Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we bring before the House the conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, H.R. 4112, and ask my colleagues for their support. This conference report is a bipartisan agreement, worked out with our colleagues in the other body, with a unanimous vote among the conferees. Before I begin to highlight the agreement, I would like to recognize every member of the subcommittee for their contribution to this work product: On the majority side, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); from the minority side, my good friend and colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). All of these Members worked as a team to produce this final conference report. Our original bill, H.R. 4112, and now the conference report, reflect the hard work and the dedication of a tireless staff from both sides of the aisle. I would like to again thank Ed Lombard, Art Jutton, Tom Martin, Lucy Hand, Greg Dahlberg, and Johanna Kenny for their daily contributions needed to produce our final product. Lastly, I believe it is of great importance to also thank every employee who serves here in the People's House, and we see them all around us. Without your dedication, this House simply could not function. On behalf of every Member honored to serve here, I want to say a simple but sincere thank you all for a job well done. We, the Members, deeply appreciate your efforts. Mr. Speaker, let me begin to summarize the conference report. To summarize, the conference agreement appropriates $2.3 billion in new budget authority to the Congress and the support agencies and offices of the Legislative Branch. This amount is $116.8 million below the amount requested in the President's budget. That is a 4.7 percent reduction. Compared to the current level, the $2.3 billion is a slight increase over the $2.28 billion appropriated last year. The 2.7 percent increase overall is below the prospective 3.6 percent cost of living allowance that will probably be given to all Federal employees, including the Legislative Branch staff. This conference agreement appropriation level is $41 million below the amount appropriated for the Legislative Branch in 1995, four years later. So the downsizing program begun under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), in the 104th Congress, is still intact. The House conferees were instructed to concur in the Senate amendment on the Capitol Police which restored $4,197,000 in reductions made by the House bill. The conferees did that. In fact, the conference agreement is above both the House and Senate amendment level with respect to the Capitol Police. The House bill appropriated $76,381,000 for police salaries and expenses, the Senate appropriated $80,578,000 and the conference report is $83,081,000. So we have complied with the House instructions to the conferees, and in the spirit of the instruction we have added additional amounts to fund the parity pay and longevity increases requested for the men and women of our police force who have served us so courageously. A few other highlights, Mr. Speaker. The Legislative Branch jobs, the positions in the Legislative Branch have been reduced another 405 FTEs below the current year. The adjustment to the House-passed items agreed to include: The conferees added $9.4 million above the House bill for the Architect of the Capitol, which will fund several security-related projects. Under the Architect, the funds to design an integrated security program and other security design costs for police activities, $1.5 million; funds to begin replacement of the aging chillers at the Capitol Power Plant, $5 million; and funds to uniform the workers of the Architect for security reasons, $193,000. The conferees also agreed to language which makes permanent the authorization of the American Folk Life Center at the Library of Congress. The conferees also agreed to provide $1 million to be matched by 1 million private dollars raised by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to maintain in perpetuity the Congressional Cemetery. The Congressional Cemetery was determined to be one of the 11 most endangered historic sites in America. Our subcommittee, working together with the Senate, decided that we would appropriate $1 million of taxpayer funds to be used as matching funds to maintain this by setting up a trust fund. The cemetery, as I mentioned before, is not a place where we are entitled to go when we pass on to our final reward. Members of Congress are not buried there by entitlement. If we wish to be, we can be, as have other members of the Legislative and Executive Branch, individuals who have worked in all capacity for the government, and private citizens. It is run as any other cemetery is. It is just that given its historic nature, we felt that a commitment should be made, since it had fallen into disrepair. We are very proud of this, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully this will be a contribution that this subcommittee has made to our posterity. Again, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who I look forward to working with on a bipartisan basis when the New York Yankees win this year's world series. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present the conference report on the FY1999 legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 4112. To summarize, the conference agreement appropriates $2.3 billion ($2,349,937,100) in new budget authority to the Congress and the support agencies and offices of the legislative branch. This amount is $116.8 million ($116,829,500) below the amount requested in the President's budget. That is a 4.7% cutback. Compared to the current level, the $2.3 billion is a slight increase over the $2.28 billion appropriated for fiscal 1998. The 2.7% increase is below the prospective 3.6% cost of living adjustment that will probably be given to all Federal employees--including the Legislative branch staff. This conference agreement appropriation level is $41 million below the amount appropriated for the legislative branch in 1995. So, the downsizing program begun in the 104th Congress is still intact. The House conferees were instructed to concur in the Senate amendment on the Capitol Police which restored $4,197,000 in reductions made by the House bill. The conferees did that. In fact, the conference agreement is above both the House bill and the Senate amendment with respect to the Capitol Police. The House bill appropriated $76,381,000 for Police Salaries and Expenses, the Senate appropriated $80,578,000, and the conference agreement provides $83,081,000. So, we have complied with the instruction of the House to the House conferees, and in the spirit of the instruction, we have added additional amounts to fund the parity pay and longevity increases requested for the men and women of our police force. Highlights of the conference report: Operations of the Senate: $469.4 million ($469,391,000); operations of the House: $734.1 million ($734,107,700); joint items (Joint committees, Capitol police, guide service, etc.): $96.1 million ($96,134,400); Architect of the Capitol: $201.9 million ($201,910,000), including the Botanic Garden and Library buildings; Library of Congress: $363.6 million ($363,640,000), including the Congressional Research Service; Congressional Budget Office: $25.7 million ($26,671,000); Office of Compliance: $2.1 million ($2,086,000); Government Printing Office: $103.7 million ($103,729,000); and General Accounting Office: $354.3 million ($354,268,000), plus a transfer of unexpended balances of FY1998 funds. I will include a table showing details and a list of the highlights of the conference agreement. It may be of some interest to compare the conference agreement to the bill that passed the House on June 25. As is customary, that bill did not contain funds for the operations of the Senate. The House bill, without the Senate, was $1.8 billion. For those same items, the conferees agreed to a level of $1.82 billion. The House came up by $21.7 million, in order to pay for some urgently needed projects. That is an increase of only 1.2%. So, the House conferees did well. The result is an increase of $61.6 million over the current year for House-considered items. That is 2.7% above the FY1998 level and well within the prospective 3.6% staff cost of living increase that we are told will be granted by the Administration. In addition, Legislative Branch jobs have been reduced 405 FTE's below the current year. The adjustments to House-passed items agreed to include: The conferees added $9.4 million above the House bill for the Architect of the Capitol which will fund several security-related projects. Under the Architect: Funds to design an integrated security program and other security design costs for Police activities ($1.5 million); funds to begin replacement of the aging chillers at the Capitol Power Plant ($5 million); and funds to uniform the workers of the Architect for security reasons ($193,000). At the Library: $2.25 million to digitize the collections and commemorate two important aspects of this country's history; and $993,000 for theft detection tags for materials in the Library's collections Another item of concern to the conferees was the funding for the Capitol Police. The conferees agreed to provide additional funds for pay initiatives requested by the Capitol Police Board. However, the funds remain fenced, pending approval of the appropriate authorities. Several legislative matters were agreed to in conference. For congressional printing, a long-standing provision (carried in the House bill) on availability of funds to pay printing costs has been retained. The conferees agreed to a modification of Senate language that relates to billing procedures. There is an administrative provision that provides for investment on National Garden gift funds in Federal securities. Under title III of the bill, the House agreed to drop a provision for the Architect to use energy savings contracts for capital projects. We understand that the energy savings already in place reduce the appeal of the Capitol campus for such approaches. In addition, the conferees agreed to language for the buyout programs for the Architect and Public Printer. The language requires each agency to pay into the Civil Service Retirement Fund to offset the cost of early retirements. This is similar to other Federal buyout programs. The conferees have retained a provision added as a House Floor amendment requiring the Architect to develop an energy savings strategy. The conferees agreed to language which makes permanent the authorization of the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress. The conferees also agreed to an amendment of a Senate provision relating to charges to the Government Printing Office by the Employee's Compensation Fund at the Department of Labor. The amended language removes GPO as an agency responsible for administrative costs of the fund, in accord with an opinion issued by the Comptroller General. Two House housekeeping provisions were also added, at the request of the House Oversight Committee. Summary In summary, the bill provides $2.3 billion ($2,349,937,100). It is 4.7% ($116.8) million below the requests in the President's budget. FTE levels have been reduced by 405. The bill maintains a smaller legislative branch as established by the policies set in the 104th Congress. And it provides stability to those operations that must support our legislative needs. I urge the adoption of the conference report. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE98.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE98.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE98.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE98.004

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 550, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4112) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4112) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to accept the gentleman's motion to instruct the conferees. I think it is very constructive. It puts the House squarely in a position where we see the wisdom of the Senate's decision to fund these given the events that my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has mentioned, especially the tragic events that occurred last month involving the loss of our two officers, Chestnut and Gibson. We really need to enhance our security, and certainly we need to reward the professionalism and the high quality of service provided by our Capitol Hill Police. So we see this as constructive and support the motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct and that I may include tabular extraneous material.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I will withhold my comments until we hear from the gentleman from downstate New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, Monday morning, Labor Day, about 1 a.m., my family and I awoke to a storm of such magnitude and destruction that I have not witnessed in my 50 years in my hometown of Syracuse. When it abated, two were killed, dozens were injured, with millions of millions of dollars of property damage to homes and businesses. The next morning I toured the city with Governor Pataki, Mayor Bernardi and County Executive Pirro, and was absolutely amazed at the power and the breadth and the destruction of the storm. That morning also I spoke with James Lee Witt, the highly competent director of FEMA, who had been in discussions with our State Director, Mr. Jacobi, and I urged him, as I did President Clinton in a letter the following day, to please hurry as quickly as possible to make the determination necessary to declare Syracuse, central New York and nine other counties a Federal disaster area.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern about the continual rise in postal rates by the U.S. Postal Service. The recent decision by the Board of Governors to increase the price of a postage stamp is questionable in lieu of the fact that the Postal Service has made a profit of over $6 billion in the last four years. Clearly, we need to exercise the oversight function of Congress more vigorously in the future. I want to congratulate my good friend, Representative John McHugh, Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Postal Service for his diligence in this oversight arena. However, he cannot do the job alone. Congress needs to be more vigilant in ensuring that we exercise our oversight responsibilities. In that regard, I would like to include in the record a column by the President of the United Postal Service, James P. Kelly on the operation of the Postal Service. Reading and taking notice of Mr. Kelly's words is a good start in helping Congress to become more aware of the Postal Service problems. [From the Washington Times, July 15, 1998] The Mail Monopoly (By James Kelly) The woman on the other end of the phone sounds frightened and angry. She owns a small Parcel Plus store in Maryland and just found out that the United States Postal Service is opening up shop right around the corner. She's worried that the arrival of the Postal Service will put her own small store out of business and wants to know what she can do about it. She has reason to be scared. In the past, the opening of a local post office wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But that was before the Postal Service began targeting private-sector companies with predatory pricing on services and products that few businesses can match. The business owner in Maryland knows she can't compete with a government agency that enjoys huge advantages not available to private-sector companies. Her plight is but one example of why the Postal Service needs significant reform. Most Americans agree that fair competition is necessary for a healthy economy and a strong private sector. At our company, we have embraced competition and believe it makes us a smarter, stronger, more responsive business. But the Postal Service represents something that no competitor should have to face--a government monopoly that is able to use its government-granted advantages to unfairly undermine its private-sector competitors. In this age of government reform and downsizing, the Postal Service is the poster child for needed government reform. Most Americans don't know that the Postal Service pays no taxes, local, state or federal, pays no vehicle licensing fees, is exempt from OSHA enforcement, can ignore zoning regulations, and is immune from anti-trust accountability. These advantages would not be of much concern if it weren't for the fact that the Postal Service is using them like a weapon in the marketplace to beat out private-sector businesses. That is simply, unequivocally not the role of government. One particularly egregious example of how the Postal Service is able to use revenue from its monopoly on first- class mail to subsidize products that compete with the private sector is obvious. The Postal Service charges $26.63 to ship a 10-pound package from San Francisco to London via Global Package Link. But the agency charges $29.80 to ship that same package Express mail from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore, Maryland. Common sense tells us that a package shipped across a continent and over the Atlantic Ocean should cost more than a package shipped 35 miles up I-95. But the Postal Service vice keeps its Global Package Link prices artificially low with revenue from its letter mail monopoly, with which private businesses are prohibited from competing. This pricing disparity is particularly puzzling given that the private- sector charges an average of $110 to ship a 10-pound expedited package from San Francisco to London. Now consumers are being asked to pay an additional billion dollars through a penny increase in the price of a stamp. Why is the Postal Service asking for another billion dollars every year when the agency has generated more than a billion dollars in surplus every year for the past three years and is doing so again this year? If the Postal Service were truly committed to its mandate of providing universal letter mail service,why is it entering into numerous other activities wholly unrelated to this mission? The Postal Service is now processing bill, selling mugs, T-shirts and hats, and is hawking telephone cards. What does this have to do with delivering the mail? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it forces the Postal Service to lose focus on its primary mission. It is painfully obvious that reform is desperately needed. Congress is working this year to craft fair legislation that would level the playing field for the Postal Service. Any reform bill must require the agency to abide by the same laws as the private sector when competing with private businesses. Postal reform must remove the massive advantages enjoyed by the Postal Service so that real competition can provide consumers with real choice. At the same time, the Postal Rate Commission, the Postal Service's oversight body, must be given real authority to regulate the agency both domestically and internationally. Congress must act quickly to level the playing field so the Postal Service can focus on delivering mail--not delivering small business owners into the unemployment line.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of last Friday here in the Capitol have been felt across our entire Nation. Many of my colleagues have risen to praise and honor our two fallen Capitol Hill Police Officers, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson, for their heroism on that fateful afternoon. I will simply state that I echo those sentiments. I wish to add my own personal message of sympathy along with the people of New York State's 25th Congressional District in Central New York to the families of both officers. Words do not express, words cannot express the sadness that we all feel and the grief that we all feel for those innocent men and for their families. This is an unwritten bond that exists here between and among all those who work on the Hill. We are a family; a large one, to be sure, but family in every way possible. When one loses a member of one's family, it hurts deeply. When they are lost due to an act of violence, understanding that loss is even more painful and difficult. Now is the time to grieve, and we must be allowed to do so in private. In time, the healing will begin, but for this moment, we mourn our fallen friends. God bless you, J.J.; God bless you, John.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, in the event that additional resources become available when the House conference with the Senate begins on this bill, will the gentleman work with us to see if some additional funds may be made available for this effective, vitally needed program?

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would otherwise have risen in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. But what we have decided is we will have a colloquy to discuss this. If the gentleman from California would join us, I would like to ask a question. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California is aware, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program is a model program that acts as a vast safety net for homeless and hungry individuals nationwide. I know that the gentleman has been supportive of this program and has indicated a willingness to see what can be done to provide additional resources for this program. Would the gentleman agree that the Emergency Food and Shelter Program is an effective, well-run program and that it has become increasingly difficult to accommodate all the requests from charitable organizations for emergency food assistance?

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Friends of Ireland and member of the Ad-Hoc Committee for Irish Affairs, I am inviting all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of the Northern Ireland Visa for Peace and Reconciliation. Over the last few weeks, the world has witnessed events symbolizing both the hope for the future in Northern Ireland and the tragedy of its past. The politics of the gun has been replaced with the politics of the ballot box. A majority of men and women on all sides of the conflict have given their overwhelming support for the Good Friday Agreement and stood together in condemnation of last week's violence and murder. This initiative is aimed at helping those who are working for a new beginning. In May, the Speaker of the Irish Dail, Mr. Seamus Pattison, led a delegation to Washington for a meeting of the U.S.-Ireland Interparliament. During those meetings, the Irish continually raised the idea of a new U.S. transitional visa program designed to support the implementation of the peace agreement. The Northern Ireland Visa for Peace and Reconciliation creates a non- immigrant, temporary working visa category targeted at individuals from disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland and Border Counties of the Republic. It would allow young unskilled people from disadvantaged areas a brief period of time to learn a craft, get a temporary job and experience the diversity of the United States. After their visit, they would return home ready to share the benefits derived from working in the world's greatest economy. In the past several years, we have seen 800 years of Irish history take a dramatic shift toward peace. We believe this Visa program will further cement that progress. I hope all Members will join us in supporting this low-risk, low-cost, high-return investment in support of peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to publicly commend members of my Central New York community who have achieved great stature for the Hiawatha Council of the Boy Scouts of America. By instituting the Boypower Program and endowment facility, these outstanding individuals have enhanced the future of the Hiawatha Council. I know these people to be civic leaders beyond compare. For their work in scouting, they were honored recently at the national meeting of the BSA in San Antonio, TX. They are Hiawatha Council Scout Executive Bill Moran, President of the Council John Chambers, Arnie Rubenstein, and George and Barbara Schunck. They and everyone they work with should be proud of this national honor. Across the Nation, as some of my colleagues will know, endowment giving in the BSA has more than doubled since 1994. The results have been increased staffs, expanded services to at-risk children and support for ordinary operating expenses. Four years ago, the Hiawatha Council got excited about endowment giving possibilities. They set out to support something they believe in--a community helping its own. The estimated $23.5 million in gifts they handled during the past four years is a tribute to their effort and commitment. I want to ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the Hiawatha Council and all those who have been involved in this outstanding program.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. The gentleman is correct. It is our understanding, regardless of the situation presented by the economy or by the budget, a deficit or surplus, and we have the happy confluence of this amendment being passed at the same time that we do have a surplus, that that money stays in the Treasury.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will gut the ability of our committees to do their work, pure and simple. This takes $8.3 million from the total appropriation of $89.7 million in the bill for committee funds. That is a 10 percent reduction in all of our committees and their funding. Mr. Speaker, it is going to require that we reduce staff, that we reduce our workload, and more importantly, that we reduce our oversight. This is tying one hand of the legislative branch's arm behind its back for no good reason. This bill was constructed in a bipartisan manner. We have worked together on this. This is an attempt to politicize an otherwise nonpartisan bill. There is nowhere near this amount of money in the bill for unanticipated expenses of the committees. This idea, this ``slush fund'' word, is very quotable. It is a quotable quote. It is a good 2-second sound bite. But what we are talking about here is funding unanticipated expenses of the Congress. Any construction project, any business worth their salt provides for contingencies. That is what this does. The number, this number of $8.3 million, has no basis in reality. I do not know where the number came from. But the fact of the matter is it is an attempt to politicize an otherwise well-crafted, nonpartisan bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking minority member.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and if no Member seeks time in opposition, I ask unanimous consent that I be allocated the time under the rule otherwise reserved to a Member in position.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, in order to say that we accept the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no problem. In fact, I support the gentleman's amendment. There are two things that we agree on, bipartisanly. One is that we are committed to recycling. The second is that we do whatever our daughters tell us when it comes to recycling, and probably some other things at home. This is a friendly amendment. This is a good amendment. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has been a supporter of this effort. We have, too. We have conducted hearings and several meetings with the Architect. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is committed to this. This issue has been raised in great detail. The Architect has the message. It is now up to him, with the cooperation of all House offices, to make this program work more efficiently. We have done this in concert with the gentleman and his staff. I commend him for his interest. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again would ask for support for this bill in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. We will be happy to work with the gentleman if that series of events occurs.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for the purpose of colloquy.