Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for their persistence on this issue. I am happy to include it in the bill.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and concern. Obviously the gentleman speaks for most Members in his affection and support of the Capitol Hill Police. They do a marvelous job here. We in our deliberations have provided the Capitol Hill Police with funding for a similar increase that other Federal employees will receive. It is our understanding there is a collective bargaining process ongoing. If there is indeed a collective bargaining agreement, the process is then that it would have to be reviewed by the Committee on House Oversight, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and, before that, by the Police Board. Once those two hurdles are cleared, if these three occurrences came within the period from now and when we go to conference, I believe we could deal with that issue when we got to the conference.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) a member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman very much for his kind words. I would just suggest to him that I too am a Red Sox fan, although I am very deeply a Yankees fan. I had a great uncle play baseball for the Red Sox back about 60 years ago, actually about 80 years ago, and was with them the last time they won the world series in, I believe it was 1918. He played with Babe Ruth and then the Babe, as we know, went to New York. The rest is, as they say, history. Again, I thank the gentleman for all his help in this bill and for the work that he has done. Mr. Chairman, a bill like this is not prepared without yeoman effort on the part of staff. My personal thanks to Ed Lombard for his help and guidance throughout this process. I think that almost every Member of the House recognizes Ed's dedication to the Legislative Branch and to this process each year. He truly is the gem of this bill. Lucy Hand of the gentleman from New York's staff has again contributed greatly to the product brought forward here today and I thank her for all of her help. Tom Martin, on loan to us from the Library of Congress, and Johanna Kenny of my staff also deserve special recognition for their hard work. Mr. Chairman, let me also restate something I mentioned last year when bringing the Legislative Branch appropriations bill before the floor. We the members are fortunate to have some of the most loyal and dedicated people in the world working here with us on a daily basis. Both those who help maintain our facilities here in the House and those who work with many of the offices connected to the House deserve the thanks of every Member who serves here. Mr. Chairman, just to provide a few specifics about this bill. First of all, the appropriation level is $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1999. Compared to last year we are just about $30 million above. I would remind those who are not familiar with this bill that these are not funds just for the House of Representatives. This funds the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing Office, the Botanic Garden, the Capitol Hill Police and other agencies. So it is a rather extensive bill. What we have provided for is about a 1.7 percent increase in the budget over last year. I think it is important to note that since all of our employees will be getting a 3 percent plus, about 3.1 percent increase, cost of living allowance, that to bring this bill in under 2 percent with a 3 percent across-the-board increase for staff was a real challenge and I am very proud of the work product. The outlays is an increase of about $7 million in net outlays, that is only .45 percent above last year. The savings, if I might, since the 104th Congress when our party became the majority party, is $78 million below the level that this Legislative Branch was funded at in 1994. Including the 1999 bill, the cumulative Legislative appropriations savings have been over a half billion dollars. Mr. Chairman, I think that people would expect us to lead by our example in this government downsizing, rightsizing, and I think that we have done that. I think that this budget, the Legislative Branch budget, has done more to show leadership in reducing the size of government, making it more effective, everyone is working faster and smarter and harder, so I think this is a real tribute to the efforts and it has been tough. It has been very difficult to get those numbers down. Because we are talking about people and we are talking about service to people. The employment levels. This bill cuts another 438 full-time equivalent positions, down some 2 percent from last year. Overall since 1994, we are down over 15 percent below 1994 levels of employment. No other branch of the Federal Government has made that sort of a commitment to downsizing. What we have done is we have given the Architect of the Capitol and the Government Printing Office the opportunity and the statutory ability to manage that downsizing through a buyout program which gives employees something when they leave office and it also gives the management some tools to manage that downsizing to make sure that services continue, or improve even. Lastly, let me just point out that there are two or three other aspects that I think are important. One is that the Joint Committee on Printing is only funded for 3 more months in this bill. The House and the Senate chairs of the Joint Committee on Printing have asked us to do that because they are going to eliminate this joint committee. Again the idea of downsizing government. Again I mentioned the buyout programs. One interesting feature of this bill will be that we will provide funding for the Congressional Cemetery which really has no connection with this body other than a number of members are buried there along with many other very famous Americans, including the great American musician and legend John Phillips Sousa is buried there. That has been declared a historic preservation site. We provide a million dollars of taxpayers' money to be matched by the Foundation for the National Historic Trust for Historic Preservation, they will help raise a million dollars together with the Cemetery Association, and that will create an endowment for the routine maintenance in perpetuity of that beautiful old cemetery right here in the city of Washington. I would like to credit Jim Oliver who is the chairman of the board of the Congressional Cemetery who works right here on the floor of the House for the work that he has done, using volunteer help, catch as catch can, to keep that cemetery up in a proper manner. This, Mr. Chairman, I think, is an effort, a one-shot deal. We will do this and then we will get out of it. The Architect will stay involved as a member of the board of trustees to keep our oversight interest in front of that board, but then we are finished with it. I would like to thank again all the people who helped to put this bill together, in particular the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). Mr. Chairman, I submit the following details and tabular material for the Record: Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1999 recommendations for fiscal year 1998 $1.8 billion ($1,804,689,700) in New Obligational authority of which $1.113 billion ($1,113,521,700) if for Congressional operations exclusive of Senate items. The balance of the bill, $691 million ($691,168,000) is for the operations of the other legislative branch agencies. Reduction: $129.6 million ($129,592,900) under the budget reuqest, a 6.7% reduction. Above 1998 appropriations: $29.8 million ($29,813,900) above the current fiscal year--1.68%. Above 1998 Outlays: An increase of $7 million in net outlays from new budget authority above the amount provided in FY1998. That's only 4/10ths of 1 percent. Outlays from prior year authority (which we have no control of in this bill-- are up $44 million. components of increase Mandatory: There is an increase of $45.6 million ($45,126,500) primarily because of the 3.1% staff cola projected for 1999. Price Level: $4 million ($4,089,000) for price increases (travel, utilities, etc.); agencies were held to a 2% increase. Program changes: A reduction of $19.4 million ($19,401,600) in programs-- House is up a net of $2.3 million in program changes ($2,272,400), including $2.8 million primarily to finance year 2000 fixes and to makeup lost revenue due to migration of the HIR mainframe to a client/server architecture. A net $360,000 reduction in program costs of joint items. Office of compliance: A net $279,000 reduction in program costs due to a diminished workload. CBO: A $325,000 reduction in program costs. Architect of the Capital: A $20,556,000 reduction in program costs. Government Printing Office: A $7,204,000 savings generated by an investment in new technology. The Library of Congress: A $1,253,000 program increase to finance the installation of the integrated library system (ILS) and to bring the library's computers into compliance with the year 2000. GAO: A $5,404,000 increase, to makeup for a loss of building rental receipts. major items in the bill House of Representatives--$734,107,000. Increase of $5,490,000 for staff COLA's in Members' Offices. Increase of $4,572,000 for COLA's for committee staff. Increase of $5,635,000 for the offices of the House. Clerk's budget reduced $362,000 due to lower costs for closed captioning and stenographic reporting contracts. Sergeant at Arms reduced in supplies and equipment, reflecting one-time purchases in FY 1998. CAO's operation reduced by 18 FTE's; overall increase of $6,484,000 relfects increase to cover lost computer time reimbursements and equipment and furniture purchases for first session of 106th Congress. Inspector general and other offices of the House held to COLA increases. Allowances and expenses, an increase of $8,712,000, 97% of it due to increased costs for staff benefits. Joint Economic Committee--funded at request level, an increase of $46,000 for committee staff COLA's. Joint Committee on Printing--three months' funding at request of Chairman Warner and Vice Chairman Thomas; provision for additional amount for the Committee on House Oversight, if legislation increases that committee's jurisdiction over the Government Printing Office. Joint Committee on Taxation--$6,018,000, the amount requested for current programs and to pay for staff COLA's Attending physician--$1,383,000, current programs plus COLA costs. Capitol police--$76,381,000, including $72,615,000 for salaries (COLA's and ``comparability'' funded) and $3,766,000 for expenses including travel, communications equipment and a hazardous materials training program ($260,000). All other expense items held to a 2% increase. Guides and special services office--$2,110,000, providing for staff COLA costs. Request for three additional FTE's not provided. Office of Compliance--$2,086,000, providing for a lower staff level. Committee report directs budget formulation for FY2000 should reflect lowered level of activity, not that the intensive startup costs for this office are no longer needed. Congressional Budget Office--$25,671,000, an increase of $874,000 to pay for staff COLA's. The committee report directs CBO to report to House and Senate committees--the earlier of August 30 or before conference on this bill--on variances between CBO estimates and actual outcomes for revenue, deficit and expenditure forecasts. Architect of the Capitol--$136,399,000, a decrease of $18.3 million (18,325,000) from FY1998. Operating budget increase of $4,808,000 to cover staff COLA's and overall 2% increase in non-personnel costs. Capital budget at $22,133,000 lower than FY1998 due to one time costs for urgent work on the Capitol dome and security for the Capitol square perimeter which were funded in a fiscal year 1998 supplemental. Congressional cemetery: Grant provided to establish permanent endowment, to be matched by private donations, to cover annual maintenance. Power plant: Provision included (sec. 308) to provide authority for architect to use energy savings performance contracts to refit the east plant chiller. Audio Visual Conservation Center: Provision to limit expenditures for capital costs at this new library building in Culpeper, Virginia and to specify that expenditures shall be at a 3:1 ratio, private-to-public. Employeee buyout program: Section 309--authority given to the Architect of the Capitol to establish a retirement incentive payment (buyout) program through FY2001. The Architect will use this program to realign operations, to eliminate duplicative operations and for other efficiencies. Congressional Research Service--$66,688,000, providing for mandatory pay costs for current FTE level of 747. CRS requested funds for 20 additional staff to be repeated each year for five years to bring on apprentice staff for mentoring before the aging workforce retires. At the time of the hearings (February) and continuing to today, the committee believes there are ample vacancies at CRS to carryout this program. Library of Congress (except CRS)--$291,701,000. This provides funds for the current employment level, modest (2% overall) increases in nonpersonnel costs. Funds are provided to comply with the year 2000 problem and for the integrated library system. Routine administrative provisions plus new provision (sec. 207) providing authority for the Library to receive and credit funds from entities involved with the Global Legal Information Network (GLIN) program in the law library. Provides funds for additional 3,766 playback machines for blind and physically handicapped readers, an increase of 18% over the past two years. Government Printing Office--$103,729,000 and 3,416 FTE's, a decrease of $7,017,000 and 134 FTE's. Congressional printing and binding--$74,465,000, a decrease of $7,204,000. Superintendent of Documents--$29,264,000, an increase of $187,000 for staff COLA's. GPO costs too high: GAO management review (Booz-Allen & Hamilton contract) found costs and staffing levels at the plant, in the printing procurement program and sales program too high. They also found a higher percentage of the workforce eligible to retire than elsewhere in Government. GPO employee buyout: The bill includes a provision (sec. 310) providing Public Printer authority to establish a retirement incentive (buyout) and early out programs to reduce personnel costs at GPO. General Accounting Office--$354,238,000 plus authority to spend $2,000,000 in receipts for audits, an increase of $14,739,000. This includes $5,404,000 to make up for no longer available building rental receipts. Provides funds, including COLA's, for 3,225 FTE's, a slight increase in the level projected for FY 1998. Committee report directs GAO to train staff in contract management skills to increase the agency's ability to utilize consulting firms and other experts in lieu of internal staff. General and administrative provisions: Several housekeeping provisions: Sec. 101--Remove the Architect from the House page board. Sec. 102--Increase the authorization for interparliamentary receptions to $80,000. Sec. 103--Authorization for training and program development programs for House leadership offices. Sec. 104--Technical amendment to conform statutes to current structure of the Members' representational allowance. Sec. 105--Provision requested by chairman and ranking minority member of Ethics Committee to postpone identifying, in the CAO's statement of disbursements, witnesses appearing in executive session before the committee. Sec. 106--Provision authorizing Committee on House Oversight to prescribe conditions appropriate to non-official business use of supplies and equipment. Sec. 107--A provision authorizing 1 consultant each for Speaker and two leaders and limiting rate of payment to per diem of committee staff. Sec. 108--Provision authorizing a transit subsidy program for staff of the House. Sec. 109--Provision carried as general provision in last year's act that provides that unspent MRA funds shall be used for deficit reduction. Routine administration provisions for the Capitol Police and Library of Congress have been included as well as the new provision mentioned earlier for the Library and the two provisions mentioned earlier for the Architect. interesting comparisons The 1.68 percent increase is less than inflation. Outlays for spending in the bill increase $7 million--an increase of \4/10\ of one percent. FTE's are reduced by 438. Since 1994, the legislative branch employment base will be down over 4,300 FTE's. That's a 15.7 percent reduction. summary BA compared to: 1998 operating level: +$29.8 million (+1.68 percent). 1999 request: -$129.6 million (-6.7 percent). 302b: -$17.3 million reduction under our 302b's (Senate excluded). Outlays compared to: 1998 operating level: +$51 million (+2.9 percent) increase. $44 million are in prior year outlays over which we have no control. 1999 request: -$96 million (5.1 percent decrease). 302b: -$25 million (-1.4 percent) reduction under pro rata share (Senate excluded). [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN98.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN98.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN98.003

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4112, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. This is a good bill for the House, a balanced piece of legislation representing the views of every member of our subcommittee, and, most importantly, provides for the needs of the House to conduct its business here in a responsible and effective manner. Before I present a general overview, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of the subcommittee. Never let it be said that upstate and downstate New York cannot work together. I would like to thank him for his tremendous help and hard work in producing this legislation. Working with the gentleman from New York for me is a personal pleasure and one I consider a distinct honor. This bipartisan legislation is the result of our close working relationship, and I thank him for all that help. I would also like to extend a personal thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) on the majority side and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on the minority for their time and effort in producing this legislation. Also, Mr. Livingston, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Obey, the ranking member of the full committee, participated heartily, and I thank them. Mr. Chairman, the House and in particular this subcommittee, is losing one of its key Members at the conclusion of the 105th Congress. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) has been an outstanding member of our subcommittee. He formerly chaired the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch and has always had the overall interest of the House first and foremost on his mind. I have benefited from his wisdom and his counsel this year and last, and I want to publicly thank him for all the help and guidance that he has provided. The gentleman has been a great defender of this institution and we will miss him very much.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I am.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the amendment. The minority supports it, the majority supports it. The language would require the Architect of the Capitol to develop a cost-effective strategy to achieve 20 percent efficiency in energy consumption. It is a worthy goal. It is an excellent idea. It will save us money, and we support the amendment.

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 the rule allows reserved for a Member in opposition.

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman takes issue with the fact that there is not a coordinator in place, and apparently there is a labor dispute between that individual and the Office of Compliance, and so it has been tied up. But the fact of the matter is the Architect's Office is responsible for this. I have a letter here that I would enter into the Record, but basically it says it is addressed to me from Architect Alan Hantman: I am writing with respect to the office waste recycling program in the House. I want to reassure the committee of my personal commitment to the success of this worthy program. I want to thank you and the committee for assuring that sufficient funds and other resources have been made available to carry out the recycling program over the past several years, et cetera, et cetera. The letter in its entirety is as follows: The Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC, June 24, 1998. Hon. James T. Walsh, Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with respect to the office waste recycling program in the House office buildings. I want to reassure the Committee of my personal commitment to the success of this worthy program. Further, I want to thank you and the Committee for assuring that sufficient funds and other resources have been made available to carry out the recycling program over the past several years. It is clearly the responsibility of this office to assure that those resources are used expeditiously and continuously to make certain the recycling program is a success. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Alan M. Hantman, AIA, Architect of the Capitol. Now we have accepted the gentleman from California's amendment (Mr. Farr). We are about to accept it. And we will do that, but it is a friendly amendment. Again, it is not a partisan issue. We are working together to try to resolve these things, and the gentleman from Texas, I think, misstated or misquoted the facts when he said that we are not doing anything to recycle waste. In fact, we generated 3,400 tons of office waste last year, and we recycled almost 2,000 of those. Almost 60 percent of the office waste was recycled. Of the overall waste stream, we are recycling at least 25 percent. That is as good, if not better, than most communities in America. So, as my colleagues know, we are trying to do the best we can. We can do better, but it is going to require that we all work together in this, we should not make it a partisan issue. Let us work together, and I think we can do a better job. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I really have to rise again and respond to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett) regarding the recycling program. There is no question that we are not perfect. But I would submit that we are probably doing better than a lot of other communities around this country, and there really is an effort on the part of this committee and on the part of the Republican leadership to do a better job at recycling. I cannot understand for the life of me how anyone can make this a partisan issue. We are all united, Republicans, Democrats, and the Independent Member of the Congress are all united in this. What it requires is some leadership on the part of each Member to sit down with their staff and say, as my colleagues know, this is mixed paper, this is fine paper, and this is wet waste, and put labels on the trash cans and implement this.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I really am amazed that this recycling could become a partisan issue. It is bizarre. There is a clear commitment, there was on the part of the Democrats when they controlled the House of Representatives, and there is on the part of the Republicans, to recycle our waste. This should not be a partisan issue. This is something that all Americans agree with and support. I know just from personal experience when I became Chair of this committee, one of the things that we set about to do was to make sure that everyone understood what the rules were. So we sent a memo around to all the Members' offices. We also made sure that all trash cans were labeled, ``mixed paper,'' ``wet waste,'' ``fine paper.'' What it comes down to is the Members. The Members have to provide the leadership in their own offices to recycle this waste. I do not understand why this is partisan. This is something we should all be unified in. Besides, there is the fact that the amendment that the gentleman spoke about was accepted. We accepted the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). We thought it was a positive development. The fact is that it is the Members, Republican and Democrat, that have to show the leadership in their own office to use their wastebaskets in a proper way. The Members need to provide the leadership in their offices, whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents; we have an Independent in the House. We all need to make sure that we put the trash in the right place. The cloakrooms are going to follow suit. We need to organize a little bit better. The Architect's office is committed to this. We have called them in on the carpet and said we want to get a concerted effort and focus from the Architect's office on it. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is a real commitment here. This is not a partisan issue. We need to recycle our waste. It makes sense. It makes money. It saves us money. I think we should put this to rest right now.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding time and for the hard work and, I believe, fair rule that was provided to us by the Committee on Rules. I rise in strong support of this rule and I ask my colleagues to support it. I want to first thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for providing this structured rule leading to general debate on the fiscal year 1999 legislative branch appropriations bill. I will withhold particulars of the legislation until we get into the general debate portion of our discussion today, although I may be compelled to respond to some of the criticism that will be leveled in a very partisan manner, I think, on this bill. It really is not criticism that belongs in this bill, but nevertheless I will be prepared to respond. Let me clearly state, however, that we have produced a solid bipartisan piece of legislation. I note that the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Rules, also noted that, and we had hoped that we could keep it that way, and I hope that when all the debate is over that is what this will be, a bipartisan bill, because we really did make an effort to reach out across the aisle and include the needs and concerns of all Members. This bill, I believe, meets the needs of the House and the legislative branch for the upcoming year. It is a fiscally-sound bill presenting only a 1.7 percent increase over last year. Now, under law, we are required to provide all legislative branch employees with a little over 3 percent increase cost of living allowance. So by providing that increase, and everyone who is eligible will receive it, the bill is still only less than a 2 percent increase over last year. We continue to downsize the legislative branch. Indeed we will have 438 fewer employees next year than we will this year. Over the past 4 years or 5 years, rather, we have reduced full-time equivalent employees by over 15 percent. People have said that if we are going to downsize government that the legislative branch should lead by example. I believe that we have. But we have done it in a sensitive way. We have provided the Architect and the Government Printing Office the opportunity to give their employees the option to leave and to provide them with a buyout so that the employees would be helped in the process and the management could manage this transition. I think we have really attempted to do the right thing. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, but I am hopeful that that will not be necessary. The subcommittee worked very hard to develop a balanced bill, and to the best of our ability this bill takes into consideration the concerns of Members on a variety of problems. Let us move forward now in this process and support the rule.

Mr. WALSH. We are recycling about 10,000 tons of material each year, and our percentage in the waste stream, it is in the neighborhood of about 25 to 26 percent.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations has made this a priority, and that, in fact I believe the gentleman mentioned the figure of about 20 percent as being recycled in his home community, and that is admirable; in my home community it was closer to 40.

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4112, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, the debate that we have heard thus far points out fairly clearly the issues that are at stake. There was a lot of discussion regarding the dairy compact. That is not the issue here. The issue here is an extension of all existing dairy legislation under this appropriations bill for 6 more months. It treats everyone equally. It treats the States involved in the compact, it treats the State of California, and it treats Wisconsin all equally. This is merely an extension of the existing law. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) pointed out, there are 250 Members of this House who are on record in support of Option 1-A. There are 61 Senators who are on record in support of Option 1-A. We believe that we have the votes to win this. We still believe that. But out of deference to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, he said ``Let's compromise on this, this is not an authorizing bill, this is an appropriations bill, we will merely extend the law,'' that is what we propose to do here. Now, fairly clearly, you have seen members of the State of Wisconsin's delegation standing up doing their level best to protect their farmers as they see it. The reason is because they believe that Option 1-A hurts their farmers and helps the rest of the country at the expense of their farmers. All the economic data shows Wisconsin farmers are not harmed by this legislation; they just do not do as well as they would under Option 1-B. The problem with that is Option 1-B does harm our farmers, the rest of the country's farmers. So what we are asking is that we extend this law further so that Secretary Glickman can get a better read on what exactly is going out there in the country. The professional people on his staff recommended Option 1-A, the law that we believe that the rest of the country believes would be good for the dairy industry. The political appointees and Secretary's staff recommended Option 1- B, I am sure out of deference to the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations who hails from the State of Wisconsin. He has done a very good job in protecting his farmers. But, it is very clear, the lines are drawn. There is Wisconsin and Minnesota, and then there is the rest of the country. But we are not even choosing here between the upper Midwest and the rest of the country. We are merely saying give us the opportunity to let this law extend out over a period of another 6 months from when it is scheduled to finish up, and give us, the Members of Congress, an opportunity to work with the Secretary, and we hope to help him to see the light that Option 1-A is the best direction to travel in. But this treats the compact States, the upper Midwestern States, the State of California and the rest of the country, equally, by merely extending the law. So I would urge strong rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.