[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6755-H6758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2209, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered By Mr. Seranno

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Serrano moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the bill H.R. 2209, be instructed to agree to the 
     position in Senate amendment numbered 1 with respect to the 
     account ``Joint Committee on Taxation'' providing not more 
     than a 4.64 percent increase for the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation compared to an 8 percent increase in the House bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Serrano] and the other gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] 
will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion would simply direct the House conferees to do 
the fiscally responsible thing when we take up the funding level for 
the Joint Committee on Taxation and agree to the Senate position. The 
Senate bill would give the Joint Committee on Taxation a tidy 4.6-
percent increase over last year. We think that it is more than fair.
  The House bill, in my view, was overly generous in providing an 8-
percent increase for this office. In comparison, in the name of fiscal 
discipline, both bills provide increases of only 3.6 percent for the 
operation of the House and less than 2 percent for such vital agencies 
as a Congressional Budget Office and the Government Printing Office 
[GPO]. The House bill actually cuts funding for the General Accounting 
Office by $8 million below last year.
  In light of these funding levels, it is inappropriate and 
inconsistent to turn around and reward one office with an 8-percent 
increase. Moreover, the justification for this increase does not stand 
up to any reasonable level of scrutiny. I think the American people 
could question why we would increase the staff of this office the year 
after work is completed on a major tax bill, especially when at the 
same time we are cutting GAO whose main purpose is to look for wasteful 
Federal spending and save taxpayers money. If the existing staff of the 
Joint Committee on Taxation could operate effectively this year when 
they worked on what we are told over and over again was a major 
historic tax bill, one would think they could manage the work load 
during a more routine year without all this extra staff.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we are simply calling on the House to be more 
consistent in imposing fiscal austerity within the legislative branch. 
We should treat all offices the same, not give special treatment to a 
favored few.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion.
  The intent of the motion is to eliminate the five additional full-
time

[[Page H6756]]

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. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our ranking member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I would urge the House to adopt this motion. I think there is 
absolutely no reason why joint committees ought to be allowed a higher 
level of funding than was approved for any other committee in this 
House when the committee funding resolution was brought to

[[Page H6757]]

the floor, especially in light of the nature of the publicity which has 
been directed lately at the committee that would be the beneficiary of 
the largess contained in the House bill.
  I would like to read from a newspaper article from USA Today. It says 
tobacco industry representatives wrote the provision of the balanced 
budget law that allows cigarette makers to reduce their future 
liability in smoking related lawsuits, Congress' chief writer told USA 
Today. The industry wrote it and submitted it; we just used their 
language, Kenneth Kies, staff director of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation said.
  Kies declined to identify the lobbyist who presented the provision or 
the company the lobbyist represented, but his statement is the first 
public acknowledgment that the controversial provision which could save 
cigarette manufacturers an estimated $50 billion over 20 years 
originated with the industry itself.

                              {time}  1700

  Now, that statement was made by the director of the committee, which 
is being given a higher level of funding than any other committee has 
been given this year. It seems to me that if the staff director for 
that committee admits that they are not even doing their own job and 
they are turning part of it over to K Street and the lobbyists 
downtown, they have given up any excuse for needing additional funding 
to prepare tax legislation.
  We have already finished most of the tax legislation that we are 
going to see for this session and next. We have had a huge change in 
the Tax Code. It seems to me that it would be highly out of order to 
provide this special treatment for the Joint Tax Committee, especially 
when they indicate that they are allowing a lobbyist from K Street to 
write $50 billion amendments that are included in the major legislative 
action taken by the Congress this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge the support for the gentleman's 
motion.
  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.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct 
before us.
  It doesn't make sense to me why the Joint Tax Committee needs all of 
the funding it receives in this bill. Last month, when we all thought 
the committee was busy writing the provisions of the tax bill, it turns 
out they were checking their mailbox for suggested provisions from 
lobbyists.
  One such suggestion was a $50 billion giveaway to the tobacco 
industry that went directly from the desks of the industry lobbyists 
into the tax bill.
  This provision will allow the big tobacco companies to reduce the 
payment they are required to make under a settlement by the amount 
collected in excise taxes on cigarettes. This is unacceptable.
  That is why I introduced legislation with Senator Dick Durbin that 
will repeal this middle-of-the-night giveaway. We must not allow 
American taxpayers to foot the bill for big tobacco's settlement with 
the American people.
  This provision should never have been written into the tax bill in 
the first place, and it must be repealed immediately.
  But in addition to repealing the provision, we must determine how it 
was slipped into the tax bill in the first place.
  Fortunately, Kenneth Kies, the staff director of the Joint Tax 
Committee, answered this question for us August 29. When asked about 
this giveaway to the big tobacco companies, Mr. Kies was quoted in USA 
Today as saying, ``The industry wrote it and submitted it, and we just 
used their language.''
  Mr. Speaker, if that is the way the Joint Tax Committee determined 
which provisions to include in the tax bill, there are far better ways 
to use taxpayers' dollars.
  We must repeal this tobacco giveaway, and we must send a strong 
message to Mr. Kies and the Joint Tax Committee that the manner in 
which this provision was slipped into the tax bill is unacceptable. I 
urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 208, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               YEAS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento

[[Page H6758]]


     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--208

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Berman
     Capps
     Dixon
     Engel
     Ensign
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hinchey
     Istook
     Lantos
     McCollum
     McInnis
     Payne
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Rush
     Schiff
     Smith, Linda
     Tanner
     Towns
     Wise

                              {time}  1727

  Mr. Livingston changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Messrs. CLAY, STOKES, DINGELL, and UPTON changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 352, severe thunderstorms 
caused my plane to arrive late. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Without objection, the 
Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Walsh, Young of 
Florida, Cunningham, Wamp, Latham, Livingston, Serrano, Fazio of 
California, Obey, and Ms. Kaptur.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________