Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, not very far from the Capitol in Southeast Washington sits the historic Congressional Cemetery. The name is somewhat misleading, since the cemetery itself is not affiliated with the U.S. Congress. However, there are over 60,000 interments there, including America's ``March King,'' John Philip Sousa; former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover; Native Americans; military leaders; and over 50 former Members of Congress. Over the years, the cemetery has fallen into disrepair. It was in need of a thorough cleanup, and under the leadership of our own Jim Oliver from the Cloakroom, who also heads the Association for the Preservation of Historic Congressional Cemetery, the project was undertaken last month. It would be impossible to name the hundreds of volunteers, but special praise goes to Air Force M. Sgt. Thomas Williams and Sgt. Dave Lutzow, both stationed at Andrews Air Force Base, who saw a program on the History Channel listing the cemetery as an endangered national treasure. Also, our former colleague, Bill Carney of New York, deserves great praise. It was a terrific effort but more needs to be done. We have to find a way to provide for permanent care and maintenance of this treasure. It is truly historic and of national significance.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about improving education in America and I find myself caught up in a debate on class warfare. It is unfortunate. Just to reflect back, we had a mayor in the city of Syracuse, a Democrat, who always reminded us that the Democrats were the party of the poor and the Republicans were the party of the rich. He went to jail for 14 years for operating a kickback scheme. But the fact is there were always Volvos and Cadillacs and Rolls Royces in front of city hall, operated by the mayor and his friends, the Democrats, the party of the poor, while the Republican councilmen were out driving Chevys and Plymouths. So it is bunk. Let us put it to rest. There are people of good will in both parties. The debate here is about the future of education in this country. This debate is about whether or not to improve education by creating competition. It is about empowering parents to make the best choice with their hard-earned dollars to spend on their kids' education. What do we want for our kids? We want them to have a life better than ours. Let us give them every opportunity. The liberal Democrats, and by the way they are not all liberals anymore, thank God, their way has been to tax people to death and then give the money back. This is exactly what the substitute that they are offering says: Tax people to death, then give them money back with strings attached and basically tell them how to use that money. Our way is to let parents make that decision on how and where their kids will be educated, private or public schools. Let us not forget that those parents are paying public property taxes to support public schools anyway. Let us give poor and middle-class families the same opportunity to send their kids to the school of their choice just as our wealthy President, President Clinton, has the option to send his child to a private school. This is not about rich versus poor; this is about the future of education in this country. And let us make parents, rich, poor or middle class, let us give them all the same choice that just the rich people have now.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is consistent in his argument against school choice, but inconsistent in his argument on who should benefit. Is the gentleman opposed to the idea of providing scholarships for poor families in Washington, DC?

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking member, for their hard work. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from North Carolina took over this responsibility, I urged him to be bold, and he has been bold. This city needs dramatic attention, and this bill provides attention and it provides solutions to many of the problems. Mr. Chairman, I would like to dedicate my time at the podium to talk about this D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Program. Whether we call them scholarships or we call them vouchers, they are a lifeline to the poor kids in this city and their families. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my colleagues a little bit about my hometown in Syracuse, where I was first married and raised my kids in a strong middle-class neighborhood in Syracuse. There were two schools, a private school, a parochial school, and public school. Mr. Chairman, these two schools competed with each other for the kids. The PTO's from each school would go up and down the street knocking on doors, encouraging young parents to send their kids to their schools. Both schools taught kids, rich and poor and middle- class. The public school had eminently better facilities. They had better bonding. They had better gyms. They had better science labs and all kinds of better facilities. The Catholic school provided more nurturing and discipline. Kids in trouble in one school could leave that school and go to the other, and vice versa. All of the kids were served. It was great for the kids. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced, I am absolutely convinced, that we cannot have good public schools if we do not have good private schools. We cannot have good private schools if we do not have good public schools. In that middle class neighborhood, that worked. In the poor neighborhoods, the choice was not there because the poor people could not afford the private schools. This will give them that opportunity in this city. This is not a union vote or an anti-union vote. We have the highest respect for teachers. They are a national treasure. They take all of society's ills upon their shoulders and try to help these kids to get through what otherwise would be a difficult, difficult existence. This is not anti-teacher. This is pro-teacher. The teachers need help. Go to the inner city schools, go to the public schools, ask the teachers, they are stressed out. They are burned out. This will help them. This will make their schools better. It will make the entire educational system of this country better. Specifically, though, we are talking about the District of Columbia. The teachers want better schools as much as the parents do, if not more so, and they are fighting a losing battle. Poor families should have choices like moderate income and wealthy families do. In Syracuse, our public school superintendent sends his child to a private school; so do some of the Members of the school board. They do it for the right reasons; that is a good decision. Why? Because they could get the education that they want at those schools. In Washington, DC, the President of the United States made a decision to send his daughter to a private school. Why? I do not care why. That is his decision. But he has the resources to do that. Why should not poor families have that choice? There is no ideological or philosophical argument. There is no argument. To argue to the contrary is hypocrisy. There is no solid, firm standing to argue for public schools, against vouchers, when they are sending their kids to private schools. Let us do this for the children. Forget about ideology, forget about union or nonunion. This is not that issue. This is about breaking the cycle of poverty and violence for the kids in our cities, especially this city, this city which we have so much love for and respect for and compassion for. I do not understand it, Mr. Chairman. I do not understand how anyone could argue against this simple program to help some kids in this great city.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and I congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me the time. I would also like to thank our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], for allowing this bill to get to the floor. It is very timely. This legislation, the reauthorization expires today. That would be a real shame, and it would cause great difficulty for many American corporations and American workers. I speak in favor of the rule and the bill. The Export-Import Bank was established in 1934 and requires periodic rechartering by the Congress. As I said, today the bill, the reauthorization, expires so we have to act on it quickly. This event would be unprecedented in the Bank's 64- year history and extremely harmful to the competitiveness of U.S. exports. The export authority, export financing provides direct loans, loan guarantees, and insurance which enables American exporters to make creditworthy sales when other sources of financing are unavailable. As my colleague from Florida mentioned, the competitive factor is vital in large emerging areas such as Asia, Latin America, and the Newly Independent States of Eastern and central Europe. We feel the Export Bank represents the best kind of performance-based Federal program in which modest resources enable American businesses to compete for otherwise lost markets. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to reject all weakening amendments. This is a job creator.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sister Harriet L. Hamilton of Cortland, NY, on the occasion of being named one of the National Distinguished Principals for 1997. Sister Harriet is principal of St. Mary's School in Cortland. She will be honored with the other recipients September 25 and 26 here in Washington at a ceremony sponsored by the nominators, the Private School Recipients Selection Committee. Other honorees include representatives from each State, the District of Columbia, and the Departments of Defense and State overseas schools. Sister Harriet is the kind of inspirational, loving educator who wears many hats. She is an administrator, cafeteria monitor, custodian, bookkeeper, medic, and counselor. She responds nurturingly to students' hugs. On snowy days she is there to take calls from parents who want to know if school will be open. When parents cannot pick up their children at school, Sister Harriet drives them home. Sister Harriet has a special gift for motivating volunteers. She is an educator, friend, civic leader, and a woman of great faith in God. I applaud the decision to award her this great honor. And I want to publicly state that Sister Harriet is the kind of selfless individual who makes America the great country it is.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 238, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2209) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 2209.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present today the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 legislative branch appropriations bill, H.R. 2209. Before I proceed with my summary of the report, let me take a brief moment to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] for his help throughout this process. The gentleman is a friend and someone of the highest integrity. We would not be here today without his tremendous leadership and skill. My counterpart in the other body, Senator Bennett, was also very helpful as we worked to achieve this conference report. I consider him to be a person of the highest character. Last, to the majority and minority staff members in both bodies, their work is deeply appreciated. I speak for every Member of the House in recognizing their contributions. Their hard work reflects the dedication of all the employees in the Congress. As I said on this floor several weeks ago, Members need to look around their work environment every day and recognize those who work with us in this legislative body. These are good people who serve with pride and deserve our respect. Mr. Speaker, to summarize the conference agreement, the agreement appropriates $2.25 billion in the new budget authority to the Congress and the support agencies and offices of the legislative branch. This amount is approximately $146 million below the request of the President, which is a 6.1 percent reduction over what the President asked for. The actual funding level for 1998 is about a 2-percent increase over 1997. This appropriation level is below the amount appropriated for legislative branch in 1994 and 1995, so we are still below 1994's level. So the downsizing program begun in the 104th Congress is still intact. The highlights of the conference report: Operations of the Senate are $461 million, operations of the House are $708 million; joint items, including Capitol police, et cetera, joint committees, $12.7 million; Architect of the Capitol, $179 million. This includes the Botanic Garden and the library buildings. Library of Congress, $346 million, including Congressional Research Service; Congressional Budget Office, just under $25 million. Office of Compliance, $2.5 million; Government Printing Office is about $100 million, plus a transfer of $11 million from the Government Printing Office revolving fund. General Accounting Office, which received an increase this year, will be at about $347 million. 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 July 28. As is customary, that bill did not contain funds for the operations of the Senate. The House bill, without the Senate, was $1.711 billion. For those same items, the conferees agreed to a level of $1.735 billion. The House came up about $24 million, the Senate came down about $37 million, so the House conferees did well. The result is an increase of just about $13.7 million over the current year. That is an eight-tenths of 1 percent increase above 1997, well below even the modest rate of inflation in the economy. In addition, full-time equivalent positions have been reduced; in other words, we have reduced staff again by about 200 jobs. The adjustment to House-passed items agreed to includes: In the conference the conferees added $8 million over the current level for the General Accounting Office. This level will allow price level adjustments in travel, training, and begin a technology upgrade delayed the past 3 years. For the Architect, the roofing project at the library, an additional $1.5 million, adjustments to electricity and fuel costs at the Capitol powerplant, funds for the design of a new chiller system at the powerplant, funds for staff of the Conservatory and for the Library of Congress an additional $3.8 million to begin the $40 million replacement of the Library's bibliography records and a $1.25 million increase to begin a program to replace an additional 10,000 playback machines for blind and physically handicapped readers. Mr. Speaker, the other item of concern to the conferees was the funding for the Joint Committee on Taxation. For Joint Committee on Taxation, the conferees agreed to fund an increase of 2.5 FTE's. In addition, the Senate agreed to remove from the bill the provision that requires operational adjustment in their workload. Instead report language was inserted in the joint explanatory statement that addresses the problem to direct the Joint Tax Committee to be more responsive to Members who are not in the committees of jurisdiction for taxation, House Committee on Ways and Means, Senate Committee on Finance. Mr. Speaker, several legislative matters were agreed to in conference. Under the Capitol police, there is a provision providing authority for the Capitol Police Board to establish a unified pay and leave schedule for the police. For congressional printing, a longstanding provision carried in the House bill on availability of funds to pay printing costs has been retained. There is language under the Library of Congress specifying the amount available for the integrated library system project, along with report language directing the Library to secure approval before obligating the funds. Two administrative provisions were added under the Library. One establishes a revolving fund for reimbursable work at the Library. The other permits the investment of Library gift funds in the same manner as trust funds. Under the Government Printing Office revolving fund, $1.5 million is made available for management audit. Under title III of the bill, all the provisions in the House-passed bill were retained. In addition, the conferees agreed to a provision relating to Senate restaurant employees and a provision which will allow cost of living allowances for senior level staff in the Office of the Architect. Three House housekeeping provisions were also added at the request of Committee on House Oversight. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides $2.2 billion for the funding for the legislative branch. It is 6 percent below the request of the President. FTE levels have been reduced by just over 200. The bill retains a smaller legislative branch as established by the policy set in the 104th Congress and provides stability to those operations that must support our legislative needs. I urge the adoption of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.003 Conference Agreement--Fiscal Year 1998 Legislative Appropriations, H.R. 2209 Total appropriation: $2.2 billion ($2,248,676,500); in addition, $158,189,000 will be available from receipts and reimbursements collected by the General Accounting Office and Library of Congress. Appropriations compared to budget request: A reduction of $145.9 million ($145,883,500) under the amounts contained in the President's budget. Compared to fiscal year 1997: An increase of $45,795,300 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1997. Highlights: Operations of the Senate: $461,055,000 plus $52 million for office building maintenance; Operations of the House: $708,738,000 plus $36.6 million for office building maintenance; Joint items (Joint committees, Capitol police, guide service, etc.): $12,656,500; Architect of the Capitol: $127,224,000, including the Botanic Garden; Library of Congress: $346,424,000, including the Congressional Research Service; Congressional Budget Office: $24,797,000; Office of Compliance: $2,479,000; Government Printing Office: $99,729,000, plus a transfer of $11,017,000 from the GPO revolving fund; and General Accounting Office: $346,903,000 total funds available, including $7,404,000 from offsetting collections. Specific items: The $24.6 million increase for House operations is primarily for staff COLA's, employee benefits, and other staff salary mandatory increases; There is an additional $31.6 million for Senate operations and buildings; Several capitol budget projects are funded in the Capitol buildings and grounds accounts under the Architect of the Capitol: Dome repair: $1,500,000; various improvements in House and Senate chambers: $1,230,000; renovations to the canine facility: $200,000; physical security: $625,000; design of chiller plant: $1,000,000; additional fuel and electricity costs: $1,700,000; vertical roof replacement, Thomas Jefferson Building: $1,500,000; fire, safety, and telecommunication improvements; and grounds and buildings improvements for physically challenged staff and visitors: $6.6 million; and $550,000 for cooling the Botanic Garden and National Garden learning center. For the General Accounting Office, the FY98 level is an increase of $8,478,000 over FY 1997 and achieves a stable resource base coming after the 25% reduction in FY 1996 and

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, listening to the other side get exercised about campaign finance reform would be hilarious if corruption of our political process were not such a serious matter. We can just see the White House now with their new slogan, ``We've got four more years so let's change the rules.'' Does the other side really think that the American people think it is OK to break the rules? Then carry on about how we need to change them? Does the other side really feel comfortable defending deliberate attempts to violate the law and then blame the existence of the law as the real problem? Does the other side really think the White House is above the law, that all the little people have to obey the law but they are exempt from having to do so? No matter how many times the other side wants to change the subject by talking about campaign finance reform the truth will finally come out. If they cannot obey the current law, what makes anybody think they will obey future law?

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 the bill (H.R. 2209) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 2209, making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion. The intent of the motion is to eliminate the five additional full- time equivalent positions the bill provides for the Joint Committee on Taxation. The committee bill has already reduced the budget submitted by the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] by seven positions, or $219,000. Chairman Archer, who also chairs the Committee on Ways and Means, testified that he needed 12 more staff positions to do the additional work mandated on the Joint Committee on Taxation's staff. Mr. Speaker, we all know the Joint Committee on Taxation provides invaluable work for the House and the Senate through the support they give to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee. They do much of the technical work on all revenue bills. They also analyze tax treaties entered into between the U.S. Government and other countries, and they also review all large tax refunds issued by the Treasury Department. During the past 5 years, the economists, lawyers, and accountants of the Joint Committee on Taxation have averaged over 2,000 revenue estimates requested by Members and committees in connection with the proposed tax legislation. In addition, the staff has reviewed several hundred large tax refunds. Last year, they reviewed 486 refund reports with a dollar value of over $4.6 billion. They found concerns in 103 of these cases, concerns of over and underfunding or errors that needed to be corrected. So this committee does a great deal of technical work in support of the congressional revenue and tax treaty process, and they also oversee large tax refund work of the Internal Revenue Service. In asking for a staffing increase this year, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] outlined additional responsibilities that have been given to the Joint Committee on Taxation. A new requirement imposed by House rule XIII to make dynamic estimates in major tax legislation; determining unfunded mandates contained in revenue legislation; and we saw the President exercise his line-item veto on this most recent tax measure. The Joint Committee on Taxation will be called upon to determine limited tax benefits that are eligible for consideration. He has asked for, the chairman has asked for, 12 more FTE's to do this work; the committee bill only allows 5. We removed 7 FTE's during the full committee consideration of the bill after the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and others indicated their concern for such a large increase. So we have gone more than half way in meeting their concern. The bill provides funding for an FTE level of 66. It puts the full- time equivalent positions back at the level they were funded at in 1988. This increase would bring them, the Joint Committee on Taxation, up to the level of 1988. All we have done is put them back to where they were 10 years ago. I heard this concern in the full committee, and I offered an amendment that reduces the subcommittee mark of 12 additional FTE's to 5. The Committee on Appropriations heard this concern, considered the prudence of restraint, and accepted a staff level of a decade ago and reported the bill with those limited resources. Mr. Speaker, the House has voted on this; the House has taken a position supporting the House's position. This motion would have us agree with the Senate's position, and I strongly urge that the House vote to reject this motion. The House of Representatives approved a fiscal year 1998 funding level for the Joint Committee on Taxation of $5,907,000, an increase of $437,000 over fiscal year 1997. This amount is less than the $6,126,000 requested by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bill Roth. The $437,000 increase in appropriation approved by the House would be allocated as follows: Cost-of-living adjustments (salaries and equipment): $161,000 and salaries for new hires: $276,000. The increase attributable to cost-of-living adjustments matches the assumed Federal employee cost-of-living adjustment. The salaries for new hires would be used primarily to fill a portion of the increased FTE positions with additional professional staff--2-3 staff economists, 1 attorney, and 1-2 computer specialists or support staff. The House approved an increase of 5 FTE's for the Joint Committee on Taxation for fiscal year 1998. The Joint Committee has 61 authorized staff positions for fiscal year 1997. Other than fiscal year 1996, in which the authorized staff positions were 63, the authorized staff levels have not, since 1980, been below 66 positions. Thus, the FTE's authorized by the House would provide the Joint Committee with the same number of FTE's as in fiscal year 1980. The attached summary sheet shows that the Joint Committee FTE's remained relatively stable over the fiscal year 1980-1997 period. Thus, when other staffs may have been growing during the 1980's, the Joint Committee did not see the same burgeoning of staff. By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office has an appropriation for fiscal year 1997 of $24,532,000 and 232 authorized FTE's, compared to $5,470,000 and 61 FTE's for the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Joint Committee on Taxation needs additional funding to fulfill new responsibilities that have been assigned to it. In addition to the traditional role of the Joint Committee staff in the development, drafting, and estimating of proposed revenue legislation, the Joint Committee staff is now responsible for determining the possible unfunded mandates contained in revenue legislation and identifying the limited tax benefits subject to the Line Item Veto Act. In addition, a new House rule for the 105th Congress requires the staff of the Joint Committee to estimate the possible macroeconomic, or dynamic, scoring effects of major revenue legislation. The Joint Committee staff presently has neither the personnel nor the computer capabilities to satisfy the requirement of this rule. Since calendar year 1992, the Joint Committee on Taxation has received, on average, over 2,000 requests for revenue estimates a year. The Joint Committee currently has the staff resources to respond to approximately 50% of these requests. Unless the number of Joint Committee personnel are increased, the response rate to Members of Congress will not improve. This is not a question of staff not working to capacity. The Joint Committee staff devote all of their resources to the legitimate needs of the Congress, but they are frankly swamped with requests for assistance from Members of Congress that they cannot possibly satisfy at current staffing levels. The Congress will require increased services of the Joint Committee on Taxation during fiscal year 1998. During the first part of fiscal year 1998, the Joint Committee staff will be completing its work investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service has exhibited bias in the selection of tax-exempt organizations for audit. In addition, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation will be involved with the following legislative proposals during fiscal year 1998: (1) Reauthorization of the highway trust fund, (2) Possible Superfund legislation, (3) Legislation relating to the tobacco settlement, (4) Legislation relating to expiring tax provisions, (5) Consideration of 7 tax treaties by the Senate, (6) Legislation to reform the operations of the Internal Revenue Service, (7) Possible tax reduction proposals for 1998, and (8) Fundamental restructuring of the Federal tax system. Contrary to what some have asserted, fiscal year 1998 will see increased demands by the Congress for the services of the Joint Committee on Taxation. I will include the following for the Record: HISTORY OF APPROPRIATIONS--JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION SINCE FISCAL YEAR 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Authorized Fiscal year Appropriations positions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1980.................................... .............. 66 1981.................................... .............. 68 1982.................................... .............. 70 1983.................................... $3,377,000 68 1984.................................... 3,483,000 66 1985.................................... 3,605,000 66 1986.................................... 3,546,000 66 1987.................................... 4,159,000 66 1988.................................... 4,219,000 66 1989.................................... 4,346,000 70 1990.................................... 4,353,000 70 1991.................................... 5,203,000 77 1992.................................... 5,759,000 77 1993.................................... 5,759,000 77 1994.................................... 5,701,000 77 1995.................................... 6,019,000 73 1996.................................... 5,116,000 63 1997.................................... 5,470,000 61 1998.................................... \1\ 6,126,000 \1\ 73 \2\ 5,907,000 \2\ 66 \3\ 5,724,000 .............. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Requested. \2\ House. \3\ Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just again urge my colleagues to reject this motion. This committee's work, this joint committee's work, is of very timely importance. We did just pass a major tax cut. Thank God that we did. We did it with bipartisan support. Although some of the proponents of this motion did not support that tax cut, the majority of the Congress of both parties did, also the Senate, and the President signed the bill, with a major reduction in income taxes for people with children, for capital gains, estate and death tax reform. Mr. Speaker, this is only the beginning. We feel very strongly that this is just the first cut, that next year there should be another and the following year there should be another. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has suggested very strongly that the Committee on Ways and Means is going to take a serious look at reforming our overall progressive income tax program and reforming the Internal Revenue Service. This is going to require staff work. Mr. Speaker, we are asking for only a funding level equal to what was there when the Democratic Party controlled the House back in 1988. This is the staffing level they had. We have reduced this dramatically, but now we are starting to cut taxes, and the economy of the country is picking up and responding positively. We do not want this to be the last tax cut. We want it to be the first tax cut. We would like to make sure that the work that the House and the Senate and the President have done is properly accounted for, and that we keep on target and in the direction of further reducing the tax burden on the American public.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, in the debate over the future of transportation in this country, STEP 21's continuing refrain that ISTEA is unfair because some States receive less Federal transportation money than they collect in Federal gasoline taxes is an invalid, misleading comparison. If the STEP 21 States believe that fairness in these matters is best defined by the amount of money a State sends to Washington, then such logic should be used on all moneys that pass between the Federal Government and the States. According to a study prepared by a major university, ISTEA works States send over $1,000 per person to Washington more than the STEP 21 States. The average amount of taxes STEP 21 States send to Washington is $4,400 per capita, while the average ISTEA State sends $5,400 per capita. Where is the fairness in that? The study done annually on the balance of payments to the States clearly shows that when all funds are considered, most STEP 21 States are receiver States while ISTEA works States are the real donor States.

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This motion is tantamount to killing this bill. It sends the bill back to committee, it eliminates all the work that the subcommittee, full committee and this House has done to this point, and I strenuously oppose any restrictions on the use of the reserve fund. Mr. Speaker, just because it is said loudly, does not mean it is true. This amendment would repeal an action taken earlier this year in the committee funding resolution. The House has worked its will on this issue. It does not belong in debate on the legislative appropriations bill. The reserve fund is designed to provide funding flexibility to take care of the unanticipated expenses that may arise during the 2-year term of this Congress. The committee funding resolution is a 2-year funding bill. And I think that in any project to have some unanticipated expense funds available is a very proper thing to do. The reserve fund is a separate and distinct fund. All expenditures will be detailed explicitly to the taxpayer. This is a role for the Committee on House Oversight which has been adopted by recorded vote in the House and is consistent with the rules of the House. I oppose any attempt to limit the ability of the committees of the House to do their routine oversight work. I strongly oppose the motion, and I strongly urge its defeat.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have the gentleman's amendment. This is the same amendment we have carried for the past 2 years in the bill. As we understand the amendment, it would require that any amount remaining in the Members' representational allowances account after all payments are made under such allowances be deposited in the Treasury for deficit reduction. As the gentleman knows, the bill does not make representational allowances available to specific Members of the House. The calculation of how much each Member may spend for staff salaries, office expenses, and official mail is determined by law and is under the regulation of the Committee on House Oversight. That committee notifies each Member of the allowance available for each session of Congress. The amounts available are not given to the Member. They do not receive a check or a funds transfer. They are only given an allowance to draw upon. Likewise, the appropriations bill does not make a funds transfer to any Member. No MRA amount in this bill is assigned to any specific Member. The bill only provides an overall appropriation for the combined amount of the MRA's which may be charged against the Treasury. And the committee bill does not full fund this amount. The bill contains $379.8 million--$379,789,000--for the sum total of MRA's during fiscal 1998. That amount is $17 million below the total amount authorized to be spent by the Committee on House Oversight. So the committee bill has already economized on this item. We know that many Members will underspend this allowance. We are saving the $17 million. This amendment says that what is left over after the end of the fiscal year will be deposited in the Treasury. That is true in concept but I would point out that these unspent funds never leave the Treasury to begin with. Since this is a fiscal year appropriation, all unspent funds will lapse. That is, they will not be available to be spent after the conclusion of the fiscal year. So the terms of the bill meet the requirements of the amendment. It is good to stipulate this fact and that is why I have no problem with this amendment. So, with that understanding, I have no problem accepting this amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all let me thank the gentleman from California for his stirring defense of not only the Committee on Appropriations, which I strongly endorse, but also his stirring defense of the majority. Any time I have him on my side in an argument, I feel pretty confident. However, on this amendment I do disagree substantively. The House is about to enter into a major tax reduction agreement with the President, an historic agreement. This is something that was part of the Contract With America. This is something that we worked all the last 2 years and now 6 more months to come to. A capital gains tax cut, an estate tax cut, a $500 per child tax cut for all Americans with children under 18. This is a monumental victory for all of us in this country. This is not the end of the tax cuts. If we have our say, this is only the beginning of tax cuts for the American public. We want to make sure that the Joint Committee can do a good job of determining what the impacts of these tax cuts are and help to lead the way, to show us the way toward further reducing the oppressive tax burden that has piled up on the American public over the last 40 years. What we are seeing is a major change of direction here by the legislature. We have seen the markets respond to it, we are seeing the deficit being reduced at an exorbitant clip. We are seeing the deficit estimates go down. Why? Because the country and the markets are responding to the Republican tax cuts. We want to make sure that we have the support of the Joint Tax Committee when we look at the next round of tax cuts in the next Congress. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I rise in support. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I will just say that our responsibility on the subcommittee is to allocate resources. There are times when some committees have more responsibilities than others, and that is what we have tried to do. There was a request by the chairman, and this is unusual, too, because this is one of the rare places where the Senate and the House have to come to agreement on something that they mutually share. Both chairmen asked for this increase. We are going to provide that increase if the committee agrees. So I would again urge defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.