made necessary because we had to do a double COLA since there had been an inadequate allowance for a COLA adjustment before. The second thing is that the committee staff has suffered, as have all committee staffs, under a compression of salaries over the years, backed up to the congressional salary. One of the things that happened when that went up, was that there were adjustments made for staff people. I mean you need to do this, if you are going to get good people, since you are in a very competitive arena.

Mr. HAMILTON. This cuts both ways. Dick came out with some studies on the luxury tax, for example. I think his studies may be a principal reason you are going to hear tonight it may be repealed. You get policy input on the Democratic and Republican side here. But I think Dick's studies on the luxury tax were a primary reason why many people, including the President, are seeing it that way.

Mr. ARMEY. Let me address that point.

As a professional economist, I was thrilled to get to serve on this committee, and I share a lot of your point of view, Lee, on what this committee should be. I also should mention that Senator Roth has authorized me to say that he joins me in opposition to this.

As I understand the way we divy up staff, the staff press secretary comes off the top as a joint committee staffer, both minority and majority, as well as some other personnel.

Once then that is done, then there is a division of funds between the minority and the majority. So one would assume the press secretary, the activity of the press secretary would be on behalf of both the majority and the minority.

We have had press releases put out without our side having even an opportunity to look at these for content, comment, express a point of view, and so forth. When we released our study, it was released on behalf of two members of the committee, the particular study we were talking about was released on behalf-or, in fact, by Senator Mack and Congresswoman Snowe.

We were prohibited from identifying it in any way as a Joint Economic Committee. I guess our point would be in that case, we see no tangible evidence that the press secretary or the operations of a press secretary are on behalf of both the minority and the majority, or that the minority has any opportunity to make input.

It has been by virtue of our Members' willingness to take the good work of the committee and put it out under their own name, that such things as the tax cut got out for public consumption. But it has never been identified as a Joint Economic Committee study, nor has any other piece of work that has been produced by my staff.

Again, I will show you, I will leave for the record these things that have been put out by the staff.

Mr. LEWIS. Let me indicate to you for the record that while this kind of questioning is sensitive, to say the least, it is really with the interests of the institution that I would present the questions. I personally feel very strongly that we tread on dangerous grounds when the Congress begins to fund processes that place at a very high level a partisan perspective; studies being done with precon

mittee, minority versus majority, are not healthy for the institution.

And it is my concern we not be in the business of churning here in a fashion that undermines good policy development rather than positively supports a balanced approach to policy development.

Senator SARBANES. I think you need a balanced approach. Let me just make this point, though.

You have a committee that is controlled by the majority. We went through a period when Senator Roger Jepsen was the chairman of this committee and of course he then dealt with the committee as the chairman of it from a Republican point of view.

Mr. LEWIS. I am having difficulty recalling those days, but I do understand your point.

Senator SARBANES. What we have tried to do is without any prescription upon us on the allocation of staff money, because we are not as a joint committee bound by any of the prevailing rules in either House, but we have tried to make a reasonable allocation of staff salary.

In fact, I think we have done that. We worked very hard at trying to do that, and I was very much involved in that process. The last time I chaired this committee, which was two Congresses ago, what we did is, we had what we regard as a core staff which we funded out of the budget, and then we allocated the balance of it to Democratic and Republican staff.

We do have sharp policy differences, and Dick Armey and I as a general proposition see things in a very different light on economics, on occasions I think we agree, but as a general proposition we tend to see things in a very different light.

That probably is part of the healthy debate.

Mr. FAZIO. Let me recognize Mr. Obey.

MR. OBEY'S STATEMENT, JEC BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of observations.

First of all, I am happy that you are able to finally add an agricultural economist to the staff. I know it was difficult under the resource squeeze, but I think it was important certainly to the rural districts in the country.

Secondly, I think it is important to mention-I don't want anybody to walk away from here thinking that in normal terms, your request would represent a 17 percent increase over two years, because as you indicated, that ignores the fact that two years ago you had the responsibility to take care of not just one year but two, because of the incomplete funding from the prior year. So I think you have to split that number over three years if you are going to be fair about it.

Thirdly, I would say that I have a quite different concern about the committee. In my view, I think it is going to be increasingly difficult to get quality staff, because we do not have the kind of economic tradition that we used to have in developing economists in this country, quite frankly.

We used to have an abundance of public policy economists. We

virtual mathematicians as opposed to public policy experts. I remember a farmer in my district saying once if you took every economist in the country and laid them end-to-end, that it would be a good thing.

Mr. FAZIO. I think you heard that from Harry Truman.

Mr. OBEY. From the standpoint of their ability-the ability of the average economist to function in a policy as opposed to academic environment, it is increasingly difficult to find staff like that.

And I don't know how you continue to find them given what you can pay them in comparison to what a top quality public policy economist can get on the outside. It is just very, very difficult.

Senator SARBANES. I think that is a very important point. We have found that the overlap in terms of the academic world of the people you could look to as a pool to recruit staff has diminished, because many of them now are very highly oriented mathematically, and they want to work with a blackboard and their formulas and their equations. That may make an important contribution in theoretical mathematics, but it does not work for purposes of public policy analysis.

Mr. OBEY. I would say also that I really would not agree with the assertion that the committee has become more partisan in recent years. I will fully grant that under my chairmanship, I think the committee was divided very deeply on partisan grounds

Mr. LEWIS. Maybe that was what I was recalling.

Mr. OBEY. Because I very frankly had some strong feelings about what was happening in terms of income distribution in this country, and we pushed that envelope very hard, and I recognize that the minority resented that. But I think no one would seriously question that under Lee Hamilton and under Paul Sarbanes—Paul, who succeeded me and then Lee succeeded Paul, and now reverting to Paul again—that the committee has become somewhat less partisan in its operations during that time.

And certainly anybody who has worked with either one of these gentlemen know that they were not personally confrontational people. And so I would say that, if anything, I think that the last four or five years, the committee has become less partisan.

Mr. ARMEY. I think everybody knows that I too am a person who avoids confrontation. In fact, my wife, the therapist, points out to me repeatedly that that is my problem in relationships, that I am averse to confrontations.

Mr. SMITH of Florida. Does your wife make a very good living? Mr. ARMEY. This is the fourth committee on which I have served, and on every committee that I have served, when the committee has issued a report, the report had majority views, minority views, and even on occasion dissenting views written by individual members of the committee.

We have had more than one I hesitate to count, but certainly I can think of no case where we have issued a committee report where the minority has been afforded in this case an opportunity to include minority views or individual dissenting views. And in at least one case I remember where one or two testimonies out of a panel of four were issued as a committee report and the minority was not even informed that the report was being issued, and that, I

Mr. LEWIS. If the gentleman

Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, it is my time.

The only other point I was going to make is that you obviously have an argument to make, Dick. I think the argument is based more on policy difference than it is in personality differences, because it is certainly a hell of a lot easier for you to along with Paul and Lee than for you to get along with me.

Mr. ARMEY. I pride myself on my ability to get along with every

one.

Mr. OBEY. The only point I would make is that I don't think it is quite fair to question the baseline for the committee, because I think it needs to be pointed out that for 10 years in a row this committee refused to ask for a single increase in staff. For 10 years in a row. I defy you to find any other committee on the Hill that could make that statement over that same time period.

So I think that they had 10 years of refusal to add or augment their resources at a time when I think both parties have diverged in their economic thinking. I mean, there was a relative consensus on economic thought in the country, I would say, up until the late 1970s, when you began to have a greater divergence between the parties.

And I think that that unraveling of a national consensus has led to its being demonstrated on all committees related to economics. This one, I think, has been less partisan than most, even under my chairmanship. And I think that it has been remarkable that you have been able to maintain the quality, given that fact that you are building on a base that for 10 years was held to the same staff level.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, while I don't want to make this a harangue regarding partisan difference, this is the only oversight opportunity regarding the work of this committee, and at least the public ought to know that at least one of the former chairmen sees the joint committee as an opportunity for partisan purposes. That is not a healthy circumstance.

It is bad for the institution. It is bad for the Congress. And the message that is being sent out there is a partisan message.

In the time that we have been discussing here, the staff has expanded considerably. You are asking for a 6.6 percent increase in this year, and I understand the competition problem and have some appreciation for it.

But preceding that there was a 9.4 percent increase. Over the 1991 through 1993 fiscal year, there will have been an expansion, assuming this is approved, of $609,000 in the baseline for economic work that appears to be designed for partisan thrust.

One of the proposals currently coming out of the committee as a joint economic proposal is a $55 billion increase in Federal spending to jump start the economy. It is obviously a ploy in a political year that involves the presidency.

Our committee should not be used in that fashion. I am very concerned about the J.E.L. being used in that fashion, and I must say that is why this committee is more and more becoming a target on the floor where our young Members make it an exercise to take on

It is very disconcerting for me to see us in that circumstance continually. It is this sort of dialogue that in my judgment tends to undermine the credibility of our committee work.

The least I would urge the committee to do is to consider reports whereby the minority can use the letterhead of the committee for expressing its views.

Yes, that we have got a circumstance where the Ranking Republican Member can't use letterhead and issue either a minority view or a minority report would be ludicrous if it weren't so painful to the institution.

So, David, that is my bottom line, and that is why we have great difficulty moving to the Floor with that kind of environment. It is natural for the minority to react in the fashion that they are in this case.

REVIEW OF COMMITTEE BUDGET REQUEST

Senator SARBANES. First of all, I have to emphasize that the 9.4 percent increase that we received last year was not for one year. It represented a catch-up on the COLA.

So you have to throw in another year on the COLA in evaluating that increase. I think it is very important. That is just the basic fact. I want to get that basic fact established.

Now, the proposal you talked about is a proposal I put forward with Senator Sasser. That is not a committee proposal. It has never been represented as a committee proposal. Now, Dick Armey comes forward with Armey proposals all the time as the ranking minority member. I disagree with them, but he advances them, and I am free to advance my economic proposals; but I am careful not to represent them as committee proposals, which, of course, I have not done.

Now, we do an annual report, and the minority has a chance, to include minority views, in fact, last year, the minority wrote an effective report of their own, which is generally the practice the committee has followed over the years, not always, but generally.

Mr. FAZIO. Larry Smith wants to join in on the discussion.

Mr. SMITH of Florida. I am curious. You are here attempting to either cut out or reduce the requested increase. If, in fact, the staff is to receive any kind of increase at all, it would have to be some increase in the allotment to the committee, because almost all of the money that goes to this committee is for staff payroll, almost all of it.

Are you recommending that we just cut down on the required increases according to the staff director, it is about a five percent overall increase this year that may be subject to a point or two of interpretation. What would you like to see happen? Give you no increase, which would mean to me that there would either be A, no salary increases at all, or you would have to cut staff to give some salary increases; or B, do you want to have a reduced request as opposed to a zero increase?

Mr. ARMEY. Well, let me say that the position I take here is not inconsistent with the position I have taken on committees and com