[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.
____________________