[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.
____________________