[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 26, 1997

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today slightly bemused at the 
specter we are witnessing where the Republican Majority is effectively 
denying its own member, the gentlewoman from Washington, the 
opportunity to address a matter of significance to her and other 
members.
  Last week, the same Majority brought forward for a vote H.R. 2378, 
Treasury, Postal, General Government Appropriations for FY 1998. The 
rules established by the leadership did not allow for broad amendments, 
Representative Smith tells us she wanted an opportunity to raise under 
that bill the issue of Cost of living Adjustments for federal 
employees, including judges and Members of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing if the gentlewoman was 
persuaded or tricked by her leadership into not raising the issue, at 
that time. I do know that the membership, in the absence of amendments, 
addressed the merits of appropriations set forth in H.R. 2378, and 
voted only on that. In the aftermath, the vote on the appropriations 
bill was construed as being either ``for'' or ``against'' maintenance 
of the Cost of living Adjustment--for all Federal employees, judges and 
Congressmen and women. This, of course, later got further distilled as 
a vote ``for'' or ``against'' a congressional pay raise.
  All of that occurred without adequate deliberation on the issue of 
COLAs, and even without specific discussion as to whether a distinction 
could be made for COLAs for federal employees, judges or Members of 
Congress. Thus, the American public was deprived of a clear and full 
enunciation of respective positions as well as a recorded vote on this 
particular issue. Members were ill-served by the portrayal of the vote 
on the broad Treasury, Postal, General Government Appropriations bill 
as a vote on a pay raise, particularly when the bill did not 
specifically address Ms. Smith's issue.
  The Majority now appears ready to compound the travesty today by once 
again closing debate without providing Ms. Smith and those who might 
agree with her position an opportunity to amend or even debate the 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, operation of the House in such a manner could rightly be 
seen by the public as akin to the conduct of a certain Senate Committee 
Chairman in the other legislative body who recently invoked procedure 
to stifle a hearing and vote on an ambassadorial appointment for 
Mexico.
  I suggest Mr. Speaker, that people will and should be more troubled 
by the way this business has been conducted than by whether or not a 
2.3% COLA, in place since 1989, actually is authorized.
  Personally I find that points made by experienced Members--including 
those who were here in 1989--seem to be reasonable in support of the 
2.3% COLA, for Members of Congress, as well as for judges and other 
federal employees. I am told that the COLA was first established at a 
time when Members' ability to earn outside income was curtailed. In 
addition, Members are afforded no living allowances for the costs of 
maintaining a second residence and other expenses associated with the 
need to be both in the home district and in Washington D.C. Many 
Members believe firmly that the 2.3% COLA is fair, especially since it 
has not taken effect for several years, and that the salary set for 
Members helps attract quality candidates and Members. They also cite 
their seven day (and most evening) schedules and dedication to their 
work--which includes a responsibility to legislate on significant 
issues, including a multi-trillion dollar budget.
  Yet these arguments have not been fully articulated because of the 
Majority's procedural maneuver to shut down debate. Other than a sense 
that the public may resent Congress' COLA, there has been little 
discussion as to why other federal employees and judges ought to be 
denied COLAs.
  Mr. Speaker, I've yet to hear a sufficient rebuttal to the points 
made in favor of the COLA, but unfortunately it seems I shall not get 
that chance as the Majority appears set against it.
  Had I the opportunity to weigh in, I'd like it known that I would 
support COLAs for federal employees and judges. Since many would seize 
the opportunity to politicize any action on Congressional COLA's, I 
would prefer that they be allowed to take effect in the session of 
Congress following the one in which a vote is taken. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, I suggest that that would be the better course this year and 
at any future time when the compensation of those voting on the issue 
is in question.
  So, I object to abuse of the process, and the refusal of the Majority 
leadership to put the question squarely to the membership for 
deliberation, debate and vote. I am also sure many Members will find 
objectionable the interpretations and misinterpretations of Members' 
positions.
  Mr. Speaker, the insistence of the Republican leadership to be clever 
on the issue instead of forthright is a disservice to the public and to 
Members.

                          ____________________