Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. How much time does remain, if I may ask?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The point of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] was that these responsibilities are not covered by the Rules of the House. Quite clearly, they are covered by the Rules of the House. Not to pick nits, but the responsibility is theirs. Thus, the need for additional staffing. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] of the Committee on House Oversight, also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to clarify on this one point, under the rules of the House, this is rule XIII, paragraph (e)(1) of clause 7, regarding dynamic scoring: A report from the Committee on Ways and Means on a bill or joint resolution designated by the majority leader (after consultation with the minority leader) as major tax legislation may include a dynamic estimate of the changes in Federal revenues expected to result from enactment of the legislation. So, clearly, the rules of the House do provide that responsibility to the joint committee.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will eliminate the five additional staff positions that we have appropriated for the Joint Committee on Taxation. The chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], who also chairs the Committee on Ways and Means of the House, testified that he needed 12 new positions to do the additional work that was mandated on the Joint Committee's staff. The committee bill only allows five. We removed seven of those positions during the full committee consideration of the bill, after the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Wisconsin and others raised this issue. They felt that it was too large an increase at one time. That would have only, by the way, brought us up to the level where the Democratic majority had it when they lost control of the House, so we are still substantially below that level. We offered an amendment not to eliminate the total increase but to reduce it to five. So we went more than halfway to show a reasonable approach to try to develop compromise. They wanted the whole loaf instead of half of the loaf. The fact is the chairman of the House Ways and Means and the chairman of the Committee on Finance in the Senate both felt that this is essential to their work. The Joint Committee on Taxation does the very important work of providing technical support to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. As we know, this work is highly technical in nature and requires very high skills in tax law and economics. The staff is called upon to make several thousand revenue estimates each session for Members and those estimates are highly regarded. In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation has new responsibilities that staff resources are needed for: a new requirement imposed by the House to make dynamic scoring estimates in major tax legislation, to determine unfunded mandates contained in revenue legislation, and to determine limited tax benefits subject to the line item veto act. These are all new responsibilities. With all due respect to the gentleman from California, under the rules of the House these are required of the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is their responsibility. They also will have, we are told, the added responsibility of reviewing options for a comprehensive review of the Tax Code. What a monumental challenge that would be without additional staff. There are many in this country who feel that the current Tax Code is unfair, it is antiquated, and it creates tremendous amounts of work and expense to individuals and to businesses. So many of us feel that there needs to be a review, and the Joint Committee on Taxation would have that responsibility. The bill provides funding for a staff level of 66 employees, or FTEs. It puts the FTEs back to the level they were funded at in 1988. We are now working on the 1998 appropriations bill. We are asking for an increase to 66, and that is still seven positions below the level it was funded at by the Democrats in 1988. So we are doing this added responsibility, doing it better, smarter, and faster. All we have done is to put them back where they were 10 years ago. I heard the gentleman's concerns in the full committee and I offered an amendment that reduced the subcommittee's mark of 12 positions to 5. The Committee on Appropriations heard the gentleman, considered the prudence of restraint, accepted a staff level of a decade ago and reported the bill with those limited resources. We have met the gentleman more than halfway. I oppose the amendment and urge all to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot today about the contested race in southern California. That is an issue of obvious importance to many but it has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. Our responsibility, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] and mine, and our subcommittee's and the Committee on Appropriations' is to provide the resources that this body needs to function. I think we have done that. I think we have continued the trend toward cutting the budget, cutting expenses, reducing staff, working smarter, faster, better like American businesses have done to make them globally competitive. We have continued that trend. But our role ends there. We appropriate the funds to make sure that the legislative branch can do its work. Then the legislative branch, the democratic process takes over. And the majority will prevails. In this case the majority will is to proceed with this task force. The minority digresses from that view. That is their right. They can say it as loud and as long as they like, but the fact is that when they were in the majority, their will prevailed and we expressed our reservations and they continued on their path. The American public decided that this party would have the majority for these 2 years and they would have the minority, that those are the facts. Our job today has nothing to do with that. It is to provide the resources needed for the legislative branch of Government. We have done that. We have done a good job, and it has been a bipartisan job and we should be proud of that. There is plenty in this bill for all of us to support. Mr. Chairman, I will finish by just asking once again, reach across the aisle, ask the Democratic Members of the Congress to set the issues aside, once we have completed the work on this bill, and vote bipartisanly for support.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to this issue. The gentleman from New Jersey earlier suggested that the contesting of an election such as this is unprecedented. Well, there is very strong precedent: the McIntyre case in Indiana. And nobody on this side suggested that that was an anti-Irish decision. Let us try to stick to the issues. This really does not fall on this committee. This falls on another Committee. Let us try to keep this debate within the constraints of this committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee on House Oversight. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the vice chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we will soon entertain a number of amendments that were granted by the rule. I would just like to point out for the record that the rule is a modified closed rule. This is the traditional way that this rule has been structured for consideration of this bill. As my colleagues might imagine, there are lots of opportunity for mischief on this bill. I think while we were in the minority, we certainly respected the majority's view of protecting the institution by using the rule process. We have tried to do exactly the same thing. In the process of devising this rule, with the help of the chairman of the Committee on Rules who has been very, very helpful, we allowed for four amendments, two from Republicans and two from Democrats. There were two very contentious amendments on each side, one Republican and one Democrat, that were not granted under the rule. I think that is about as fair as one could ask. There are issues that swirl about the Congress that are not of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] and my making. We have, I think, a very good relationship. We work very well together. Philosophically, we are not what one would call twins, but we do understand the need to protect the institution, and we are both trying to do that. So we are being affected by issues that are outside of the purview of our subcommittee. I would ask that once everybody has their opportunity to make their case and to take their best shot and to vote for or against their amendment, that we could get a bipartisan vote on this bill. I think traditionally it is the majority's responsibility to deliver the votes on the legislative branch, but there has always been at least some semblance of bipartisanship on final passage of the bill. It strengthens our hand when we go to the Senate in the conference to make sure that we protect our side of this very important Capitol building. I would end my comments right now by saying, let us have our debate, let us be as civil as we can with each other, and when it is all said and done, let us come together and vote bipartisanly for this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. The committee report contains language which stresses the need for improving the waste recycling program operated by the Architect of the Capitol. The language in the report makes clear that the Architect should contact each Member, committee, and staff office to elicit cooperation and compliance. It also stresses the importance of continued training of the Architect's workforce in implementing this program. It should be noted that the House Recycling Program has been operating for 6 years now. A pilot test was done in 1990. The House- wide program was begun in 1993. It should also be noted that the program has been producing results. Since 1993, 12,886 tons of House and Senate waste cans, bottles, and paper have been recycled. The Architect has estimated that we have avoided over $900,000 (936,518) in landfill costs due to the recycling waste transferred to recycling contractors. Over the past 3 years, almost $600,000 of cost avoidance is due to waste material collected and recycled from House offices, at a cost of $378,000. That's a 1.6 to 1 benefit/cost ratio. That is a benefit/cost ratio that indicates that recycling is paying off. It is saving taxpayer funds and is contributing to a cleaner environment. We have also been told by the Architect of the Capitol that 1,977 tons of House trash and waste were recycled by our recycling contractor last year. That 1,977 tons represents about 57 percent of the waste stream generated by House offices. The Office of Waste Management at the General Services Administration has informed us that GSA itself only recycles 30-35 percent of their waste stream. According to GSA, the Government-wide goal is 50 percent. So, I would say to those who are concerned about the effort being made, there is a great deal being accomplished. And we are exceeding the Government-wide standard. Recycling of House waste products is working, but like all similar programs, it requires monitoring and follow-up. We should strive to improve our record. In that context, the subcommittee decided to include the report language. We have asked the Architect of the Capitol to renew his efforts and to enlist the cooperation of all House offices. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment reduces the FTE staff level at the Government Printing Office from 3,550 to 3,200. GPO is currently staffed at a level of 3,600. This amendment will require a reduction in force. Even though the GPO continues to lose money at a rate of about $1 million a month, their costs remain high. They tell us that is because they have to maintain a capability to do the daily job of printing the Congressional Record, our hearings, bills, reports and other congressional documents. The long-run solution to this problem is a rewrite of the printing statutes. The Government Printing Office needs to have their mission reevaluated. The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are using modern desk-top publishing technologies and withdrawing much of their work from the printing plant. The situation cries out for a more substantive solution than annual limitations on their workforce. With that caveat, I will accept this amendment, but I want to stress that we need help from the authorizing committees on this matter. I know the chairman of that committee is dedicated to that task, and I want to work with him and others to bring it about. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] have the opportunity to close?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very good amendment. I think the gentleman's amendment has merit. I would certainly support it. I am delighted that in my role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative I am still able to reach back and help out my former constituents in the District of Columbia. In response to the gentleman's question, this is something that we have talked about, that we both support the concept of allowing Members to use their used equipment in their district offices to provide to local school districts. I am sure the Committee on House Oversight would like to take a look at this before we appropriators try to make a determination, but I would certainly go with the gentleman from New York to the chairman and members of the House oversight subcommittee and urge that this be considered very strongly for next year.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the levelheaded and very fair-minded gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], chairman of that House task force. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the floor H.R. 2209, the fiscal year 1998 legislative appropriations bill. This is the first year I have had the pleasure of chairing this subcommittee. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the former chairman of the subcommittee, has set a very high standard for us to follow. I want to recognize the members of the Subcommittee on Legislative who have assisted me in bringing this bill to the floor. First, let me thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the vice-chairman of the subcommittee. In addition, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham] all have contributed to the work on this bill. My colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], the other part of New York, downstate New York, is the ranking minority member. He is a great friend and has worked with me on a bipartisan basis throughout the process. In addition, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] have helped shape this bill and have maintained the bipartisan spirit of the subcommittee. Also, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the full committee, have fully participated in the subcommittee's deliberations. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2209 provides $1,711,417,000 in new budget authority. This bill is $10 million below the 1997 bill. If I could repeat that, it is 0.6 percent lower than last year's appropriation, Senate excluded. This continues a 3-year trend of making the legislative branch smaller and indeed leading the way toward smaller government. The Congressional Research Service, in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office, has calculated that if the entire Federal budget were to be reduced in the same proportion as we have downsized the legislative branch, the entire Federal budget would show a surplus of $183 billion for fiscal year 1998. Here are a few general points about the bill: We have continued the program begun in the 104th Congress to right- size the legislative branch. This is producing a more efficient, smaller work force by using technology wherever possible. The bill does not fund certain personnel costs, such as within-grade, promotion or merit pay increases. Legislative agencies will absorb these costs, just as the executive branch does. The legislative branch work force is cut by an additional 316 positions. Since 1994, we have reduced FTE's, or full time equivalent positions, by over 3,800 positions. That is a reduction of almost 14 percent of the entire legislative branch work force. The FTE cut does not reduce agency programs. The current level of FTE's used by agencies has been maintained. However, funds for unused FTE's have been removed. Some of the details in the bill include: For the House of Representatives, $708 million is provided. The Members' representational allowance appropriation has been increased to cover staff cost of living allowances. Committee funds have been increased by $6.7 million and are extended through December 31, 1998. House administrative offices, the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, CAO, and others are funded at a net reduction of $2 million. Within the CAO, HIR operational costs are reduced $1.6 million. For joint items, $86.8 million is provided. The Joint Economic and Printing Committees are funded at the level requested in the budget submission. The Joint Tax Committee has been provided funds for five additional staff to accommodate an expanded workload. The Capitol Police cost-of-living allowances are funded with the additional funds pending authorizing committee approval. An administrative provision establishes a unified pay and leave procedure for House and Senate details. For the Architect of the Capitol, $122.9 million is provided. Mr. Chairman, the Capitol buildings belong to the people of the United States. We have an obligation to keep up the maintenance needed to keep the buildings and grounds in working order and suitable for the work of Congress and to accommodate the millions of taxpayers and others who visit each year. The Architect has estimated that the cost of maintenance and improvements over the next 5 years will require an additional $254 million. This need must be addressed, although perhaps not the full amount. This bill begins to address the long-term Capitol investment program articulated by the new Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Alan M. Hantman, and we welcome him. We must exercise judgment, however. In the bill, 68 percent of priority-one projects are funded. Safety and Americans with Disabilities Act work continues, including fire alarms, sprinklers, access doors, etc. The initial funding for the rehabilitation of the Capitol dome has been provided. Mr. Chairman, there is no more important symbol of the American Nation than that Capitol dome. Funding is also provided to commence replacement of the deteriorated floors of the parking garage in the Cannon Building. The Library of Congress, including CRS, is funded at $342 million. We have also added $160 million in other resources to the Library. The bill funds the current FTE level. The initial phase of the new bibliographic system is funded as is additional playback equipment for talking books for the blind. For the Government Printing Office, almost $100 million is provided. Congressional printing is funded at the fiscal year 1997 level, including an $11 million transfer from the working capital fund, a transfer back to this account of funds paid out earlier to cover costs of non-congressional printing. For the General Accounting Office, $323.5 million is provided. This will allow 85 additional FTE positions over the current level. The Emergency Supplemental Act of 1997 provided GAO authority to enter into multiyear contracts. We have been told that up to $8.4 million of funds requested for fiscal year 1998 may be obligated in fiscal year 1997 with this new authority. That provision enabled us to reduce the fiscal year 1998 appropriation by that amount. Just a couple of notes, in summary, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues. The budget authority compared to the 1997 operating level: we are $10 million, at 0.6 percent below. That is a reduction under 1997 appropriations. It is $143 million less than the President's request for the legislative branch, and it is $2.6 million below our 602(b) allocations. Last, Mr. Chairman, on a note that does not get an awful lot of attention, but I think it shows that we lead by example, not only in reducing the size of legislative branch. In the area of recycling, it should be noted that the House of Representatives recycling program has been operating for 6 years now. A pilot test was done in 1990. The House-wide program was begun in 1993. It should also be noted that the program has been producing results. We have all heard of the rumors that we take our waste and we throw fine paper in one basket and we throw the sorted paper in another basket and then the cleaning people come up in at night and throw them all into one coffer. That is not the case. I want to dispel that rumor. In fact, we have recycled 12,000, almost 13,000 tons of waste, including cans, bottles, and paper. The Architect has estimated that we have avoided over $900,000 in landfill costs due to recycling waste. And here is the key point: We have also been told by the Architect of the Capitol that 1,977 tons of House trash and waste were recycled by a recycling contractor last year. That represents over 57 percent of the waste generated by House offices. That is a remarkable number, given the fact that the goal for the Federal Government is a 50-percent level of recycling. We are doing 57 percent, higher, to my knowledge, higher than any other branch of the Federal Government. So, once again, Mr. Chairman, we are leading by example. We have shown that we are willing to lead in terms of recycling, but more importantly, that we continue to make government smaller, more efficient and saving money along the way. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY97.002

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days on 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 and charts therein. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ballenger]. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me time. I would like to thank very much the Committee on Rules for the good solid rule that they provided us for consideration of this bill. Let me begin by stating that the Subcommittee on Legislative worked in a very bipartisan manner to produce this bill. My colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], was extremely thoughtful and helpful throughout the process, as was his staff. The rule that was provided by the Committee on Rules is a modified closed rule. This is the traditional approach to the legislative branch, the reason being this is the budget that we use to govern and to fulfill our responsibilities as legislators. This is always an opportunity for mischief. I am sure that we will hear from a number of Members from the other side who are disappointed that certain amendments were not granted, but those amendments, Madam Speaker, had absolutely nothing to do with this bill. This bill funds the legislative branch. It also funds the other aspects of the legislative branch other than the House, which would include the Library of Congress, the Architect, Government Printing Office, General Accounting Office, Capitol Police, Botanic Garden, et cetera. It is important that we stick to those issues as laid out by the subcommittee. We had a good solid bipartisan approach all the way along on this bill. And unfortunately, as we came through subcommittee to full committee, outside issues, as they have on other appropriations bills, have entered in and sort of poisoned the well somewhat. I do think we have a good bill here. I think it is something that we can support on both sides of the aisle. But we will hear some weeping and gnashing of teeth about the amendments that were not allowed, and I would submit to my colleagues that they do not belong on this bill. I think the Committee on Rules exercised good judgment in providing us with a rule that allows for two amendments from Democrats, two amendments from Republicans. I think every Member of the House should take a moment and look around at our complex, at this campus where we work and remind themselves of how fortunate we are to be working here. The bill that we will be debating later provides the needed funds to maintain this vast campus and the wonderful people who work here on a daily basis. It is not just our personal or committee staffs who make up the House. There are Capitol Hill Police, maintenance personnel, cafeteria workers, clerks, and a variety of services, elevator operators, countless people, the sea of faces that we see every day who make this place work. We have a responsibility to them also, not just to each other as legislators but to the people who work here and make this place work. We are very, very fortunate to have the degree of professionalism that we have. We are also responsible for other offices I mentioned, General Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, Library of Congress, the greatest repository of information on Earth, Madam Speaker. We have a huge responsibility to make sure that not only we take care of the physical structure but also the wonderful, intelligent, thoughtful people who work in these institutions. This bill continues a trend that was begun under the leadership of my predecessor, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] to downsize, to right size the legislative branch. The Federal Government has grown like Topsy over the past 20 or 25 years. The legislative branch since the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] became chairman 2 years ago has exercised tremendous restraint. We are leading the Federal Government in the effort to downsize Government. In fact, we have reduced staff on the legislative branch by almost 14 percent. No other branch of the Federal Government has done nearly as well, as the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] mentioned. If this budget is adopted over these 3 years, we will have reduced Federal spending just in the legislative branch by almost $400 million. If every branch, if every bureau of the Federal Government did what the legislative branch has done, we would have a Federal Government surplus in the year 1998. We would not have to wait for a 5-year budget deal. We would not have a balanced budget. We would have a budget surplus of $183 billion, if we did what the legislative branch has done. Madam Speaker, I am very proud of this bill. I am very proud of the way that we arrived at this bill. Unfortunately, there will be some carping today about the rule and about the bill, but overall I think in their heart of hearts everybody can agree that we did our best. This is the best bill we could bring forward. There is something here that we can all support.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This debate really is disintegrating, and it is really unfortunate. To wave the bloody shirt of ethnicity on a debate on the rule really demeans all of us. It really does. I am chairman of the subcommittee. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], the ranking member, is Hispanic. I do not think there is a Member in this body who I respect more than that gentleman. The points that were made I do not think reflect well on this body. They certainly do not reflect well on this rule. To get back to the specifics of the request, $150,000 out of the legislative branch to give the Immigration Naturalization Service. They did not ask for this money. It takes money out of the operations of the legislative branch, which, as we all know, we have reduced 3 years in a row. This amendment does not have anything to do with the legislative branch. It is an opportunity for the minority to vent. They are frustrated. We were frustrated when we were in the minority, too. It goes with the turf. But we have tried to be fair. This rule allows for amendments for Democrats and Republicans, but they have got to be germane to the bill. They should be fair. I think we have been fair. Fairness, obviously, is in the eyes of the beholder. But we really have done our best to give everybody their opportunity on this bill. And this idea of ethnicity really has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. I am Irish-American. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is Danish-American. There is room in this bill, in this Nation, for all of us.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This program helps American farmers to find markets in a very competitive global environment marketplace. We are not supporting our farmers nearly to the degree Europe is. I would also like to suggest to the proponents of this amendment that they get some new material. That California raisin story is getting very, very old.