Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the gentleman. We did have a lot of good, constructive conversations, and the gentleman helped to make it a better bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], who added some valuable provisions in the taxpayer rights section of this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think if this had been in place, we would have had a better tax bill enacted this summer by the U.S. Congress. I think we would have known more about what the complexities are, not just for the taxpayer but for the tax collection agency.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], chairman of a subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means and former CPA and recovering lawyer, who added a great deal to this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] just said that there is nothing in this legislation with regard to simplification. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is aware, there is for the first time ever in this legislation the requirement that my colleague or I or anybody else who has a new tax idea has to subject it to this simplification analysis. And if we do not do that, my colleague or I or any other Member can raise a point of order on the floor of the House. This is not the flat tax. It is not the sales tax. It is not scrapping the code and starting over. But it is a first small, baby step in the right direction, because every incentive now, as my colleague knows, goes the other way, and he talked about it earlier.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this is an historic moment. We are considering landmark legislation today. It is the first time in 45 years that we have attempted as a Congress to enact fundamental reforms at the IRS. I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bill Archer, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, not just on behalf of me, but really on behalf of the millions of Americans who will be positively affected by this legislation, the taxpayers. For the past year and a half he has consistently supported this reform effort; first, the bipartisan National Commission on Restructuring the IRS that I cochaired, and then the legislation that came out of that Commission. It was the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bill Archer who made this the Committee on Ways and Means' top priority for the fall. It was he who moved it expeditiously for the floor. We would not be here having this debate today if it were not for his support. I also want to thank my cosponsor, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ben Cardin. He worked with me on this legislation long before it was fashionable on his side of the aisle. He looked at the legislation carefully, independently. He judged the bill on its merits, rather than listening to, frankly, the critics in the administration and others. He actually took the time to study it himself. He stood up for what he believed in. As a result, he improved the final product. I want to commend the gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel, senior Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, who I think today as I have heard him talk has just joined the Scrap the Code Tour. But the gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel, played a very important role as a bridge between the Congress and the Clinton administration. This is a very comprehensive and ambitious package of reforms. Members have heard a lot of people talk about it. As such, it is the product of a lot of hard work by a lot of good people: Members and staff of the IRS Subcommittee on Oversight, chaired by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Nancy Johnson, who did a tremendous job on taxpayer rights, electronic filing and other committee issues; the full Committee on Ways and Means staff, many of whom are here today; the Joint Tax Committee staff, Ken Kies and others; the Government Reform and Oversight Committee had jurisdiction over this, and they helped us on this. Regarding the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, talked earlier about the appropriators. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Jim Kolbe, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer, had a lot of input into this process, as did their staffs; and finally, the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules. Both of those committees also had jurisdiction over parts of this comprehensive legislation. Also, I give thanks to the many outside groups who spent a lot of time working on this legislation and gave us valuable input. Then, when we had a good package together, they went out and sold it to their members, the people at the grass roots. The National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the NFIB, the Chamber, Citizens Against Government Waste, and yes, the tax preparer community again gave us valuable input and helped us to put that together. They work closely with the taxpayers and the IRS every day. They know this will help. That is why they are supporting it. Special thanks to people who were there from the beginning, to each member of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, including my cochair, of course, Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska; but also our colleague Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bill Coyne; the Commission staff; and finally, to my own personal staff, who have gone well beyond the call of duty. The Commission conducted a year-long audit of the IRS and made specific legislative recommendations for change. It was successful, I think, for two reasons. First, we kept politics out of it. In fact, we brought expertise in. The people who were represented on the Commission brought the kind of expertise to bear that we needed to solve the real problems at the IRS. Commission members not only included a former IRS Commissioner, the heads of the New York and California State tax systems, but also a small businessman, a representative of the people who work at the IRS, technology experts, taxpayer advocates. And the Commission did its homework. We conducted 15 days of hearings in and out of Washington, interviewed all the senior level IRS managers, and for the first time ever actually conducted interviews with 300 on-line IRS employees to find out from them what the problems were. Finally, we listened carefully to the concerns and stories of the taxpayers who foot the bill. After our year-long audit, we ended up with more than 50 specific reform recommendations for the most comprehensive overhaul of the agency since 1952. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act before us today takes these recommendations and, I think, improves on them. Others have given a good overview of the bill. Let me just touch on a view of the points. First, while this effort focuses on making the tax collection system work much better, not the Internal Revenue Code itself, the commission found, as many of my colleagues have discussed today, that we also need to simplify our Tax Code. We take the first step in doing that in this legislation. We do so by putting in place new legislative incentives for tax simplification as compared to every other incentive around here which is for more complexity. We also force the IRS to be at the table to tell us what a great-sounding new tax legislative proposal is going to result in, in terms of new tax schedules, time for the taxpayer to fill them out, and work for the IRS. The bill also targets Congress by consolidating and streamlining congressional oversight. There are now seven committees that give the IRS advice. We streamline it, and we force these committees to come together and to send a clear and consistent and single message to the Internal Revenue Service from Capitol Hill. The overall thrust of this bill is to make service to the taxpayer, not heavy handed enforcement, but service to the taxpayer the top priority of the IRS. It does so in a number of ways. Importantly, it dramatically increases IRS accountability for getting the job done by establishing a more effective IRS oversight body. You have heard other Members talk about the oversight board today. The important thing is that it brings expertise to the IRS that is absolutely needed and is not there now. Second, it provides continuity, stability of leadership, so that over time we actually have changes that are going to work for the taxpayers so we are not up here 3 or 4 or 5 years from now discussing the same problems. With this input from nongovernmental experts to hold the IRS responsible for answering the phones, getting the computers to work, ensuring that IRS employees are trained, and, yes, treating taxpayers more courteously, with more respect, we will have a new IRS. Much of the media attention has focused on the oversight board, what is often overlooked, is that we actually give the IRS commissioner more power, more tools to be able to manage the agency, to get the job done day-to-day. We give the commissioner a 5-year term so the commissioner's responsibilities go beyond any single administration. We also give the commissioner the ability to bring in his or her own team of senior managers. Charles Rossotti was just confirmed by the Senate this week. I think he will be a good IRS commissioner. He brings management experience and information technology experience that is badly needed. We need to give him these tools because without them, frankly, he is going to have a very difficult job doing what he wants to do, which is to turn the IRS around and make it a taxpayer service organization. Taxpayer rights. If Members saw the Senate Committee on Finance hearings, they know that we do need new rights in legislation for taxpayers. The bill provides us 28 specific new taxpayer rights, like allowing taxpayers to recover damages when the IRS does something wrongful, like the burden of proof shift we have heard about from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and others, like protecting innocent spouses from IRS harassment. All of these are extremely important. They compliment the other provisions of the bill. Very importantly, this legislation also creates a new system within the IRS to evaluate employees. Again, it has been overlooked by many, but this is one of the most fundamental changes in terms of changing the culture at the IRS. The new system would evaluate employees and managers not on the amount of money, taxes, they collect, but on the degree to which they are providing good service to the taxpayer. It also puts in place unprecedented personnel flexibility to allow IRS managers to promote folks who are doing a good job within the agency and, yes, to fire the bad apples at the agency. This is called reinventing government. We are not just talking about it today, we are actually passing legislation to do so. Again, along with the other reforms, this is what is going to change the culture at the IRS. There are many other key provisions in this legislation: Establishing new financial accountability to force the IRS to balance its own books; knocking down barriers to electronic filing, which is a win-win for the taxpayer and the IRS; and, finally, making the taxpayer advocate truly independent so that that taxpayer advocate is indeed an independent advocate for the taxpayer. Taken as a whole, these legislative changes, this whole package, will create a new IRS that treats the taxpayer with respect, gives the taxpayer the service they deserve. We have to remember, this troubled agency touches more Americans than any other Federal entity. Today, all of us as taxpayers are the real winners. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 576]

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Ensign raised a point of order established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 in connection with H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I commend him for doing so. This is another example of how we envisioned this unfunded mandates legislation working. The goal of the Unfunded Mandates Act was not to prohibit Congress from ever considering or enacting legislation that contained unfunded mandates, but to do so after having cost information, a separate debate on whether and how to fund the mandate and a recorded vote on imposing such a mandate. Today, we did that. The House agreed to continue to consider this legislation, notwithstanding the mandates that exist in this bill, after having had full information, separate consideration, and accountability with a recorded vote. I believe the procedure worked well today and continues to be an effective mechanism to ensure that Congress is accountable to the American people for mandates this body may impose on State and local governments as well as the private sector.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a friend and constituent, University of Cincinnati Vice President for Public Affairs Mary Jeanne Klyn. Mrs. Klyn, or MJ as she is known by her many fans, will be retiring in February 1998, after 22 years of service to the university. In 1975, when she came to UC from the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, MJ was named the university's first-ever female vice president. During her term at UC, MJ has developed a legendary reputation as a committed, energetic, and effective representative of the university. She first demonstrated leadership in the successful campaign to bring UC into the State university system. Since then, she has secured stable funding for UC's academic and research programs, and has worked hard for building projects that mark the rebirth of the university's campus. She played a key role in the Shoemaker Center, the Barrett Cancer Center, and the designation of the UC College of Engineering as one of only 10 NASA Federal Research Centers. Throughout her time of service to the university, she has also become known as a dedicated advocate for the entire city of Cincinnati. A consultant to the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, MJ has served as member of the boards of WCET public television and the Cincinnati Convention and Visitors Bureau. She chaired the chamber's Committee to Welcome New Industries, and is a member of Women in Communication, and a recent recipient of their Movers and Shakers Award. University of Cincinnati President Joseph A. Steger said, ``It is rare that we can say in truth that someone is irreplaceable, but M.J. truly is. She has helped orchestrate most of the major strides achieved by the university over the past two decades. There is no question that she is beloved by everyone.'' MJ is beloved in Cincinnati and will be missed by the university. Those of us who have had the privilege of working with her look forward to continuing friendship and wish her well.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the overall fiscal year 1998 Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Conference Report. But I also want to restate my concern over the way in which we were not given the opportunity to vote up or down on the cost-of-living adjustment for Members of Congress during the fiscal year 1998 appropriations process. If I had been given the chance, I would have voted against it. I am a strong supporter of a number of important provisions in the conference report that has returned from the House/Senate Conference Committee, and that is why I feel compelled to support it. These provisions include funding levels that are consistent with the bipartisan IRS restructuring and reform legislation I am sponsoring, including $377 million of critical funding to address the Year 2000 problem in IRS computer systems. It also includes $326 million in needed information technology investments for the IRS. Furthermore, this conference report includes $1.6 billion for activities related to drug abuse. It includes critical funding for the Drug Free Communities Act, which I authored this year to encourage effective community-based drug prevention programs. And, given the recent reports about questionable usage of the White House for political fundraising, it has important provisions to increase accountability for the financing of political events at the White House to ensure that taxpayers are not subsidizing fundraisers. After weighing the overall effect of this legislation, I felt it would be improper to oppose the entire legislation package over the issue of the COLA. That issue has already been debated before this body--where I expressed my opposition.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was pleased to introduce with my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], H.R. 2292--the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997. This bipartisan legislation is an outgrowth of the work of the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, which was charged with taking the first comprehensive look at the IRS since 1952. The commission created a blueprint for transforming the IRS into a world-class service organization that serves all Americans. Now, we are taking the first step toward fulfilling the promise of providing better service to the American taxpayer. Congress created the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service in response to mounting public concerns about the performance of the IRS. The commission was a bipartisan, bicameral effort--I co-chaired the commission with Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat from Nebraska. Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Congressman Bill Coyne, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, also served on the commission. The commission also had considerable expertise--members included a former IRS commissioner and Treasury Department official; a former head of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation; the former head of the New York state tax system; the chairman of the California State Board of Equalization; and a representative of: small businesses; technology firms; taxpayer advocacy groups (Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union); the IRS employees union; and the Clinton administration, including the Treasury Department. During its year-long existence, the commission conducted 12 days of public hearings, held three town hall meetings around the country, and spent over 100 hours in private sessions with public and private sector experts, academics and citizens groups. The commission staff met privately with over 500 individuals, including the majority of senior- level IRS managers, and interviewed almost 300 front-line IRS employees. We received continuous input from various stakeholder groups and the general public. And, the commission had unprecedented access to IRS reports and documents. Early in the course of the commission's work, we developed a simple goal: Taxpayer satisfaction must become paramount at all levels of the IRS. More than twice as many people pay taxes as vote, and the IRS is the only Federal agency that many citizens interact with directly. We must ensure that the IRS meets the public's expectations for professionalism, accountability, and efficiency. And, we must ensure that the IRS works for the taxpayer--not the other way around. In a very real sense, the commission's work was a yearlong audit of the IRS. This legislation is based on the commission's report. It is designed to change the IRS as we know it--to transform the IRS into a responsive service organization for the 21st century. It focuses on solving the problems in our tax system, which fall into three major, cross-cutting areas: First, the complexity of the Tax Code; second, IRS customer service; and third, IRS management, governance, and oversight.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding time to me. I want to start by commending the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bill Archer, because he held firm and worked in a bipartisan way with the gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel, and others to ensure that hard-working Americans are going to get their first tax break in 16 years. They deserve it. What is truly remarkable about this, of course, is we are doing it despite what we might hear from the other side in the context of a balanced budget. A lot of these tax relief provisions are going to help us get to that balanced budget, because they will help grow the economy. It is a sound package overall. I certainly support it. What does concern me about the package is that we did not do more in it to simplify the Tax Code for taxpayers and for the already troubled Internal Revenue Service that is supposed to administer all the things we have passed here on the Hill. Let me be clear, there are some simplification provisions in this bill. We need to talk about those. One is it that most people do not have to worry about capital gains when they sell their homes. That is an enormous benefit for taxpayers and a great simplification. We also get rid of some of the worst aspects of the corporate alternative minimum tax. That is important for tax simplification. AMT relief will help create jobs in this country. Finally, we take away a lot of unnecessary and costly regulations in the State and local pension plans. That is also in this bill. That is a good simplification measure. To be fair, there are a number of things here that add to the complexity; last-minute revisions in the child tax credit, for instance that makes it refundable and in various ways adds enormous complexity. We would have to face up to it, too, that some of the IRA proposals cannot be deemed simplification. But again, I support reducing the tax burden. This is a good package. I commend particularly the chairman for standing firm and making sure we got real relief. But I do think we missed an opportunity. We missed an opportunity to simplify the Tax Code. Now I think the next step should be as a Congress to make this code fairer, flatter, and simpler. That is the next thing we need to do for America, for all of the taxpayers, for the Internal Revenue Service, and for the tax system generally.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to step back a moment and think about what a victory this is for the American people. For the first time in more than a generation we are actually going to balance the budget. We are going to stop spending more than we take in every year, an immoral practice that leaves the bill for the next generation. There has been a lot of discussion about how we got here. I think it really is a tribute to the persistence, to the energy of a lot of Members. One is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. He brought his first balanced budget bill to the floor in 1989, before I got here. He got about 30 votes. The next year he got about 64 votes. The next year he got about 80 votes, then about 100 votes and so on. Today, this afternoon on this floor, I think we will have a bipartisan majority of about 250 votes. I want to commend him and commend all the Members who have worked long and hard to get us to where we are today. It is not legislation that every Member here supports, and all of us would like to see it a little different. But it is a significant step because we are, in fact, doing what we have just talked about for the past couple of decades and that is actually balancing the budget for the next generation. I want to pay tribute to them and to this House this afternoon.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the original sponsor and also the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for their persistence every year bringing this back up to the full House. We need their persistence out there. It is a great commonsense idea. I am delighted the gentleman has just accepted the amendment himself. It is a very commonsense idea to save the taxpayers a little money and also encourages Members to lead by example, and it is a very simple question really. When Members spend less on their office, should it go to this fund where it can be reprogrammed into other uses on Capitol Hill, which as I understand is a three-year fund, or should it go for deficit reduction? As my colleagues know, the answer is quite simple. It actually should probably go pro rata to the constituents and taxpayers of the district the Member represents because they are the ones who in a sense have made the sacrifice. Because that is probably not too practical, at least at this point, then I guess it should go to deficit reduction and as soon as possible. So I want to again commend both of these gentleman for raising this issue again, for bringing to the floor and for a little common sense in our legislative appropriations bill this year.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because I was unavoidably detained, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 333. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``aye''. personal explanation

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, Brown County, OH will celebrate the 100th birthday of its oldest veteran, Col. Thomas Dickinson, tomorrow at the American Legion Hall in Georgetown. Colonel Dickinson has been an active member of the American Legion for 65 years and is a past commander of the Georgetown Post. His life story is a truly remarkable example of patriotism and service. Colonel Dickinson tried for 18 months to enlist in the Army during World War I, but was told by Army doctors that his flat feet and bad heart would keep him out of the service. Nonetheless, he kept trying, and was finally allowed to enlist as a private in 1940--at the age of 43. He served in Europe during the war, in 1946, became Commissioner of Foreign Claims for Berlin. After leaving the military in 1947, he was recalled in 1949 and was sent to Korea in 1951, where he served as a public information officer. During his service in World War II and Korea, he earned 15 service medals, including the Bronze Star. He retired from active duty in 1955, and began work as a legal adviser with the Army Corps of Engineers in 1960. His work with the Corps brought him to Georgetown, and he has kept his home in Brown County ever since, where he and his wife, Eloise, live on U.S. 52 along the Ohio River. I wish him an enjoyable 100th birthday and many more to come.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the energy and water appropriations bill. I believe it's a thoughtful approach to the difficult task of balancing our Nation's energy and water priorities in an era of fiscal restraint. I commend Chairman McDade for his work. I support the $5.45 billion appropriation for the Department of Energy's Environmental Restoration and Waste Management budget, and particularly the $258.7 million included in the bill for the Fernald environmental management project located in my congressional district. This funding level represents an acknowledgement of the Federal Government's responsibility to clean up the hazardous waste sites that it created. Significant progress has been made in cleaning up our hazardous waste sites, including Fernald. But we still have a long way to go. My approach has been to ensure that taxpayer funds for Fernald are used in the most cost-effective manner possible to safely clean up the site. I support the accelerated cleanup plan to achieve these goals and am pleased that the committee report also advocates this approach. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It helps us meet our energy and water priorities responsibly, while still achieving the necessary savings to help us balance the Federal budget by the year 2002.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my support for the fiscal year 1998 Transportation Act and to commend Chairman Wolf and ranking Member Sabo for their fine work on this important legislation. Also, Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the conditions of my support for a small part of this legislation--Federal funding of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky I-71 Corridor project. My support for all past, present, and future funds allocated from the Federal Transit Administration section 3 program to study, select and construct the locally preferred transportation alternative for the congested I-71 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky corridor is based on a 50- 50 match between local/State sources and the Federal Government. In light of our Federal budget crisis and the inability of the Federal Government to fund the bulk of construction costs for major transportation projects, State and local jurisdictions should cover a substantial part of the cost of any new project. Even more importantly, I believe requiring a strong level of local participation will ensure that local communities select the most cost-effective solution to the region's transportation problems. A 50-50 match ensures that the project makes sense. Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit into the Record the text of a letter I received from the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments [OK], our regional transportation planning agency, which codifies the agreement reached between myself and OKI and clearly describes the intention of the local authorities to match the Federal money designated for this project. The text of the letter follows. On behalf of the I-71 Corridor Oversight Committee of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI), and the local communities that constitute its membership, we thank you for your support of our funding requests for the Northeast Corridor Project. This letter is provided in response to your request that we address two matters in connection with the Project. First, the issue of the local funding commitment is addressed. We regret any past misunderstandings which may have contributed to some confusion on this issue. Second, this letter explains the method by which OKI's I-71 oversight Committee has arrived at the cost estimates for the Project. The pending request to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for $500,000 in the Fiscal Year 1998 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act to reassess certain technologies in Northern Kentucky, and the projected $600 million in federal funds (half of the estimated $1.2 billion total project cost) needed for both phases of construction of the locally preferred alternative would be matched fifty percent by local funds. With respect to the Fiscal Year 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act approving $3 million for the preliminary engineering and environmental impact statement, the local governments commit to a fifty percent local match, twenty percent of which will be put up at the time our funding is drawn down and the remaining thirty percent of which would be contributed to the Project during Fiscal Year 1999 when construction gets under way. Local funds are not currently available to match the Fiscal Year 1997 funds on a 50/50 basis, which is why we are proposing to spread the match as described. Had we understood that any of the funding for the study phase of the Project was to be a fifty, rather than twenty, percent match, we would have budgeted for that additional $2.4 million. The second issue on which you have requested clarification concerns the manner in which cost estimates for the Project are prepared. OKI has retained a nationally acclaimed team of consultants headed by Burgess & Niple Limited and includes BRW, Inc. to provide the technical assistance on the major investment analysis, engineering, and other phases of the Project. BRW has assisted other locales where similar transportation improvement projects have been implemented, including Portland Burnside LRT Line, Portland Westside LRT Line, Houston Busway, Salt Lake City LRT South Line, University of Minnesota Busway, I-10 HOV in Phoenix, Los Angeles Blue Line LRT, Calgary LRT System, and the Newark City Subway Extension and Vehicle Base Facility. OKI relies heavily upon the expertise of our consultants in arriving at the best available cost estimates, as each phase of the Project demands. In addition, you should be aware that all of the technologies we have considered are operating in other parts of the country, and, therefore, are ``Known quantities'' with respect to estimating their cost. We share your desire that our estimates be as precise as possible and will continue to make every effort to ensure such precision, despite certain unavoidable ambiguities that are inherent in planning and designing a project of this magnitude. Again, we appreciate your support and assistance, without which we would not have progressed this far. Please feel free to forward this letter to the relevant Committees for inclusion in their official record of the Project funding requests, and call us or the OKI staff if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Larry Crisenbery, President. Bernard J. Moorman, Chairman.