[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7760-H7769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2378, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND 
              GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2378) making appropriations for the 
Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of 
the President, and certain independent agencies, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 2378, and that I may 
include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.


           Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Hoyer

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

       Mr. Hoyer moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 2378, be 
     instructed to insist on the House position providing $514,000 
     for the fourth year of operation of the Exploited Child Unit 
     of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, is the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] opposed to the motion?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I say I am opposed to 
this motion not because of its content, but I am opposed because in the 
present form it is missing an addition I think is important to be 
before this House, the addition of language relating to a pay raise.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] will 
be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. 
Smith] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for that ruling. Mr. Speaker, on May 
24, 1993, a 10-year-old little boy, Stanley Burdynski, Junior, was 
abducted in suburban Prince Georges County, just a few miles from where 
we stand. Four and one-half years later he is still missing. We must 
never forget little Stanley. I am sure that every one of the Members 
has a Stanley or a Mary in their district, a child who has been 
abducted by a demented criminal person in their districts and in mine.
  What this motion to instruct says is that we need to make sure that 
the fourth year of the program directed at the operation of the 
Exploited Child Unit of the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children is fully funded.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything in our power to ensure the fact 
that we, to the greatest extent possible, can protect our children from 
exploitation, from being taken from their families, from their 
neighborhoods, from their playgrounds, from their schools, by those 
demented souls of which I spoke, subjecting those children to abuse 
and, yes, even to death. That is what we will vote on in this motion.
  I would hope that the House would stand united and unanimous in its 
commitment to speaking out and acting out and putting our money where 
our mouth is in the fight against the abusers of children in America.
  In 1996 I worked with other concerned Congress men and women to gain 
funding to create the Exploited Child Unit at the Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children in the Treasury-Postal bill. John Walsh of 
America's Most Wanted spoke out and came to Capitol Hill, and had a 
press conference on this very issue, and said he needed to have every 
one of us, as he was doing on television every week, committed to the 
fight against abusers of our children.
  This unit creates a greater awareness and generates leaders for law 
enforcement to combat child sexual exploitation. There are many efforts 
underway at the Federal level to combat child sexual exploitation that 
I want to tell the Members about.

                              {time}  1515

  Under the leadership of the FBI, each of the seven major law 
enforcement agencies are coordinating efforts with the National Center 
to bring a priority approach to such child exploitation cases.
  Through the 1994 crime bill, the Secret Service is working closely 
with the National Center, using unique forensic technology to track 
abductors. The Customs Service has established the International 
Pornography Investigation and Coordination Center. The U.S. Postal 
Service continues its aggressive efforts to crack down on child 
pornography. The FBI has also established a child abduction and serial 
killers unit.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that through these efforts we can create a new 
awareness throughout the land and make America's children safer and 
more secure. I urge my colleagues to support this very important effort 
to protect our children against exploitation, sexual abuse, and yes, 
even murder.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to instruct conferees. I think he has outlined 
very well the importance of the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children. It is a very small part of our bill, it is a very 
small part of the funding, but it is a critical part.
  A few months ago, during our hearing process, I went over to Virginia 
and visited this office. It breaks my heart when I see some of the 
posters that are on the wall, some of the letters that are there from 
families who have lost their child, who desperately want help in trying 
to find that child, and turn in sheer despair, with no other place to 
go to but to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
  Sometimes it is hard for us in Congress to take a lot of credit or a 
lot of pride in the things we do. But if there is anything we can take 
pride in, it is the fact that we have funded this National Center.
  It is one, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] pointed out, 
that had its beginnings with John

[[Page H7761]]

Walsh, whose son, Adam, was brutally kidnapped and murdered in Florida 
more than a decade ago. John Walsh started a private foundation. Due to 
the work of some other people, we came along a few years ago and we 
joined hands and created the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children.
  We provide about $2 million to the Secret Service to assist in the 
investigations of missing children, mostly for fingerprinting, 
identification, handwriting analysis. The $514,000 that is the subject 
of this motion here is earmarked specifically for the exploitation unit 
which has been established.
  We think it is absolutely critical that we deal not only with the 
children who are missing, but those who are being exploited by, as the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] said, the demented souls who would 
use them, use children for pornography, who would abuse them mentally, 
who would abuse them physically.
  That is what this Center for Exploitation deals with. We have never 
had a specific unit in the National Center dedicated to this before. We 
would earmark these funds in order to be sure that this is adequately 
funded and that we really can focus on this issue. That is really the 
subject of what we are debating here today.
  I certainly hope that we will go to conference with a strong message 
urging our conferees to stand by our language on this so that we can go 
to the Senate and say ``This is something we strongly believe in.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that the first thing that 
we say is ``We like this amendment.'' It makes sense. It made sense 
when we passed it. The protection of exploited children is a national 
issue important to all Americans' hearts.
  But confidence in this Congress to handle fairly all issues vital to 
citizens is clouded by previous procedures used to allow a salary 
increase for Members of Congress to go through just last week without a 
vote. We are just going to ask to oppose the motion in its present 
form, not the content. We just want to add something. We would like to 
add that we would like to take the Senate language, they already voted 
against a salary increase, so we would say that to slow down a couple 
of minutes on this floor, to add this salary increase motion to this 
other vital motion is not much to ask to restore the confidence in 
America in Congress, in what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth.]
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Linda Smith], for yielding me the time.
  I would like to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe], for again bringing our attention to this vital issue.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, it is important to reiterate that we agree on 
making sure that resources are there to make sure that we reach out to 
find those children who are missing, who are abducted.
  But there is another question dealing with resource allocation, 
dealing with the finances of this country, which we must deal with in 
this very House, and it has to do with pay for Members who serve here 
in the Congress of the United States.
  It is a vexing question and a unique question for those of us who sit 
in this Chamber who are charged, if you will, with the country's bank 
account, who have seen time and again overdrafts on that account, 
overdrafts that would not be countenanced for a single nanosecond 
outside the halls of Government. But because Government can make the 
rules, Government can engage in creative accounting.
  Sadly, that has been the case all too often. Members here work hard. 
That is not the issue. But public service is a privilege rather than a 
career. Many Members of this institution have made financial 
sacrifices. That is something that at times is the price of freedom.
  Another real world standard that seems to have left this debate is 
the notion of performance. In education, in business, in athletics, 
indeed in every endeavor in life, work or play, there is a performance 
criteria that must be accepted.
  Speaking for myself and the people I represent in the Sixth District 
of Arizona, my constituents have made it crystal clear to me, and 
indeed I believe people from coast to coast and in Alaska and Hawaii as 
well, wanted those of us who serve in this Congress to work for fiscal 
accountability, to balance the budget, just as families around the 
kitchen table are forced to do. And at the very least, my colleagues, 
at the very least, Mr. Speaker, any increase in pay should be tied to 
performance.
  I do not believe, in good conscience, that we who serve representing 
the citizens of the United States from a variety of walks of life, that 
we in good conscience can accept a cost of living adjustment or a pay 
hike, or whatever we want to call it, so long as we fail to balance the 
budget. That is the sole requirement I believe necessary for the 
American people to reward us, in their judgment, with a pay increase.
  And indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we look from coast to coast and beyond to 
those who wear the uniforms of this Nation, who would put themselves in 
harm's way, we have read the accounts, we have heard the situation 
where some of those who defend America are forced to apply for food 
stamps to feed their families. How in good conscience can we rise even 
for a minimal cost of living adjustment when those needs still exist 
for those who would put their lives on the line?
  Mr. Speaker, those who gathered at the structure we now call 
Independence Hall in Philadelphia, in drafting that remarkable document 
that declared our independence from England in the Declaration of 
Independence, in those final key lines, our Founders said, ``and to 
this we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.''
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we can do no less. Vote ``no'' on 
the previous question.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to give a little history. The gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], my colleague and friend, spoke about 
performance and that we at this time should not receive any kind of a 
cost-of-living adjustment. I think it is worth the time for Members to 
understand where we have been legislatively with this.
  It goes back before some of the Members who will speak on this were 
here. Because of the very great difficulty that we had with the issue 
of the pay raise, in 1989 this Congress passed a provision to permanent 
law, I want to underscore that, ``permanent law,'' which took it out of 
the hands of Congress so that we would not engage in the kind of 
demagogic debate that sometimes goes on in this body over this 
particular issue. And we said that there would be a committee that 
would survey private sector wage rates for the previous year and the 
Federal employees would get an increase, a cost-of-living adjustment 
equal to that and that those at the very top of the scale, Cabinet 
officers, SES judges, executive service judges, and Members of Congress 
would get a cost-of-living adjustment that was half a percent below 
that, so that Members of Congress get a cost-of-living adjustment half 
a percent below what all other Federal employees would get.
  Subsequent to that, of course, this Congress has entered into a 
number of debates on the subject. Despite the fact that we took it out 
of our own hands, we have entered into this debate and we have denied 
ourselves even the cost-of-living adjustment that was going to all 
other Federal employees.
  It was specifically in order to avoid this debate of having Congress 
vote on whether it was raising its own salaries or giving itself a 
cost-of-living adjustment that we created that provision, that we 
adopted that procedure. I think it is important for Members of this 
body to know that that is the procedure that this body adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston].

[[Page H7762]]

  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, how wonderful it is to hear the same old 
speeches about how rotten a job the Members of Congress have done for 
the American people.
  In the last 20 years, I have seen a moderate economy expand 
exponentially and then collapse. We have gone through various 
recessions. I have seen moderate inflation go to rampant inflation, 14, 
15 percent rates of inflation, interest rates go to 21 percent. I have 
seen the Soviet empire, collapse. I have seen policies implemented to 
bring interest rates down, bringing inflation down, bringing 
unemployment down.
  American people today are probably as well off as they have been in a 
generation. Interest rates are at a generational low. Inflation rates 
are at a generational low. The United States is not at war, hot or 
cold. I think we are doing pretty well. For the first time in 30 years, 
we have reached a balanced budget agreement, only a month ago. For the 
first time in 16 years, we have passed legislation for a tax cut for 
the American people.
  For the speaker that was here two times ago to come before the House 
floor and say that the American people have been ill-served by the U.S. 
Congress is a disservice to the performance of this body and the other 
body.

                              {time}  1530

  The U.S. Congress is performing well, in bipartisan fashion, with 
conservatives and liberals and Republicans and Democrats alike working 
together. And to condemn the work product and say that we are lesser 
than all employees of the United States who all want a pay raise, to 
say that we are lesser than all Federal employees who have not missed a 
beat, or lesser than anybody else who gets an automatic cost-of-living 
adjustment does a disservice to the work product of this body.
  I do not like to see the work product of the U.S. Congress denigrated 
when I believe that the last 20 years that I have witnessed have been 
some of the most productive years of American legislative history. The 
Congress found of its own self that practices of the past were 
questionable and should be abolished. The honoraria was given up in 
1989 under the agreement that the Congress would be subject to the 
cost-of-living adjustment for every single year, but at a half point 
less than Federal employees. That agreement held for 2 years. In 1992, 
the Congress gave itself the last cost-of-living adjustment.
  I daresay inflation has not kept constant, but the Congress has not 
had a cost-of-living increase, the Congress has not had any pay 
increase, and for Members to get on the floor and demagog and say they 
do not deserve any pay increase is for them to say that the American 
people do not deserve to keep up with the cost of living or that 
Federal employees do not deserve a cost-of-living adjustment.
  It is not politically wise for me to stand here and make this speech. 
I will be roundly chastised in my district and around the country. But 
I believe strongly that for Members to demagog and say we are not worth 
what every other American citizen is worth, for Members to say that if 
you are a millionaire, you are better off, or you do not have to worry 
about pay raises, you only have to face up to the votes, the tough 
votes, is for Members simply to say the U.S. Congress is not worth the 
people's attention and their investment, and I do not believe that.
  I believe that we are a productive, good body, and I believe that 
this cost-of-living adjustment is worth it. I believe that anybody that 
does not want the cost-of-living adjustment can do one thing: Say he 
does not want it and donate it to charity. That is all you have got to 
do.
  I just put my last kid through college. All I have got to do is pay 
the bills. I am not independently wealthy. For those of our Members 
that do not have to worry about college bills or paying any bills, I am 
proud of you, because that is America. America is doing better. But I 
believe in public service, and I believe in equal pay for equal work, 
and I believe that if you do not believe it, you are wrong.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, if there is any belief that our constituents 
cling to with stubborn resolve, it is that each of us have come here to 
either enrich ourselves financially or advance ourselves politically. 
Frankly, in the last few days we have done very little to acquit 
ourselves of any of these charges. We have a continuing refusal to 
bring campaign finance reform to the floor of the House despite the 
fact that the public is clamoring for such a debate and such change. We 
will soon debate a bill on the floor that carves out a whole new 
category of citizenship just for Members of Congress. And then we have 
the pay raise, a pay raise that was disguised in a bill by 
parliamentary sleight of hand. And last night when an attempt was made 
to make in order a revisitation of that pay raise, it was ruled out of 
order by the Committee on Rules and described in today's paper as 
frivolous. Whatever good will this body has built up over the past few 
months given our bipartisan budget decision and other proposals that 
the public supports, it is being eroded quickly.
  Benjamin Disraeli, when he came into the government in Britain, said, 
``I was told that the privileged and the people form two nations.'' 
That is interesting, because when I got involved in government in the 
United States, I was told just the opposite. But it appears that our 
actions of the last few days suggest there are, in fact, the privileged 
and the people. That needs to change. This is the people's House. Let 
us return to the people's business, and let us restore some of the 
people's trust in this institution. Defeat the previous question. Have 
the debate. Discuss the pay raise. Vote for it if you believe in it. 
Vote against it if you do not. But do not let the highest legislative 
body in this democracy shun public scrutiny.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of those who 
favor this motion by the gentlewoman which seeks to void the cost-of-
living adjustment for Congress. I think that they are very far removed 
from the realities here. Our constituents, in my opinion, oppose 
efforts by Congress to carve out special treatment for themselves, for 
example, subsidizing activities here or perhaps special services that 
other Americans do not receive. But I think that they understand the 
concept of a COLA. It is an inflation factor. It is a cost-of-living 
adjustment. It is the same type of COLA or inflation factor that other 
Federal employees get, that members of the judiciary get, that Social 
Security recipients get, and many others get. In fact, it is a little 
less, a half percent even less than those.
  I think that we are really not relaying, if you will, to the American 
people what is really going on here if we continue to talk about it as 
somehow something privileged or something very special. It is not. That 
is the difference. I know that when I talk to my constituents, if I 
told them that we were going to vote ourselves a 15,000 or 20,000 or 
$25,000 pay raise, they would say, that's outrageous. You don't deserve 
it. But when we tell them that we are just giving ourselves a COLA and 
we proceed in the fashion just like other Federal employees, just like 
Social Security, just like so many other Americans, I think they 
understand that. I think they understand that all of us have to make a 
living and that over the years, inflation and costs go up, and that we 
are justified in doing so.
  I know that there has been some argument here about the way that we 
have gone about it. There is no question in my mind that the 
gentlewoman is perfectly justified in bringing up this motion today and 
having us vote on it and articulating what she is all about. But the 
basic philosophy behind the COLA makes sense. I think that if we 
settled with it, if we said, ``OK, we're going to have the COLA, and 
it's going to go on every year,'' we would get away from this whole 
idea of having to come to the floor and in some cases disguise what we 
are actually doing. It should be no different than other Federal 
employees. I understand why she is bringing up the motion, but I would 
urge that we defeat her motion.

[[Page H7763]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the bill that would have 
a pay increase. In our own conference when the veterans' COLA came up, 
I fought against my own Republican Party because they wanted to cut a 
veterans' COLA. Why? Veterans sign on a dotted line that if they serve 
the amount of time in the service of this country, and at the end of 
that time that is the contract they operated under, they would have a 
retirement; and that that retirement, should it lose money each year 
because of inflation, that was not the intent. I chastised my own party 
for that. We turned that around.
  If you had a pay increase that gave you more money than just 
maintaining parity, it is a parity issue, does the dollar maintain the 
same value that you came with, then I think Members have got the right 
to chastise what we are doing here. But in an amendment that maintains 
parity, that is a half a percent below actual parity, then I do not 
think the Members have a complaint as far as a COLA, because most of us 
support a COLA for Social Security. We support it for our veterans. We 
support it for Federal employees, because it maintains the dollar value 
that those individuals have in their paycheck. It is not meant to get 
less and less and less with inflation, depending on what it is. That is 
the same reason most of us support indexing of capital gains, because 
it indexes the value of that dollar right along with inflation.
  I think it is disingenuous, maybe with good intention, but 
disingenuous, to suggest that this was a pay increase. It is not. 
Because I will vote against a pay increase, a COLA that is more than 
just meeting parity. I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong, and 
most of us this day will not vote for a pay increase. I ask my 
colleagues to vote against the motion.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brady].
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in America have lost faith in 
the institution of Congress. It did not happen overnight. It has been 
building for many years. All they want us to do in honest, open debate 
is to listen to issues and do the right things for the right reasons.
  Last week was not one of our brighter moments, because we did not do 
any of that. Rather than having an honest, open debate on a pay raise--
and we respectfully disagree; I oppose it and some Members support it--
rather than standing on the principle of honest, open government, we 
hid behind a procedure. That was a loss for Congress, and it was a loss 
for America. Last week we spent more time commemorating the life of 
Jimmy Stewart than we did debating a $28 billion bill and a pay raise 
for Congress. That is wrong. The issue is not the pay raise. It is how 
we are going about it and what we stand for.
  We have Members that I have been very impressed with in my short 9 
months here, and I do not deny their strong feelings for a pay raise. 
We are not going to get a straightforward, open vote on this. This is 
as close as we are going to get, but we are going to make every effort 
to at least tell the American public on this vote how we feel as a 
Congress about a pay raise.
  And a final thought. I served in the Texas Legislature before coming 
to Congress. At one time we had a proposal to give the biggest tax 
increase in Texas history as a growing State, and we were told that it 
took courage and guts to vote for a tax increase, that the easy thing 
was to hold the line on the budget and to live within our means, but if 
we had courage and guts, we would vote for a tax increase. That was a 
silly argument then, and it is a silly argument to believe that it is 
difficult and courageous to vote yourself a pay raise. Ask any family 
in America, and that is an easy decision.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
and in opposition to the motion of the gentlewoman to forgo the cost-
of-living adjustment. I may be in a minority here among people who in 
1992 took about a $25,000 cut when I was elected to the Congress of the 
United States. I had a successful law practice. I believe if I had been 
in the law practice for the 5 years that I have been here, I would 
probably have made by now $100,000 or $150,000 or $200,000 more than I 
have made as a Member of Congress. That to me is unimportant, because I 
signed on for this job with an expectation that we would maintain a 
level of parity in our salaries.

                              {time}  1545

  What is a lot more important than that to me is the judges who each 
year have contacted me and said, ``Please, give us our cost-of-living 
adjustment so that we don't continue to lose good qualified people from 
our judiciary.''
  It is absolutely important in a democracy such as ours that we have 
qualified members of the judiciary, qualified members of the 
legislative branch, and qualified members of the executive branch.
  I believe we have done a good job during the period that I have been 
in this body, and I encourage my colleagues to give up on this notion 
that we should browbeat ourselves and not maintain parity in our 
salaries.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just cover once again what this bill is and what 
it is not, what this motion is and what it is not.
  The Treasury, Postal Service and general government appropriations 
bill that is before us does not have any provision dealing with 
Members' pay; it does not have any provision dealing with Federal 
employees' compensation or cost-of-living adjustments or Member's cost-
of-living adjustments. There is, let me repeat, no provision in this 
bill dealing with compensation for Members or Federal employees. There 
is no provision dealing with this at all in our bill.
  I think it is important that we keep that in mind because a lot of 
people have been saying that a vote on this bill has to do with a cost-
of-living increase, a pay increase, increase in compensation for 
Members. It does not. And that is because this body and the other body, 
the Congress of the United States, decided in 1989 to take this issue 
out of our own hands and to make it that Members of Congress would get 
a cost-of-living adjustment and nothing else based on the increase in 
the ECI index, and that index with complicated formula which is 
different for Federal employees than Members of Congress because of the 
locality pay, but it is established that Members of Congress can never 
get beyond what a Federal employee gets in an increase in the cost-of-
living adjustment.
  That is the permanent law. That is the permanent law, and if Members 
of Congress do not like that, where are the bills to repeal that 
section? Why do we not have bills introduced? Why do we not get that 
debate on that issue? It is not an appropriation issue. There is no 
account in Treasury, this appropriation bill, for Members' salaries 
because Members are constitutional officers. There is no reason for us 
to vote on this bill and assume that we are in any way voting for an 
increase in Members' compensation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the Senate does have a 
provision to strike the pay raise, and that is all the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] wanted to say, that they have struck the pay 
raise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with somewhat mixed feelings on this 
whole issue, and I would like to start by joining the gentleman from 
Maryland in supporting what he is trying to do, and the protection of 
children is certainly very important to all of us, but I do think we 
need to add a provision that allows us a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on the 
pay raise issue. And let me make it clear that I would oppose a pay 
raise at this point in time myself. Personally I am opposed to any 
elected body giving itself a pay raise, but that is not really why I am 
rising to speak on this particular issue.

[[Page H7764]]

  What I am really opposed to is the way the bill was passed last week, 
brought up unexpectedly with virtually no notice and not giving the 
Members of this body the opportunity to have a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote 
on this very, very important issue. This type of action is what makes 
our constituents back home so angry, the idea that we are going to try 
and slide something through with people unaware. That is what makes the 
American people angry, and that is why I am rising to speak today.
  I would like to speak specifically to some of my colleagues who 
believe the cost-of-living adjustment is acceptable. I understand where 
they are coming from, and I honestly believe there are many, many 
people in America that would concur that a cost-of-living adjustment is 
appropriate, and I would like to also align myself with comments of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. He is absolutely right. Good 
things have been done by this Congress. We are having the first 
balanced budget since 1969, the first tax cut in 16 years, and the 
responsibility for much of that credit should go to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] for 
bringing us to this point.
  But to my colleagues that think the cost-of-living adjustment is 
acceptable and what their constituents would want them to vote for I 
simply say, ``Stand up, cast your vote, let your constituents know 
where you stand and why you stand there.'' There will be a lot of 
people in America who say it is acceptable in the view of our first 
balanced budget and taxes coming down and Medicare restored, that a 
cost-of-living adjustment is acceptable. All we are asking for is an 
up-or-down vote. Just give us a vote so that the American people do not 
think we are breaking their trust because, my colleagues, that is what 
this is all about.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks. This is a question of accountability. I myself am 
for the COLA. But the point is we have to be accountable to the public 
on either side of the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my 
colleague, Representative Neumann and to urge that we defeat the 
previous question and to oppose the procedure that allows Members to 
collect an automatic COLA and shields them from public accountability 
without an upfront vote.
  When I took my seat in Congress in 1981, among the first pieces of 
legislation I introduced was a bill injecting a new degree of sunlight 
into the Members' compensation process. My legislation was 
straightforward:
  Every increase in Member's salary or benefits or a favorable change 
in their tax treatment must withstand a recorded vote in this Chamber 
and the other body. Once approved, that pay raise or tax change could 
not take effect until after the next congressional election.
  Our logic was simple. If Members' felt they deserved a pay raise, 
they should be willing to stand up and vote for it publicly. 
Furthermore, to allow their constituents to determine if their Member 
was deserving of that pay raise, that Member would have to stand for 
election before collecting the larger paycheck.
  Mr. Speaker, the keystone here is accountability--something that has 
been completely lacking around here lately.
  Like many of my colleagues, I was appalled at the ``fast track'' 
consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill last week. 
Despite all the protestations to the contrary, it is clear that the 
Treasury-Postal bill was rammed through this House in record time in an 
effort to avoid a vote on a pay raise amendment.
  Is it any wonder that the American people are growing more cynical 
about Congress and the political process every day?
  First come the headlines that we have slipped in to the tax bill a 
secret $50 billion tax break for big tobacco.
  Now, we refuse to find a way to vote on an amendment that would 
prevent Members from collecting an automatic pay increase.
  And here we are today. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that our colleague, Linda Smith, can offer a new motion to 
instruct the conferees to kill the pay increase. And I do not argue 
that we cannot justify a COLA--I think we can but not by hiding it and 
avoiding an upfront vote.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying for 
goodness sakes, colleagues, just when we are starting to restore the 
trust of the American people in this institution by fulfilling our 
promises to reach a balanced budget, by bringing their taxes down for 
the first time in a generation, restoring Medicare for our senior 
citizens, we are just starting to restore the trust of the American 
people, let us not go and do something like this that they perceive to 
be a move behind closed doors and behind their back trying too slide 
something through. For goodness sakes, we are starting to restore that 
trust, let us have an up-or-down vote on this. If my colleagues believe 
a COLA is acceptable, vote ``yes,'' and if my colleagues think their 
constituents do not want a COLA, well then for goodness sakes vote 
``no,'' but let us have the vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose any motion to 
delete the COLA for us as citizens and as workers in this government.
  First of all, I resent the self-flagellation that I am hearing 
against Members of Congress and this institution which we so ably 
represent. I think I among others work as hard as anyone in this 
government, harder than some, so I am not ashamed to come to this 
podium today to say we deserve a cost-of-living increase. I give no 
excuses for having to ask this Congress to do this. If we are not 
ashamed of the work we do, then we should not be ashamed to stand up 
and say, yes, we believe, we do believe, in the cost-of-living.
  Soap costs me as much as it does anyone else. I pay the same money 
for soap as the woman out there on Pennsylvania Avenue pays. I work 
just as hard as she does, and I say to this Congress we deserve to do 
this, and I just want to say to my colleagues, ``You need some pride in 
the institution which you represent. If you're not proud of it, then 
think of David McCullough's words as he spoke to us in the bipartisan 
retreat and we were finding, what he said, some type of pride in what 
we do, and the willingness to go forward to speak up for this wonderful 
institution which was brought to us by our Founding Fathers.''
  And I quote Mr. McCullough and I do not have a lot of time, but he 
said it has been the will of heaven that we, the Members of Congress, 
should be thrown into existence in a period when the greatest 
philosophers and law givers of antiquity have wished to have lived. 
Right away we see he is saying it is the will of heaven, there are 
larger forces than we ourselves, and he is applying the moment against 
the standard of the past, and that is antiquity.
  It is a very large degree, a lesson in propulsion, a period when a 
coincidence of circumstances without an example has afforded to 13 
colonies at once, and he goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. What he is trying 
to say to us, that there should be pride in those of us who represent 
this institution.
  I give no excuses for being a Member of Congress. I am proud of it, 
and I say that every Member of this Congress works hard enough for a 
cost-of-living increase. We deserve it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. King].
  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the most intellectually 
vapid and vacuous arguments I have heard in opposition to the COLA. The 
fact is there is no logical argument to be made against the COLA other 
than those people who enjoy self-flagellation, who enjoy pandering and 
do not have the guts to stand up for what they believe in. If they do 
not have the pride to accept a COLA which was set in law then, quite 
frankly, I do not think they deserve to be in the House of 
Representatives.
  What are they ashamed of? We are talking about an American economy 
which is stronger than any economy in the history of the world. We are 
talking about an American Government which right now is not at war. 
There is not one American soldier losing his life or her life anywhere 
in the world today, and yet we have people coming before the House and 
saying the American people are outraged at the Congress. The only 
reason the American people have a reason to be outraged at

[[Page H7765]]

the Congress is they listen to some of the ridiculous arguments that 
were made here today by people who want to pander, who want to appeal 
to the least common denominator and who want to tear down this 
institution.
  I am proud to be a Member of Congress; I will be very proud to accept 
the COLA because I believe I earn my money. I also believe that the 
position of a Member of Congress deserves the increase, whether or not 
that person happens to be qualified or not qualified, and quite frankly 
listening to some people today, I can see why they do not want to take 
a pay raise, because they have a good self-analysis, and maybe they 
believe, as individuals, they do not deserve the pay raise.
  But in spite of that I believe that the institution as itself, as an 
institution, deserves to have a COLA, deserves to keep in line with the 
American people and with the cost of living, because if my colleagues 
follow their logic, when would there have been a COLA; during the 
Depression? During World War II? During the Korean war? During 
Watergate? During the cold war? There would never have been a raise, 
and we would end up having what we are coming close to having today, a 
Congress of wackos and millionaires reaching a situation where working 
people, and I am talking about the gentleman from New York [Mr.  
Ackerman].
  But in any event, very seriously, if we are to be proud of ourselves 
as an institution, if we are going to have enough self pride to stand 
up for what we believe in, let us have the guts to accept the COLA and 
not be pandering, not be yielding to the lowest common denominator.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to the motion of the 
gentlewoman from Washington, and I ask my colleagues to show some guts, 
show some courage, stand up for what they believe in.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a 
half to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise here acknowledging the fact that 
people work very hard in Congress, but what I think we have to remind 
ourselves is the fact that we are not veterans, some of us are, we are 
not farmers, we are not teachers, all of whom deserve a COLA, but what 
we are is the elected representative Government of the United States of 
America, and as such I think we have to in essence be held to a higher 
standard because what the American public expects of us is that we lead 
by example.
  When Washington crossed the Delaware 200 years ago he did not say to 
the folks, ``You guys get in the boat, and I'll meet you on the other 
side.'' He got in the boat with them. And if my colleagues look at our 
budget, 73 percent of the cuts, the savings, whatever they want to call 
them, still come in the last 2 years of the budget, so there is much 
savings still expected from our American public, and as such I think we 
need to lead by example.
  The second reason I rise in support of this amendment is for the 
simple reason of sunshine. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] 
already suggested this but just in terms of process I think it is very 
important, whether we think it is a good thing or think it is a bad 
thing, that we take an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who probably has taken more heat 
and shown more courage and more intellectual honesty on this issue than 
anybody in the House.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and 
colleague for those glowing remarks; I hope I live up to them. He 
certainly deserves a lot of credit for all the leadership he has 
provided on this issue.
  Let me say that I want to speak more than anything else to the 
Members who have come here in the last 3 elections because I think they 
have overlooked a lot of history that this Congress struggled with 
throughout most of the 1980's and into this decade.
  In 1989 a bipartisan task force was created and reported to this 
Congress a package of ethics reforms that I think are historic. 
Certainly that is what President Bush said when he signed them into 
law. They prohibited Members from accepting honoraria for speeches, a 
practice that was very prevalent here, and played into charges of 
special interest dominance; we severely restricted the ability of 
Members to receive outside income, in other words we could no longer 
put our name on the door of a law firm and draw down an income; we 
provided stricter financial reporting requirements which cover not only 
Members but all high-paid employees of this branch of government and 
others in the other two branches; we repealed the loophole that said we 
could take our campaign funds with us when we left Congress as income 
and live off them, and regrettably some had taken large sums with them; 
we restricted the ability to lobby in post-employment periods; and we 
also made a number of other changes that were fundamental and much 
acclaimed.

                              {time}  1600

  We took action to increase compensation, and, by the way, the 
gentlewoman from Washington was wrong in a press release she issued. It 
was not a midnight pay raise. It was debated and voted in the light of 
day, a majority of both parties supported it, and we were proud not 
only of our courage in dealing with the pay issue, but in our ability 
to reform ourselves in a way that was long overdue.
  We dealt also with the conflict of interest that we all have. We are 
blamed if we vote ourselves a pay raise, and we are blamed if we create 
a mechanism which absolves us of that responsibility if it is a COLA 
and not a pay raise.
  We took the employment cost index, which is the measure of private 
sector pay, and said in the year following, we would take whatever our 
constituents earned, reduce it by half a percent, and take that as a 
cost-of-living adjustment, not as a pay raise. In fact, a court in the 
District of Columbia, an appellate court, ruled that this COLA is not a 
pay raise. If it were a pay raise, like the increase we took in 1989 
and 1990, we would have to vote on it by law. This reform required it. 
But we believe and polls confirm that a cost-of-living adjustment is 
acceptable to the American people. Otherwise, if we fail to take COLA's 
we will be back in the position of having to vote ourselves, 
periodically, a large pay raise--one we cannot defend to the public.
  We wanted to avoid doing that, and yet at the same time compensate 
our judges, our executive officers, our top staff, yes, ourselves, by 
providing not what others were getting on average something less but 
making an attempt to keep pace with the cost of living. No more, no 
less.
  It was, and I believe still is, the recommendation of a bipartisan, 
unanimous task force. Congress approved this as a way of avoiding the 
conflict of voting ourselves a pay raise.
  Now, I realize that accountability is important. Credibility is also, 
just as it was then. I would urge every Member to either take the raise 
and be public about it as a cost-of-living adjustment, or not take it 
and be public about that, if that is what serves your personal needs or 
political interests. But do not come to the floor and prevent this 
mechanism which we agreed to in a bipartisan way from being 
implemented.
  This is the key vote on whether or not Members have enough self-
respect to adequately represent their constituents. I ask for an aye 
vote on the previous question and final passage.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a point 
that actually the majority voted against the pay increase last week, 
102 to 112, so they would not have passed it had they been the only 
people here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Riley].
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to decide if I am a wacko 
or a millionaire. It is probably a wacko.
  But as a businessman, for the last 32 years, the one thing that I do 
realize is if my company was $5 trillion in debt and still losing 
money, the last thing I would do is give management a pay raise. If we 
do that, we are sending the wrong message to this country.
  That is why yesterday I introduced a bill that will for once and for 
all do away with COLA's. We do not need COLA's in this body. The people 
of this country want us to stand up like men and women, representing 
our own constituencies; they want us to stand up and vote on whether or 
not we should give that.
  Is that too much to ask for the people of this country? My bill 
basically

[[Page H7766]]

does away with COLA's, and if we want a pay raise, let us come to the 
floor, let us ask for the pay raise, let us vote on it, vote it up or 
down, and then we can go home and be accountable to our people.
  But without that, Mr. Speaker, I think we will continue to go through 
this every year, as we have for the last 3 or 4 years, and every year 
the same debate comes up. So let us once and for all do away with the 
COLA's. If we want a pay raise, let us be up front about it, let us 
bring it before this body, and let everyone vote on it, and vote it up 
or down.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lampson].
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the children, not the 
27 pictures that I hold in my hand right now, whose pictures were 
printed in the Houston Chronicle on Sunday, all of whom were abducted 
and most of whom have been found, unfortunately, dead.
  We have got to speak to the lives of the 114,500 children that the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are trying to be the 
strong voice for and having them returned to their families. I think it 
is wrong for us to be playing politics with an issue as major as that 
of protecting our children. I find it very interesting that this is a 
day that we have so much interest on such a totally different issue.
  We need to put our kids first, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to identify myself with 
the remarks of the previous speaker. I agree. And today's debate would 
not be needed if last week's event would not have occurred during the 
Treasury-Postal debate.
  It was last week that we were supposed to be debating this type of 
motion and this issue. I walked onto the floor ready to talk about the 
issue, and whether you believe in the COLA or whether you disagree with 
the COLA, what we were talking about was a vote on the issue.
  I was here, ready to talk about it. I stepped into the cloakroom and 
made a phone call, and by the time I came out, it had been slipped 
through and we voted on it, and it passed.
  What we are talking about here is open, honest government. It is not 
about whether we deserve or do not deserve a COLA. What we are talking 
about is integrity in the institution. Like the gentleman from 
Wisconsin talked about earlier, whether you believe in it or do not 
believe in it, it is not right to be deceitful and deceiving the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong approval of this motion. Vote against the 
rule.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to inform Members 
that the bill was on the floor for over three-quarters of an hour.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, there are two issues before us: One, do you 
favor or oppose an automatic pay raise; and the second is do you 
believe or do you not believe in accountability?
  This first vote is are you willing to stand up for what you believe 
in? I have heard a lot of people talk about courage and principle here, 
and then tell everybody here that they want to cast a vote that is 
going to use procedure to avoid being counted for where they stand. 
Now, I do not think that is accountability and I do not think that is 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind all Members in this Chamber, only by 
voting no on the previous question will we get the opportunity to give 
these people who profess courage the opportunity to actually cast a 
vote that they are claiming courage for.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Smith 
amendment. I ask my colleagues to consider the senior citizens living 
on fixed incomes, the American working families trying to make ends 
meet while holding down two to three jobs, working 7 days a week, and 
consider our young people, hoping to achieve the American dream, while 
paying off thousands of dollars in school loans and car payments. I ask 
Members to vote against the cost-of-living adjustment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished majority whip, let me respond to a comment made a moment 
earlier about this bill being slipped through. It was done in the 
middle of the afternoon. It had been on the whip notice for 2 weeks 
that it was coming up when we finished the interminable debate over 
Labor-HHS.
  If in 48 minutes Members cannot find their way to the floor and offer 
an amendment, I do not know why. Maybe it says something. Maybe the 
cost of living adjustment is not justified under those circumstances. 
There was no attempt to be deceitful. There was no attempt to do 
anything that was not above board.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished Majority Whip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say if this were a pay raise, as so many 
have portrayed it, I would oppose it, what we are talking about here 
today. This is not a pay raise; this is about an inflation adjustment. 
It is about upholding a law that was passed in 1989.
  I know Members have deep feelings on this issue. I just disagree with 
them. What is really sad to me in the press reports, because many 
journalists have gotten it wrong and they got it wrong mainly because 
they were told wrong. I was on the floor the entire time this bill was 
debated last week, and there were Members who were against the COLA 
that were on the floor and did not offer an amendment, even though it 
was germane, and chose not to use the procedure by which they could as 
Members of the House effect what they want.
  This bill does not even speak to inflation adjustment. No 
appropriation bills do. In fact, to the gentleman from Montana, if you 
want to use procedure, you have to use procedure in order to have an 
amendment to change the law of 1989.
  So I just say that if Members want sunshine and they want a vote on 
the law of 1989, then learn the legislative process. Introduce a bill 
and repeal or amend the 1989 law that set up the pay process that we go 
through.
  The 1989 law that we passed, as many have said, is a law that tried 
to deal with this terrible issue of making sure that Members of 
Congress have a standard of living by which they can raise their 
families and live decently while they serve. No outside income is 
allowed. We eliminated outside income, except in certain cases.
  Now, millionaires that serve here and people with previous businesses 
are able to supplement their income when they find out that they cannot 
live on this salary. Well, I challenge them to live on this salary and 
then come down here and oppose a cost of living adjustment.
  We eliminated honoraria, which was a terrible practice, and 
instituted a pay raise that brought us into parity with the kind of 
purchasing power that Members had back in the 1970's. We did not have 
this huge pay raise. We just came back to that purchasing power.
  Mr. Speaker, do you know what the purchasing power of the pay for 
Members of Congress was in 1969 if you use 1997 dollars? It is $186,676 
in today's money. Yet we raised pay to $133,600. Now, where is the pay 
raise in that? So if you are going to be on this floor and talk about 
pay raises, at least get it in perspective about what we are talking 
about.
  We passed a constitutional amendment, the Madison amendment, that was 
ratified in 1992, that said no pay raise would go into effect until 
there is an intervening election. I think that is the kind of reform 
that we should have done.
  Now, where we shot ourselves in the foot is constantly allowing 
procedure to be used in order to bring an amendment to the floor 
nongermane to the bills, so we could all stand up and beat

[[Page H7767]]

our chest and say ``I am going to refuse the cost of living 
adjustment.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something: Members of this House have 
families.

                              {time}  1615

  They have two homes, in most cases. Some Members are living in their 
offices, because they cannot afford a second residence. The Members of 
this House are at the age when they have their children in college, and 
I have to tell my colleagues, and I am not making excuses or 
apologizing, it is difficult to raise a family and serve in Congress 
under these conditions, not to speak of the times that we spend away 
from our wives and children and the sacrifices they make to allow us to 
be here.
  Well, I tell my colleagues, my wife, and my children sacrifice 
enough. They deserve a decent living, and I am going to give it to 
them, because I am going to vote for the previous question and vote for 
the motion to instruct.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me point out that 
legislation has been introduced to end this automatic pay increase for 
Congress. In fact, one of my good friends, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], is a cosponsor of that, but for some reason, it has not 
been on the floor of this House for a vote. So to say that there are 
other ways to do this, I think, is somewhat disingenuous.
  For the record, Members of Congress earn $133,000 each year. The COLA 
that we are talking about is a $3,000 pay increase that would go into 
effect next year, and my problem with this process is that there is too 
much unfinished business in this House for us to vote a pay increase 
for ourselves.
  Many said it is merely a COLA, just like Social Security has a COLA. 
Well, Social Security still is not secure, because we are stealing from 
that trust fund to pay for the cost of Government.
  They say it is just like the COLA in capital gains, but we failed to 
pass a COLA for capital gains. It was not indexed in our tax cut. They 
say it is just like the COLA for veterans, but we still have not made 
up the lost ground to our veterans from the Clinton cut in their COLA. 
So there is too much unfinished business in this Congress for us to be 
passing a pay raise.
  Let me tell my colleagues exactly what will happen in a few minutes. 
We will be asked to vote on the previous question. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.'' What that does is say we will not have a gag process; 
we will let a vote come forward on whether or not this Congress should 
have a pay increase, and then one can vote up or down as to whether we 
should agree to the Senate position, and the Senate position is that 
there should be no pay increase until we have finished our business.
  I urge my friends and colleagues to think of this as a matter of 
unfinished business for this Congress, to do what is right, act 
correctly, and let us have a vote on this pay increase issue. Vote 
``no'' on the previous question when it comes up in a few minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is a vote about what we think of 
ourselves, what we think of this institution, and the trust and 
confidence we have in those who send us here; a vote on whether we 
believe that they believe we are worth what they pay us.
  This issue is about staying even; not about raises, about staying 
even. Ask any of our Social Security recipients or our veterans when 
they get a cost-of-living adjustment if they got a raise, and they will 
say, my friend, you do not understand. My grocery costs went up, my 
prescription drugs went up, my oil heat bill went up. Yes, perhaps even 
my college tuition for my child went up. This is about staying even.
  Let me reiterate what the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] said. 
In 1989, the Members of this House, in a courageous and honest vote, 
said to their constituents, we are not going to take outside income. We 
will rely only on our salary, not on the payment of special interest 
gussied up to be honoraria for speeches. In 16 out of 28 years, or 18 
out of 26 years, we said we were going to take no cost-of-living 
adjustment, and as a result, the pent-up needs of our families led us 
to invoke, from time to time, raises of very substantial proportions, 
as much as 27 percent.
  Our constituents and our public were outraged, because they did not 
know that we had not gotten a raise the 6 previous years. They did not 
know that we were catching up. They thought that we were taking some 
outrageous pay. Can you blame them? Of course not.
  So what the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the Republican 
leadership proposed was a mechanism whereby we would not do that to 
ourselves, to this institution, or, very frankly, to add to the 
cynicism of our public, and that all we would take is a cost-of-living 
adjustment, which, as I reiterate, keeps us even with the increased 
costs that we are confronted with on an annual basis. That increased 
cost would be less by half a point than the private sector increase.
  Now, my friends, let me say, so we do not feel badly about what I 
hope we are going to do, that since 1970, the CPI has increased by 292 
percent. Military pay has increased by 320 percent. All private sector 
pay has increased by 264 percent. Manufacturing blue collar workers, I 
tell my friends, has increased by 281 percent. Federal retiree pensions 
increased by 291 percent, just about the CPI Federal civilian pay by 
243 percent, and Members of Congress by 207 percent; I tell my friends, 
again, some 70 percent below manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona talked 
about our Founding Fathers who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and 
their sacred honor. Most of us in this body do not have fortunes to 
pledge, but if, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
said, we do not on a regular basis stay even, not a raise, stay even 
with the increased costs confronted by our families, then, of 
necessity, we will become a body of those who only have fortunes.
  Our honor. I ask every one of my colleagues who has come up to me 
over the last 10 years and said, I hope you effect a pay raise, to vote 
for this, for if that is true, there will be about 375 of my colleagues 
who will vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote for exploited 
children's protection, vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote 
``yes'' on the amendment to instruct the Senate to protect exploited 
children.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the motion being 
considered today and urge may colleagues to oppose it and vote no. 
Simply put, this congress has not had the opportunity to vote on 
stopping the automatic cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress. 
I believe that it is wrong to increase congressional pay at a time when 
we must make further cuts in Government spending to balance the budget. 
At the very least, the American people are entitled to a vote so that 
they know their Member of Congress' position on increasing their own 
salaries. I want to make it very clear that I would vote no if there 
was such a vote. Should we fail in our effort to stop the pay raise I 
will donate the entire amount to charity. I will only accept the salary 
I was elected to receive.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed in this debate, and as 
chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, 
I would like to remind my colleagues of the importance of the National 
Center for missing and Exploited Children. The National Center has 
helped locate 114,600 missing children. We should not play politics 
with its funding. Missing children and frightened families should be 
held sacred by this body.
  Just last Sunday, the Houston Chronicle printed the pictures of 27 
girls who have been abducted in the area in and around the Ninth 
Congressional District. Our most recent tragedies include 12-year-old 
Laura Smither of Friendswood. Laura was abducted while on her morning 
jog. Her body was found 2 weeks later. She had been murdered. And now 
we are searching for 17-year-old Jessica Cain of Tiki island. Jessica 
never came home after a party on August 19. Her truck was found with 
the engine running and her wallet still on the front seat. I have met 
the Smither and Cain families. I have searched through woods looking 
for their daughters. Most importantly, in becoming involved with this 
issue, I have come to know and respect the excellent work done by the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children on behalf of these 
children and their families.
  We need to give our full support to the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children and give the issue our full attention and 
respect. I ask my colleagues to protect the funding for the National 
Center for Missing

[[Page H7768]]

and Exploited Children and to untie any provision affecting the 
National Center from the COLA. I oppose the COLA, but I am deeply 
saddened that Members of this body may have to cast a vote against the 
National Center to express their opposition to the COLA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
  The question is on ordering the previous question on the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
motion to instruct.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 199, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 435]

                               YEAS--229

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Largent
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bonilla
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hunter
     Schiff

                              {time}  1643

  Ms. CARSON and Messrs. ADAM SMITH of Washington, LUCAS of Oklahoma, 
MINGE, WHITFIELD, and SCHUMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. PELOSI, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. KANJORSKI changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1645

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412, 
noes 2, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 436]

                               AYES--412

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard

[[Page H7769]]


     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Coburn
     Shimkus
       

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--6

     Goode
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Shadegg
     Smith, Linda
     Souder

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bonilla
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hunter
     Kaptur
     McHale
     Miller (CA)
     Ney
     Pastor
     Schiff
     Spence
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1651

  Mr. SALMON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 436, I was in a meeting and 
the beeper did not work, and I missed the vote. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  For consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Kolbe, Wolf, Livingston, 
Hoyer, and Obey.
  As additional conferees solely for consideration of titles I through 
IV of the House bill, and titles I through IV of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Istook, Mrs. Northup, 
and Mrs. Meek of Florida.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________