[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H10113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CLEARING UP MISUNDERSTANDINGS

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes a speaker's messages are 
inaccurately interpreted. This may result because of the speaker's 
ineptitude and/or the inability of the listener to properly interpret 
the message.
  My final two speeches prior to the break for our August district work 
period were misunderstood by some. My first speech came in response to 
my Democrat friends who accuse the Republicans of opposing passage of 
the minimum wage increase. I then admonished my Democrat colleagues for 
having bashed the Republicans and reminded them that it was they, the 
Democrats, who, during the 103d Congress, controlled the House, they 
who controlled the Senate, they who controlled the White House. I 
reminded them as well, Mr. Speaker, that during their control of the 
past Congress I did not recall their having uttered one peep about the 
minimum wage.
  I was then accused of hypocrisy, since I was bashing them while at 
the same time lecturing them for having bashed us. But it was not the 
bashing of which I was critical, but rather the unjustified bashing.
  My second speech came in response to the proposal to approve the 
extension of increased COLA's, cost of living allowances, to the Vice 
President, to Members of Congress, to members of the Federal judiciary, 
and the Executive Schedule Levels 1 through 5, highly salaried 
appointees and/or bureaucrats. I opposed this proposal and explained 
that I represent constituents in my district who earn $25,000, $30,000, 
$35,000 per year. I then explained, furthermore, it would be an obvious 
slap across their faces to those who are barely hanging on by rewarding 
the Vice President, Members of Congress, Federal judges, and Executive 
Schedule Levels 1 through 5 a generous increase in COLA's.
  I subsequently was accused by colleagues of opposing Federal judges 
and Members of Congress. My message was again misunderstood, Mr. 
Speaker. I am not averse to rewarding people whose work is exemplary. I 
am opposed, however, to extending increased COLA's to the aforesaid 
group, on the one hand, while on the other hand we are desperately 
trying to convince the President of the significant importance of 
balancing our budget. The two are simply not consistent.
  So to sum up, and hopefully to illustrate with convincing clarity, I 
am, A, not opposed to bashing or vigorously debating issues on this 
floor. I am indeed opposed to bashing when it is not justified by the 
surrounding circumstances. The rule of equity rewards only those who 
come to the court with clean hands.
  And B, I have great respect for most Members of Congress, and for 
most Federal judges, five or six of whom I call good personal friends. 
I have respect as well for the Vice President, and as far as members of 
the Executive Schedule Levels 1 through 5, Mr. Speaker, I can neither 
condemn nor praise them because I am familiar with only a small, 
limited number. But I will continue to oppose the rewarding of 
increased COLA's to this group until we can somehow manage to live 
within our means. It is my belief that those who are earning $25,000, 
$30,000, $35,000 per year can relate to this type of reasoning, and, 
for that matter, so should we all.

                          ____________________