federal Government cannot be expected to do all research by itself. NIH has neither the mandate nor the resources to bring drugs to the commercial market. In order to speed the development of new life- saving drugs, NIH often benefits from working with business and this cooperation enhances the health of all Americans. We should not be putting price controls on the development of new drugs as this amendment would do. The NIH reasonable pricing clause, which proponents of this amendment would like to reinstate, is a restraint on the new product development that the public has identified as an important return of their taxpayer dollars. We need to be proactive in finding important new cancer drugs and in other significant health advances. One of NIH's statutory missions is to transfer promising technologies to the private sector for commercialization. Often government-industry joint collaborations are the most effective means of ensuring that promising new drugs are brought to market in the shortest possible timeframe. The Director of the National Cancer Institute has said that the drug Taxol is the most important advance in the treatment of cancer in a decade. We should not be afraid of industry making a reasonable profit on their R&D (research and development) expenditures. After all, a business needs to be able to recoup its return on investment and, in case you haven't noticed, we are a capitalist country not a socialist country. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is one of the few sectors of the economy where we have a positive trade balance and this healthy private/public partnership has created a positive environment in which medical advances have proliferated and this has benefited all segments of our society. Clearly the taxpayers' investment wins a valuable return portion in jobs and public health. This amendment would have the adverse effect of inhibiting the development of innovative medical breakthroughs and it would be contrary to the public interest. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and my good friend from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] just talked about special interests. The special interests who are looking for some help from this Congress are 30-acre onion farmers, and apple farmers, and grape growers in upstate New York and throughout the Nation. One of these riders would preclude the EPA from enforcing the Delaney clause. The Delaney clause says, and it is a 50-year-old, 40-year-old law, that we cannot have any, zero tolerance, zero chemical residues on our food. It is unenforceable. Director Kessler from the FDA says it is unenforceable. Director Browner sued because she said it was unenforceable. Mr. Espy and Mr. Glickman also agreed on the record that the Delaney clause is unenforceable. What we are saying is do not enforce the Delaney clause. The Supreme Court upheld a circuit court that says, just because this is in the law you have to enforce it, whether it is unenforceable or not. There is another issue here. Authorizing committees are supposed to authorize; appropriators are supposed to appropriate. The authorizing committee, the Committee on Agriculture, the committee of jurisdiction, has already marked up a bill. The Committee on Commerce soon will markup a bill. This issue has been held up for years. It should have been resolved years ago. Now, what does all this mean? What it means is, if a farmer in the district of my good friend and neighbor and colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], from Canastota is growing onions right now, and they are, and the EPA delicenses a pesticide that it licensed 2 years ago under the same standard, it is now going to delicense that pesticide, same pesticide, same minimal negligible risk. If that farmer cannot use that pesticide on his onions, growing in organic soil, and there is only one chemical application for that disease, he cannot use that pesticide, that disease can wipe out his crop, and he loses everything. There is no agriculture support program for onions. There is no other course for that farmer than to use that pesticide. This is important. It will be authorized, but in the meantime we have got to respect the growing season, too. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member, for their strong leadership in this area. Mr. Chairman, this vote is critically important to New York State and the northeast corridor, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. We have overcrowded airports in New York and in the northeast corridor. This is the best way to get people moved around. This has already been reduced from $35 million to $15 million. There is demonstrated support for high-speed rail in New York and in the rest of the northeast corridor. This is Governor Pataki's top appropriations legislative priority at the Federal level. I urge a strong vote in opposition to this amendment and a strong vote in support of high-speed rail.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Corporate welfare, they say? The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] spoke of several of America's larger corporations. How about Bekins Skiff Orchards, how about McCluskey Farms, or western New York State apple growers? This program impacts on our farmers positively. The MPP program, just this year, opened up a great new market for New York State apples in Israel. Trade sources in Israel report the market potential is 50,000 metric tons per year. This year we sold thousands of pounds of apples from New York State, upstate New York, to Israel. This means jobs. It means real income to our farmers all over the country, not just in New York. Stop this big city assault on our family farms. Vote ``no''.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this amendment would preclude any corporation with more than $20 million in annual gross sales from participating in the program. How long are we going to hear about rich versus poor, big versus little? I would remind my colleagues, if you are looking for a job, do you turn it down because the company is too big? No. We are talking about jobs, good jobs. Larger companies often provide higher paying jobs with better benefits. Besides, these companies buy products from smaller companies. This program contributes to our positive agricultural trade surplus. Let us not divide and be conquered. Stand up for all American agriculture. Vote ``no'' on Obey.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this terribly insensitive amendment and attack on our Public Law 480 program.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman from Delaware's amendment. We all agree on the importance of this program. The difficulty is our subcommittee has spent countless hours allocating very scarce resources to the many important programs that we have. This delicate balance that we have woven together is affected very heavily by the offsets that the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] provides, so I look forward to, in title II of this bill, supporting Mr. Callahan's amendment to do precisely the same thing, just not at the same magnitude.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I share the gentleman's concerns about cutting farm programs and not cutting the bureaucracy. I do not think the gentleman fully understands that this committee has made significant reductions in what he calls the bureaucracy in this bill. This bill does make real cuts in real programs, downsizes the Federal Government and ensures the most efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. Let me just cite several examples. All the programs that the gentleman's amendment proposes to reduce, with three exceptions, have already been reduced in this bill by $2.5 million. The Office of the Chief Economist: This office established pursuant to USDA reorganization by transfers was reduced by $66,000 below the 1995 level. Office of Budget and Program Analysis was reduced by $104,000. Congressional Relations: The committee recommendation consolidated all the congressional affairs and activities into one account and cut it by 25 percent. Economic Research: The committee recommendation is $805,000 below the 1995 level, or $1.5 million below the budget request. The National Agricultural Statistics Service is $317,000 below the 1995 level. Mr. Chairman, we take our role very seriously in budget cutting. I think the committee has produced a bill that is responsible. I urge the Members of the House to support the committee's recommendation and defeat the gentleman's amendment. We have tried our level best to do the best we could with what we had. I think that this amendment goes too far and undoes some of the fine work that we have done.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, in the movie ``Cool Hand Luke,'' one of my favorites, perhaps the most memorable line was that of the boss of a prison labor camp to a recalcitrant Luke: ``What we have here is a failure to communicate.'' Well, that is what we have had here with these new regulations for meat inspection. There was bad faith between and among the stakeholders--FSIS, the inspectors, consumer activists, the industry, the State departments of agriculture and the USDA. We set about to solve this problem. My amendment would have established a negotiated rulemaking, a statutory process, formalized and detailed. It would have established this needed dialog--a process for communication. I did this because some of the principals had no faith in the current dialog. I did it out of a concern that small businesses might be put out of business for no good reason. And I did it, in spite of what critics said, out of a concern that there would be a delay in implementing the new higher standards because of lengthy litigation. I truly believed that given the alternatives we had, this was the best way to proceed. Obviously others disagreed with this approach. Mr. Durbin of our subcommittee and Secretary of Agriculture Glickman took issue. They said it was a delay, but they admitted there were problems with the process. We worked together, sometimes at odds, but always in the direction of finding the common ground. On Tuesday the Secretary sent a letter that I reviewed with Mr. Roberts, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture; Mr. Skeen, chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations; and Mr. Gunderson, chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. All felt that the Secretary's personal commitment to involve himself was not only important but critical to providing good faith in a new, more inclusive process. The Secretary pledged a number of things. Mr. Chairman, I include the letter from Secretary Glickman for the Record. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC, July 18, 1995. Hon. James Walsh, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Jim: I appreciated the frank exchange of ideas during our recent meeting on the meat and poultry inspection regulatory process. That and other discussions I have had with Members of Congress convince me that we are all seeking the same goal of modernizing and improving the current meat and poultry inspection system to provide the safest possible food to the American consumer. I am personally committed to ensuring a thoughtful, thorough, and objective analysis by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) of all comments. Unfortunately, I cannot agree that your amendment which requires the Department to establish a committee and await its report before moving forward is the best means of attaining our common objective. The unnecessary delay involved in suspending the current regulatory process is not consistent with the need to move to a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) based inspection system as quickly as possible. I sincerely share the desire to ensure that the regulatory process carefully weighs all relevant viewpoints in an undertaking of this magnitude. I therefore intend to create, as part of the rulemaking process, focused and extensive public meetings for direct discussion of the key concerns that were raised during the comment period. These public meetings will begin within the next few weeks and will provide all interested parties the opportunity for direct discussion of the major issues as well as other issues identified during the comment period and possible options for resolving these issues. Participants will include representatives of all stakeholders, including industry, producers, the scientific community, consumers, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and my office. These public meetings will be held to ensure that all outstanding questions are explored thoroughly and a full and frank discussion and exchange of ideas occurs. These meetings will be part of the record upon which the final rule is based. Furthermore, I intend to host personally a food safety forum this summer to identify both legislative and regulatory mandates that need to be changed to improve and reform the system. The public meetings and forum will not unnecessarily delay the issuance of a final rule and should reassure all parties that the regulatory process has included a comprehensive debate of all significant issues and related concerns. While the adoption of a HACCP-based inspection system is needed, it is also important to address the integration of the new HACCP system into the current meat and poultry inspection system. I fully understand the importance of preventing bureaucratic layering and ensuring the best utilization of public and private funds. To ensure this second step of regulatory modernization and integration is achieved, FSIS will soon publish a comprehensive set of rulemaking notices to review current FSIS regulations, directives, policy notices, and policy memoranda. To be consistent with the HACCP-based inspection system, USDA will then review, revise, or repeal its existing regulations, as needed. I have directed FSIS to accelerate its work in this area. I am firmly committed to seeing that all existing food safety and inspection regulations are improved so redundancy is eliminated. Our proposed regulatory actions to achieve those objectives, which will include addressing integration of the HACCP system and the current system, will be published in the Federal Register before the HACCP final rule is published and any additional regulatory actions necessary to achieve these objectives will be completed before HACCP is required to be implemented. I am making these commitments recognizing that a successful food safety system depends upon an active partnership among government, producers, industry, processors and the consuming public. I hope that with these steps we can avoid a divisive legislative debate and proceed together toward our common goal of improving our inspection system. Sincerely, Dan Glickman, Secretary. Mr. Chairman, most important is the Secretary's effort to put good faith back into this. He is a new Secretary and we need to give him this opportunity. The agreement that Secretary Glickman, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Durbin, and I worked out is Government at its best. It demonstrates that the executive and legislative branches can work together in good faith to do the people's business. That is the reason we were sent by our constituents to Congress, and I firmly believe that this entire legislative process has benefitted the public, the industry, and will result in a safer food supply for American families. Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I have made my motion to strike the bill language.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. History is a marvelous teacher. This argument that the future, the future of the family farm will be affected by this vote, I think, is somewhat in doubt. Several hundred years ago, there was a group of individuals in England, I believe, referred to as the Luddites who opposed the imposition, ``imposition,'' of mechanization tractors on farmers. They went around hitting the tractors with hammers. In the early 1970's, I, as a Peace Corps volunteer, went to Asia to work as an agriculture extension agent. India was a net importer of grains and there was a marvelous American scientist named Norman Borlaug who developed the triple gene variety of wheat, it was a dwarf variety of wheat that outproduced the domestic varieties, the native varieties by twofold without fertilizer, merely by just changing the seed. By adding fertilizer, you could increase yields by fourfold. The net result is India now exports wheat and rice. Yes, we are losing family farms. New York in the 1980's lost 10 percent of its farms per year. That was 10 years before bST was licensed to be used in the United States. It is more of a function of high property taxes that is driving small family farms out of business. Too much Government is the answer there. Mr. Chairman, we all have concerns about bST. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] explained quite clearly, as did the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]. We had 10 years of testing in the laboratory before it was even brought to the farm for field tests. And once it was brought to the farm for field tests, the results were positive. There was some increase in mastitis because the animals were milked more.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I thank my good friend the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all rise in strong support of this rule and commend our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], who has worked very, very closely with our ranking minority member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], on this bill all the way along. The same sense of fairness that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] presented last year, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has reciprocated, and we have all worked very closely on this together. Let me just say, I hope we can pass this rule today. I think it is a good rule. It provides for full and open discussion. It is an open rule. I do not think they get any better than that. Let me just suggest, regarding this amendment that I had offered in the subcommittee and full committee which was accepted, that if there is indeed a compromise worked out, that would be fine. But I want to make sure that the compromise does not gut the amendment. I think it is very important to show that the subcommittee and the full committee support this amendment for good reasons, because this legislation, the standards that have been proposed by the Secretary will in fact change the way meat is inspected. The meat industry supports that idea. They support the higher standards. I think everyone does. It is how we get to them that matters. What I have proposed is simply a 9-month process of negotiated rulemaking that would allow all the principals to come together, work out the differences, everyone be on equal footing, no one with special promises, everyone working basically with a plain white canvas with the same set of paints to get to a finished product on this legislation. This is not a delay in any sense. In fact, if this negotiated rulemaking process were followed, I think we would avoid a lot of lengthy, costly lawsuits. But again, if a compromise is worked out that is fair to everyone, I am going to support it. But I have not seen that agreement yet. I have worked very closely with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. I have discussed this fully with the staff, with the agriculture commissioner, and we are working conscientiously to resolve this important issue, and it is an important issue. But just let me enter a couple of facts into this. First of all, 90 percent of the meat currently inspected in this country meets these higher standards. We are talking about 10 percent. Also, let me say 90 percent of food-borne illness in this country comes not from meat processing but from the failure to cook it properly, and the Secretary would do us all a service if he would get up on his bully pulpit and tell people: ``Cook your hamburger, cook it; cook it until it is black if you have to, but cook it,'' because that is where the problem is. It is not steaks and chops and poultry and so on. It is because of the way that hamburger is made that we have so much problem with that meat. So cook it. If we did that, if we would all cook it properly, we could substantially reduce this problem. I thank the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] all for their interest. If there is to be a compromise, I will support it, but it has to be a real compromise.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the initiative the House has approved against expropriation in the Dominican Republic in the report accompanying H.R. 1868, the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations bill. [[Page H 6768]] This initiative grew specifically from an egregious expropriation executed by the Dominican Republic's military in April 1994 against Western Energy, Inc. Western Energy is a United States company that was then operating an important liquid petroleum gas facility in the Dominican Republic, and operates a similar facility in my district. The expropriation of Western Energy's property was clearly premeditated, and, I understand, in total disregard of specific Dominican contractual procedures for dispute resolution and without any opportunity for Western Energy to be heard or defend itself. The loss is very substantial for the company, but efforts to resolve the situation have thus far been unavailing. Mr. Chairman, if the initiative the House has approved does not lead to a resolution of the expropriation Western Energy has suffered, then I urge my distinguished colleagues to support further steps to achieve that objective at the earliest opportunity. The United States must not tolerate expropriation of United States property in the Dominican Republic, and around the world.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my good friend Amo Houghton to transfer $15 million in funding to the Congressional Research Service for the transfers of functions and personnel from the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA]. Efforts to eliminate funding for this program are a short-sighted move that Congress will regret as the OTA is an invaluable resource in determining the budgetary impact of new scientific developments. The OTA is a bipartisan agency that relies on technical and scientific expertise from a broad cross-section of industry, academia, and other well-respected institutions. The reports that OTA submit to congressional committees are thorough, top-notch documents that provide expert guidance in advising how Congress should adapt to emerging technologies. Furthermore, OTA is an efficient, unbiased organization that has made recommendations which have saved the U.S. Government millions of dollars. For example, the OTA's study of a Social Security Administration plan to purchase computers helped save the Government $368 million. Other OTA recommendations have been influential in public policy decisions. OTA's reports on preventative Medicare services validated the benefits of mammography screening in the elderly. Another study demonstrated how cost prohibitive it would be to institute cholesterol screening in the elderly. The point I am trying to make is that OTA is a proven organization that provides tangible benefits, expertise, and savings to Congress. Efforts to eliminate all of the functions and personnel of the OTA are misguided and I urge my colleagues to support the Houghton amendment.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Friends of Ireland, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the International Fund for Ireland and the MacBride Principles. The time is right. The current peace process in the North provides a context in which our assistance will be most valued. And our willingness to reward nonviolent problem solving could not be shown more clearly. Our historical tie to Ireland is a lifeline--not for victory in armed struggle, but for economic success in peacetime. We have a humanitarian interest at stake, and an economic interest. Because Ireland has a highly skilled, educated work force. It is a gateway to Europe, and a potential market for American companies. Regarding the MacBride Principles, I personally believe that despite the cease-fire and despite advances in the peace process, systemic prejudice still exists in the North. The MacBride Principles will guarantee that U.S. tax dollars are targeted at unemployment in the areas that will bring the best peace dividend. Our economic assistance has helped Ireland get this far in its struggle for peace, and will continue to help create an infrastructure of hope. I urge support for this measure.