[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 31, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1750-H1760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING RULES OF COMPENSATION FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
AND MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 585
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.
Res. 581) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives regarding rates of compensation for civilian
employees and members of the uniformed services of the United
States. The resolution shall be considered as read for
amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform; and
(2) one motion to recommit which may not contain
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 585 is a closed rule that provides for the
consideration of H. Res. 581, expressing the sense of the House
regarding rates of compensation for civilian employees and members of
the uniformed services of the United States.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Government Reform. The rule also provides one motion to
recommit which may not contain instructions.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to H. Res. 581, the underlying resolution,
I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman
of the Committee on Government Reform, who has spent significant time
working on this important issue for this Nation's Federal civilian
employees and military personnel.
The Committee on Government Reform has held several hearings on the
state of the Federal workforce. At the conclusion of those hearings, it
determined that some managers may not be able to attract or retain
skilled employees to the Federal workforce due to a pay gap between
Federal civilian employees and their private sector counterparts.
The concept of pay parity is based on two factors: first, an
acknowledgment that the pay for civilian Federal employees and military
personnel has not kept pace with the private sector; and, second, a
belief that there is a need to reduce the disparity in pay between
civilian Federal employees and military personnel.
The pay parity issue was not addressed in the House-passed fiscal
year 2005 budget resolution. Therefore, H. Res. 581 offers every Member
of the House the opportunity to express their opinion on whether or not
they believe that pay for civilian Federal employees should be adjusted
at the same time and in the same proportion as pay for the members of
the uniformed services.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we may
proceed to debate H. Res. 581.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Military and Civilian
Employees Pay Parity Resolution and the rule providing for its
consideration. This underlying resolution is imperative for it
expresses the sense of Congress that the government should provide fair
compensation for Federal employees in order to encourage citizens to
pursue a life of public service.
Federal employees consistently demonstrate the best that our
government has to offer, and their contributions directly improve the
lives of all Americans.
When we speak of Federal employees, we speak not only of the brave
men and women of the Armed Forces but also of the men and women of
literally hundreds of agencies dealing with thousands of issues. With
nearly 1 million employees, the Federal Government is the largest
employer in the United States. Thirty-two thousand Federal employees
live in and/or around my south Florida district alone.
Employees of the Central Intelligence Agency work in oftentimes
arduous conditions to safeguard our country from those who mean to do
us harm.
Federal Emergency Management Agency employees provide disaster relief
assistance, supplying shelter, food and funds to victims of natural
disasters.
Customs agents and Transportation Security Administration officials
protect our borders and our skies, and firefighters and other Federal
law enforcement personnel across the Nation are our first responders to
a range of hazards that can affect entire cities or single homes.
These are just a few of those Federal employees, including the fine
people that do the work here transcribing our words, the clerks that
work with us, the Capitol Police, the security guards, all are Federal
employees; and, in my judgment, many of them do not receive fair
compensation for their hard work.
Mr. Speaker, much of the world comes to know the face of America from
the dedicated Federal employees living in this country and working
abroad.
{time} 1045
All of these hard-working employees deserve the unequivocal support
of this body. Even more, they deserve just and fair compensation that
competes with the private sector and rises to meet the living standards
enjoyed by many Americans.
Increases in the pay of military and Federal civilian employees have
not kept pace with the overall pay levels of private sector employees.
There currently exists a gap of 32 percent between compensation levels
of Federal civilian employees and those of private sector workers and
an estimated 5.7 percent gap between compensation levels of members of
the uniformed services and those of private sector workers. This
glaring discrepancy greatly hampers the ability to recruit and retain
quality employees.
To run efficiently and effectively, and to provide necessary services
to
[[Page H1751]]
the American people, the Federal Government needs to attract skilled,
educated, and motivated people. We must provide Federal employees with
an appropriate level of salary and benefits to encourage people to
pursue a career of Federal service, whether civilian or military.
Potential Federal employees must be made to understand that choosing a
career of public service is not akin to taking a vow of poverty. The
contributions one can make within the Federal service are lasting,
desirable, and beneficial to the entire country.
I stand with my Democratic colleagues today as we point out that
instead of debating a resolution expressing the sense of Congress, we
should be debating a bill that actually establishes just compensation
as public policy. It is shameful that while the administration and this
body insist on providing a $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest among
us, the Republican-passed budget leaves Federal employees to cope with
rising health care and education costs without adequate compensation
for their jobs.
This body's failure to ensure just compensation is yet another sad
example of enriching the wealthy at the expense of middle-class
America. I look forward to a day when this Congress will act to provide
an equitable living standard for the middle class instead of just
simply raising the idea.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by again expressing my support for this
legislation and encouraging my colleagues to support it. As the old
saying goes, though, talk is cheap. It is now time for this body to put
its money where our mouths are and include real pay parity in the
budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I do have additional comments that are unrelated to the
parity issue. Because I do serve with my colleague on the Committee on
Rules, I also feel the need to make a comment on recent issues which
have taken place in the Committee on Rules.
We are experiencing a greater and greater breakdown of comity within
the Committee on Rules that has me very troubled. The minority no
longer receives timely notice of when the majority intends to make
announcements. We no longer receive materials or even a notice that
materials are available on a timely basis.
We did not, for example, receive notice from the majority that the
chairman of the Committee on Rules was going to make a unanimous
consent agreement last night on transportation. Although we knew from
our leadership that this was going to take place, it is only a common
courtesy between the majority and the minority of a committee that the
minority be notified before the chairman makes announcements on the
floor. Similarly, the manager's amendment for the transportation bill
was apparently made available to the majority last night, but Democrats
received it this morning.
I raise these issues here, Mr. Speaker, not in derogation of the
issue before us, but because this is just the tip of the iceberg. No
one in the minority disputes that the majority of the committee, in
conjunction with the Republican leadership, controls what happens here
on the House floor. But there are rules for each committee, rules which
the majority is supposed to follow. And the frequency with which the
majority on the Committee on Rules has taken to violating those rules
and practices is increasing; and it needs to stop, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
585, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 581) expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives regarding rates of compensation for civilian
employees and members of the uniformed services of the United States,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of House Resolution 581 is as follows:
H. Res. 581
Whereas civilian employees and members of the uniformed
services of the United States provide critical services and
protection for our citizens and taxpayers, and make many
other significant contributions to the general welfare of the
Nation;
Whereas the ability of the Federal Government to provide a
competitive salary plays a critical role in its ability to
recruit and retain individuals possessing the skills
necessary to provide government services effectively and
efficiently to the American people;
Whereas the current pay system hampers the ability of the
Federal Government to achieve the goals referred to in the
preceding clause;
Whereas the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of
1990, commonly referred to as ``FEPCA'', sought to achieve
comparability between Federal and non-Federal pay rates
through annual pay adjustments based on changes in private-
sector wages and salaries;
Whereas increases in the pay of members of the uniformed
services and of civilian employees of the United States have
not kept pace with increases in the overall pay levels of
workers in the private sector, so that there currently exists
an estimated 32 percent gap between compensation levels of
Federal civilian employees and those of private sector
workers, and an estimated 5.7 percent gap between
compensation levels of members of the uniformed services and
those of private sector workers; and
Whereas, in almost every year during the past two decades,
there have been equal adjustments in the compensation of
members of the uniformed services and the compensation of
civilian employees of the United States: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) compensation for civilian employees and members of the
uniformed services of the United States must be sufficient to
support our critical efforts to recruit, retain, and reward
quality people in Government service; and
(2) to help achieve this objective, in fiscal year 2005,
compensation for civilian employees of the United States
should be adjusted at the same time, and in the same
proportion, as are rates of compensation for members of the
uniformed services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
585, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
I be allowed to control 20 minutes, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis) would control 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) would control 20 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the unanimous consent
request is agreed to.
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the
resolution now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the issue today is of the utmost importance to our
Federal employees, the Federal Government, and the American taxpayer.
The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, FEPCA, of 1990, Public Law
101-509, sought to help achieve comparability through annual pay
adjustments based upon the change in private sector wages and salaries.
Despite our efforts, the Bureau of Labor Statistics currently estimates
a 32 percent pay gap and a 10 percent gap between the military and the
private sector.
In order to deliver what was promised, the Federal Salary Council
recommends a 25 percent locality pay for 2005. There is clearly much
work to do to fulfill the intent of Congress, and the resolution here
before us is a step in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), my colleague and coauthor of this resolution, along with the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and myself.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution.
[[Page H1752]]
Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members to think about the following thing:
the first person that was killed in Afghanistan fighting the war on
terror was a constituent of mine, a CIA agent in Afghanistan. The FBI
agents who are working in Afghanistan and Iraq are living under the
same conditions.
The first person that everyone in this body would call if they were
to find out that a loved one had been kidnapped sometime today would be
the FBI. We would call an FBI agent.
The NIH cancer researchers and people doing research on juvenile
diabetes and other important diseases would be affected by this
resolution. Those that are guarding our borders under very difficult
conditions along the northern border and the southern border would be
helped and impacted by this resolution.
We hear a lot of people talking about how bad drugs are and we want
to do everything we can to keep drugs from coming into our country. The
DEA agents, some of whom have been killed in the line of duty, who are
working full time to keep drugs out of our schools, are Federal
employees and would be affected and impacted by this resolution.
The people in the fire service, that this summer as we are listening
and hearing about forest fires taking place around the country, are all
Federal employees who would be impacted by this resolution.
The nurses and the doctors that are working in VA hospitals that are
taking care of our veterans are all Federal employees who would be
impacted by this resolution.
Lastly, the Secret Service agents that are guarding the President.
Secret Service Agent Timothy McCarthy, who stopped the bullet that
would have killed the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan,
was a Federal employee.
The resolution is very, very important. I commend the gentlemen on
both sides of the aisle and ask Members for an ``aye'' vote to send the
message to the CIA, to the FBI, to the NIH and the border control, to
DEA agents, to the Forest Service, the Park Service, to VA nurses, the
Secret Service agents, and Social Security and other people who are
working very, very hard that this is an important issue. I strongly
urge Members to support it.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 581. For the last 3
years, we have been hearing the right things being said about Federal
employees coming from the White House but doing just the opposite. In
the July 10, 2002, speech we heard the administration say, and I quote,
``The important thing for the American people is to know that our
public servants are working longer hours and working harder and working
smarter to defend the American people.'' The White House went on to say
that ``public service in America today is not just another job, it is
an important act of citizenship. It is a way to fulfill our obligation
to those who have gone before us and those who will follow after us,
those who have sacrificed and died for us.''
That is all correct. One thing that we all know is that public
service is not just another job. But unfortunately, those who will
follow, unless we make some changes, will have less pay, less due
process and appeal rights, and no right to collectively bargain.
Indeed, there will be no civil service because jobs will be contracted
out. Is that the way we want to say thanks to our Federal employees for
working longer hours and working harder?
Then if that is the case, we certainly would not be doing our
employees any favor. There are plenty of accolades and platitudes for
the civilian Federal employees who perished or were severely injured in
the 9-11 attacks, but now we hear that Federal employees are a lesser
priority than military employees. How many Federal civilian workers
have died beside their military counterparts in Afghanistan or Iraq?
What about the Federal civilian workers who died in the Murrah Federal
Building in downtown Oklahoma City? Can we tell their families that
they are a lesser priority? How quickly we forget.
Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten the arguments this administration
and some of my colleagues used to justify rolling back Federal
employees' collective bargaining rights. At that time, Federal
employees were critical to homeland security at the Transportation
Security Agency, at the Department of Defense, and at the Department of
Homeland Security. Now we hear that there is a significant difference
in the demands we place upon those in the Armed Forces and those in the
civilian workforce.
Historically, Congress has expressed strong bipartisan support for
parity in pay between our military and Federal civilian sectors in
recognition of their important roles in our Nation's defense and
general service to the American people. So I join with those who say,
Stop the rhetoric and platitudes. It is time that we put our money
where our mouths are. We have to stop this attack, this misuse and
abuse of civilian Federal employees, and grant them equal status and
equal pay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Certainly
everybody always wants to be better paid. I do not know anybody that is
an exception to that particular rule. So there is always tension
between what people would like to be paid and what an employer can
afford to be able to pay. The employer in this case is the taxpayers of
the United States of America.
This is not necessary to give what this resolution proposes, that
would be supersized raises, jumbo COLAs, to the Federal workforce. We
have been very generous with the Federal workforce. In the last 7
years, for every $1 increase in the cost of living index, or for that
matter in the cost of living adjustments to Social Security, for every
$1 that the cost of living has gone up, Federal workers have gotten a
raise of $1.66. They have gotten raises two-thirds higher than the
actual inflation rate. In fact, in the past 4 years, Federal workers
have gotten raises at twice the rate of inflation.
The President's budget proposes that the across-the-board raise for
the Federal civil service should be 1.5 percent, consistent with the
actual cost-of-living adjustment. This resolution, however, says that
they should get 3.5 percent.
Why? Well, they say it is because we are going to give the military a
larger raise and therefore we have to give the Federal civil service a
larger raise, too. I do not think that is accurate. People that work at
civil service jobs are not taking the same risks on behalf of their
country as people that are working in our Armed Forces. We do not have
the retention problems in the civil service sector as we do in the
Armed Forces.
There is a letter that has been submitted by the administration, by
the Office of Management and Budget, opposing this resolution and
points out that we are almost at a record low on the turnover in the
Federal civil service. About 1.5 percent a year, that is the whole
turnover of people in Federal civil service jobs.
This is not a matter of retaining people. This is a matter of giving
extra raises to people that, frankly, the taxpayers do not have the
money to afford. This would cost us $2.2 billion this year and a
similar amount next year and the year after and in perpetuity to give
these extra large raises rather than holding the line as we should.
For State workers, the average pay raises in the last 4 years have
been only about a third of what the pay raises have been for the
Federal workers. The private sector is significantly behind what we
have already done for Federal workers. This is not the time when we
have record deficits to be giving more than a cost-of-living adjustment
to the Federal civil service.
Mr. Speaker, we have been overly generous. It is not needed to retain
people; and, frankly, the taxpayers are the ones that are being asked
to foot this multi-billion dollars of expenses. This is the taxpayers'
money. We are being fair. We should stay that way.
The supposed pay gap, people say Federal workers are 32 percent
underpaid. Actually, that particular survey does not calculate all the
factors. It does not calculate the locality pay that boosts Federal
civil service workers,
[[Page H1753]]
which cuts that gap in half; and it does not cover the benefits they
receive under which that gap evaporates.
We are being fair, and we should oppose this resolution on behalf of
the taxpayers of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I think the gentleman is aware that the Federal Employee Pay
Comparability Act calls on the Federal Salary Council every year to
make recommendations in terms of what the Federal employees would make.
We could put a chart up here that would show that every year we have
failed to come close to what the Federal Salary Council has recommended
under the existing law of the land which is FEPCA, the Federal Employee
Pay Comparability Act. This year, they have recommended a 25.73
locality rate for 2005.
Congress has a long history on this issue. This resolution merely
reiterates the sense of the House. Annual pay adjustments for civil
employees and military members provided through the appropriations
process have been identical in nearly every year over the last two
decades. In addition, language to this end was included in the budget
resolution for fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004.
In 1999, the last time the Senate held a freestanding vote on this
issue, the Senate voted 94-6 in favor of an amendment expressing the
same sense of Congress that we do here today.
I used to work for a billion-dollar company out in Fairfax, Virginia.
Our greatest asset was not our building. It was not our computers. It
was not the land. It was our employees. They walked out the door every
night, and we did what we had to to make sure they came back the next
day. In an information age, people are the number one asset of any
organization.
The same is true with the Federal Government. We are in danger of
losing in the procurement force over 60 percent of our qualified
workers over the next 5 years. These are people that can walk across
the street to the private sector and make more money than they are
making for the Federal Government and leave with their full retirement.
These kind of minor incentives in a 3.5 percent pay raise that I do not
think anybody except maybe the gentleman opposing this resolution would
call a gargantuan pay raise or a huge pay raise, this is in line with
what we are seeing in many cases in the private sector and in State and
local governments and in my own counties that I represent in Congress.
We have to be able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest
to fulfill the policies that this Congress passes and sends on. To do
that, pay comparability is important, and we continue to lag
significantly in that respect. The Federal Government may never be able
to compete with the private sector dollar for dollar, but we have to
ensure that we do not fall further behind in the war for talent.
While wages are not the only factor in our recruitment and retention
efforts, what employer can hope to succeed in a labor market where it
is offering salaries so far below the average? This is not a cost-of-
living allowance as some have argued, saying it is too generous. The
purpose is to assist the Federal Government in providing salaries
comparable to those in the private sector. This is achieved through
annual pay adjustments based on the change in private sector wages and
salaries, not the cost of living. That is the fundamental precept
behind the Federal Pay Comparability Act. This is achieved through our
annual pay adjustments.
The fact remains that Federal pay is not competitive. It is also
important to note that providing a higher annual adjustment would not
result in any budgetary increase. As they have over the last two
decades, agencies pay for all their salaries, including these annual
adjustments, with discretionary funds from their salaries and expense
accounts. This does not score under CBO.
I think we can all agree that both armed services and the Federal
civilian workforce are integral to fulfilling the role of government in
America and both must be compensated accordingly. In the coming fiscal
year, parity and pay adjustments remain the vehicle to help achieve
comparability between the public and the private sectors on the issue
of pay so that the government can continue to perform. This resolution
is integral to this effort. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, number one, I was the sponsor of the Federal Employee
Pay Comparability Act back in 1990. We included it in the Treasury-
Postal bill. It was signed by President George Bush. It was signed on
the theory that we needed to pay Federal workers comparable wages to
their private sector counterparts. In other words, if you are a
scientist at NIH or if you are an FBI agent or if you are a CIA agent
or you are a defense analyst, a civilian in the Defense Department, you
would get paid comparably what your training and responsibilities
required in the private sector. That was the whole theory. It was
passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, it is the law
today.
My friend from Oklahoma has always opposed this adjustment. Always.
This is not a new posture for my friend from Oklahoma. He simply does
not believe in the comparability act and does not believe in
compensating Federal employees fairly.
He talks about ECI. I wish my friend from Oklahoma would listen to
these figures because I think he will find them interesting because he
misrepresents what the facts are. I know he would be very interested.
Using 1969 as a base year of Federal service pay, average annual wage
adjustments and CPI, which are all different figures, we specifically
used wages because that is what we are competing with, not CPI. We are
competing with wages in the Federal sector. Listen to this and I think
you will be shocked.
Since 1969, if you take wages as the base, they are now at 614
percent. If you take CPI, it is at 509 percent over those 44 years. If
you take civil service wages, they are 371.8. So they are still about
100 points behind the CPI adjustment, and they are 180 points behind
what private sector wages have been adjusted. That is what this is
about.
The Federal Salary Council under the law makes findings. They are in
the Department of Labor. They make findings. Let me read their findings
of this past year:
Based on calculations provided by the Office of Personnel Management,
taking a weighted average of two sets of pay gaps, et cetera, the
overall gap between base general schedule average salaries locality and
non-Federal average salaries surveyed by BLS, the difference between
private sector salaries and public sector salaries was 31.8 percent. In
other words, for comparable responsibilities, Federal employees were
making 31 percent less than their private sector counterparts.
The law said back in 1990 we get to 95 percent of private sector,
saying that we are not going to put Federal employees on a par per se
with the private sector but the objective is to get to 95 percent of
what the private sector makes. We are not there.
The Federal council goes on to say that the overall average pay gap
in 2003, including a current average locality rate of 12.12 percent,
which of course we do not do, is 17.57 percent. This is the Federal pay
council, out of OPM. Therefore, we recommend an overall average
locality rate adjustment of 25.54 percent. That is in addition to the
ECI.
Let us say the ECI was 1.5 percent which it is not, of course. It is
higher than that, substantially, almost twice as much as that. But if
we did that, then we would be talking about a 27 percent adjustment in
Federal pay pursuant to the law which we have voted for, which the
President signed.
The gentleman is shaking his head. He is inaccurate in shaking his
head.
I will tell the gentleman further, to show him that he is inaccurate,
the President of the United States last year came down and said in his
recommendation 2 percent. The Congress gave 4.1 percent. Bush claimed
last August he was saving taxpayers $13 billion, not from the 4.1
percent but from
[[Page H1754]]
the 25 percent. In other words, the President of the United States
adopted the premise that the law, in fact, said that the adjustment
ought to be $13 billion additional to what the President recommended.
We are not standing here arguing for that proposition, but we are
standing here for the proposition, as this Congress has done 17 out of
the last 19 years, saying, look, we know we can't get there, but let us
not send a message to those civilian employees arrayed in Afghanistan,
civilian employees arrayed in Iraq, civilian employees arrayed in
Colombia, at risk, NIH researchers, critically important to the health
of this Nation, people working at NASA, let us not send them a message
that they are second-rate citizens. Let us pay them comparably with
what we want to adjust the military. And we ought to adjust the
military. I am for that.
So I ask my friends, follow the law. But you do not have to follow
all of the law, because if you followed all of the law we would break
the bank. What we have said we are going to do is get to comparability.
What we want to do in this resolution is to at least get to fairness.
Support the Davis-Wolf-Hoyer resolution.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland's
characterization of Federal civilian employees as second-rate citizens.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not characterizing me as
having said that.
Mr. BUYER. I have the time. Do I have the time?
Mr. HOYER. Personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Indiana has
the time.
Mr. HOYER. I ask for personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of personal privilege is not in
order.
The gentleman from Indiana has the time. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Indiana yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. BUYER. No, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana has the time and
may proceed.
{time} 1115
I do not agree with the characterization of Federal civilian
employees as second-rate citizens. This should not be an argument about
similarities without a difference between the military and the
civilian. I just want the gentleman to know I disagree with that.
Today, hundreds of thousands in our Nation proudly serve us around
the world in the name of freedom. Unfortunately, some in this body
insist that we should not give these uniformed service personnel a
raise unless we give the same raises to everyone else in the Federal
Government. I disagree because I know that there is a significant
difference in the demands that we place upon those in the Armed Forces
and those within the regular Federal workforce.
The pay increases for civilian Federal employees and members of the
uniformed services should not be designed primarily to address the
``spending power'' or the ``standard-of-living'' issues that the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) had just previously raised.
Instead, the amount of such pay increase should be sufficient to
support our critical efforts to recruit, retain, and reward quality
people effectively and responsibly both in the civilian workforce and
the uniformed military services.
Our civilian and military forces work under very different
circumstances, and their personnel systems reflect that fact. The
military is an up-or-out system, which forces members to exit the force
if they are not promoted, whereas the Federal workers can remain at a
particular grade level indefinitely.
The matching of military pay and rank and the general schedule grades
are for protocol purposes only, not for pay equivalency. The pay
systems and underlying personnel systems should not be confused. The
fact is that the Federal workers are not fleeing for the private
sector. The President's budget makes it a proper distinction between
the clear need for the raise of the military pay, which he proposes at
3.5 percent, and a lesser priority of the Federal civilian workers at
1.5 percent.
So over the years that I have been here trying to close the pay gap
with regard to the military, it has been very difficult. The gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has been a very strong advocate with regard
to the civilian pay and increasing that over the years, and I do not
want to mischaracterize him.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland for clarification.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I simply wanted to make the point, what I said was treating them
disparately implied that they were second-class citizens. The
implication in the gentleman's comments was that he disagreed with the
implication that they were second class. There was no implication of
that, clearly.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I accept the correction, and I thank the
gentleman.
Just the point I want to make to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), I know he is a very strong advocate, along with my other
colleague for the Federal civilian workforce. I stand here an advocate
of the military, and there is a tremendous pay gap; and every time we
try to close that pay gap for the military, it has been hard because we
come here to the floor, in the 12 years I have been here, and he says
he agrees with me, but we have got to move the Federal civilian at the
same time. And I just want him to know it is very hard.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I include in the Record a letter addressed to me from Steven
Strobridge, who is a colonel, U.S. Air Force, retired, and director of
Government Relations for the Military Officers Association of America,
supporting this.
Military Officers Association
of America,
Washington, DC, March 30, 2004.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the nearly 380,000 members
of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am
writing to express MOAA's support of the principle of pay
raise parity for the federal civilian workforce.
Pay comparability with private sector workers is a
fundamental statutory requirement for both federal civilians
and the uniformed services. To the extent such comparability
is not sustained over time, our government will not be able
to attract and retain the kinds and numbers of personnel it
needs for a professional, highly qualified career work force.
Improved military pay raises in recent years have been
aimed at restoring long-term comparability with private
sector pay after decades of military pay caps. Those in the
federal civilian workforce also have had their raises capped
below comparability for many years.
Improved military pay raises in recent years have been
aimed at restori8ng long-term comparability with private
sector pay after decades of military pay caps. Those in the
federal civilian workforce also have had their raises capped
below comparability for many years.
While MOAA would not presume to recommend a particular
civilian pay standard for the long term, we believe the
resolution you propose, along with Representatives Wolf and
Hoyer, represents a reasonable step in the right direction,
given the well-documented years of federal pay raise caps.
Sincerely,
Steven P. Strobridge,
Colonel, USAF (Ret),
Director, Government Relations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole), a strong advocate for military and Federal employees.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding me this time.
I rise in support of H. Res. 581, not simply because I have the great
honor to represent 15,000 civilian employees at Tinker Air Force Base
and 6,000 at Ft. Sill Army Post and thousands of others throughout the
district; not just because my own father, who had a distinguished 20-
year career in the United States Air Force, followed that with, I
think, an equally distinguished 20-year career as a civilian employee
at Tinker Air Force Base, but because I think H. Res. 581 expresses
equity, good management, smart personnel policy, and, frankly, is also
an asset to our national defense.
[[Page H1755]]
Opponents of the idea of equal pay for military and civilian
personnel quite often point to the inflation issue as something that
they focus on. Frankly, I think the real question is the 32 percent
wage gap between private sector and public sector employees, something
that this House and this government has historically tried to address
over time. I think we should continue on that path.
I also think it is of the utmost importance that we retain qualified
personnel in Federal civilian service. Over 50 percent of that
workforce is now within 5 years of retirement at Tinker Air Force Base.
It is an extraordinarily skilled force. It needs to be encouraged; and,
frankly, we need to have the incentives to recruit equally qualified
people in the future.
I think in the end, Mr. Speaker, this is simply a matter of good
policy. I have good friends on both sides of this issue. I think the
motives are very good, but the reality is we know we need a first-rate
military. We know we need to pay for that. We need a first-rate
civilian personnel force to back them up when we are in conflict and,
frankly, when we are not. So I am very proud to support this particular
resolution.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his previous statement, as well as the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his statement and his
initiative in introducing this with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his extraordinary leadership in the
Committee on the Budget which has led to the 3 past years of this very
provision being included in the budget.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the leader
of our caucus for his statement.
This is a very important issue, not just to those who represent large
numbers of Federal employees but to the entire American people. We are
talking about adequately compensating those who serve, who serve all of
the interests of all of the American public.
At no time when we introduced this resolution or in the budget
resolution have we ever suggested that the military should only get
their pay increase if civilians get their pay increase. That is a total
mischaracterization by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). That is
not the case. But we do want to make the case that there are a great
many civilian employees serving their country in a dedicated, brave way
as well.
Just a couple of weeks ago, two DOD civilian employees were killed in
what the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad called ``a targeted
act of terrorism.'' There were hundreds of Federal civilian employees
killed in a targeted act of terrorism in Oklahoma. The FBI, the CIA,
the whole Department of Homeland Security, we can raise up the stature
of people who are willing to put their lives on the line; but we can
also point to all those clerks and managers and accountants and all the
people who make the government run.
It is so easy to take it for granted because we have always had the
most professional civil service with the highest integrity of any civil
service in the world, and we take it for granted. But we are not going
to be able to if we do not act responsibly here.
Health insurance premiums have been going up by double digits for the
last several years. If we restrict Federal civilian employees to 1\1/2\
percent, their take-home pay is likely to be even less than it was last
year.
We heard from the assistant secretary for Army Acquisitions. This is
not a function that clearly should be contracted out. Army
Acquisitions. He told us about the fact that in the last 10 years, the
number of civilian employees working for the Army has declined from
100,000 to 50,000; and they have doubled their workload. They have
twice as much work to do. But he shared with us his very deep concern,
his very deep concern, that over the next 2 years half of that
workforce is eligible for retirement. What happens then? These are
dedicated professional employees.
This is a very important issue for all the people of this country. We
as the people that the executive branch works for, we make the laws. We
tell them what their priorities are. And the American people, who
depend upon them for all their Social Security checks, their Medicare
benefits, all of the various programs that have an enormous, profound
impact on their lives, these people have to know that they are
appreciated, they are respected. And how do we do that? More than
words. We have to do that by giving them the level of compensation they
are entitled to. That is what this is about. It is not a matter of
talking the talk. We walk the walk by showing them that we appreciate
what they do day in and day out.
I appreciate the gentleman for introducing this resolution, and let
us get it passed.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I include in the Record a copy of the letter from the Executive
Office of the President of the Office of Management and Budget in
opposition to this resolution.
We hear people say, well, we have Federal civil service workers that
go in harm's way. The vast majority do not. But for those who do, what
we have to do is avoid this across-the-board increase that consumes
$2.2 billion so that we can target the extra assistance where it is
needed.
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC, March 30, 2004.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: As the House of Representatives begins
consideration of a resolution on Federal pay policy, I
strongly urge the House to support the Federal employee pay
policy reflected in the President's FY 2005 Budget. The
Administration believes this approach, rather than the one
reflected in the proposed resolution, is the most effective
way to achieve the desired result: to recruit, retain, and
reward quality employees.
The President's Budget proposes to increase compensation
for civilian employees by 2 percent, or by over $2 billion,
targeted to address specific needs and opportunities. The
proposal includes: a 1.5 percent across-the-board pay
increase to maintain civilian employee buying power; $200
million spread across the agency budgets for use in
addressing specific recruitment and retention needs; and,
$300 million for the Human Capital Performance Fund, which
agencies can use to reward their highest performing
employees. The resolution under consideration would instead
support the same across-the-board increases for civilian
workers that the President has proposed for military
personnel.
The Administration strongly supports the proposed
resolution's goal of providing sufficient compensation for
civilian and military employees to support our critical
efforts to recruit, retain, and reward quality employees
effectively and responsibly. The Administration, however,
does not believe that providing the same across-the-board
increases for civilian workers that the President proposes
for military personnel will help us achieve this goal.
If added to the President's proposal for $2 billion in pay
increases for civilian employees, the additional cost of
providing every civilian employee with the identical across-
the-board raise proposed for the military would be about $2.2
billion. Because Congress cannot provide this funding without
exceeding budget limits or shifting money away from higher
priorities, this increase essentially acts as an ``unfunded
mandate'' that agencies must cover within existing funds.
Federal civilian employees have enjoyed cumulative annual
pay increases of 45.1 percent since 1993. For the last five
years, Federal employees have received raises that exceed
overall private sector wage growth. State governments, by
contrast, have provided smaller increases for their employees
when faced with similar resource constraints. In the past
four years, many States have frozen pay completely at various
points in time, and we are not aware of any State that in
2004 gave its workers as large an across-the-board raise as
is being proposed for Federal workers this year.
In addition, Federal employees receive other types of pay
increases. In 2005, we estimate the value of within grade and
quality step increases as 1.3 percent, the value of
promotions as 1.2 percent, and the value of cash awards as
1.3 percent of civilian payroll. While not everyone will
receive these increases, with the 3.5 percent across-the-
board pay increase that the proposed resolution supports,
overall Federal employee compensation in 2005 would increase
by about $5 billion.
Federal employee benefits are also increasingly more
attractive relative to those available in the private sector.
These include a
[[Page H1756]]
defined benefit annuity and lifetime health benefits for as
little as five years of service, as well as transit
subsidies, long-term care insurance, preferential tax
treatment of health insurance premiums, and flexible spending
accounts for dependent and healthcare expenses. The Federal
civilian benefits package increasingly stands out as one of
the most comprehensive available anywhere.
Both civilian and military employees perform crucial
functions on behalf of the American public. The
Administration believes, however, that giving every civilian
employee the identical raise proposed for the military does
not support the goal of providing compensation to effectively
and responsibly recruit, retain, and reward quality
employees. Advocates for providing identical pay raises to
civilian and military employees cite recruitment and
retention problems, but we have no evidence that the Federal
Government has widespread recruitment and retention problems.
With respect to retention, the voluntary attrition rate is at
a near historic low of 1.6 percent. Only in relatively few
occupations are recruitment and retention problems an issue,
and President's pay policy gives agencies the tools and
resources to address these concerns.
The President's pay proposal provides sufficient pay not
only to recruit and retain needed workers, but also to reward
the government's highest performing employees. The
Administration is implementing better agency performance
appraisal systems that will be able to distinguish superior
performance. Such systems will enable agencies to reward
employees with funds from the Human Capital Performance Fund.
These incentives will produce improved performance and
results for the American people.
Our civilian and military employees are vital to the
success of the Federal government in meeting its commitments
to the American people. Federal workers should be rewarded
with a pay policy that most effectively recruits, retains,
and rewards quality employees. The Administration believes
the pay policy included in the FY 2005 Budget supports those
goals. While we recognize that the proposed Sense of the
House resolution has no binding effect on either the budget
or appropriations processes, we urge Members to oppose the
resolution.
Sincerely,
Joshua B. Bolten,
Director.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I reluctantly rise to oppose this measure. I know the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the author of the resolution, is one of the
great advocates, as are many of the Members who have spoken, of our
folks who are in civil service who support not only lots of domestic
operations but also military operations, and I appreciate his advocacy
for these great Americans.
And I also appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the
cosponsor, perhaps a guy that I feel is to some degree the conscience
of this body and a great leader of this civil service constituency in
his district, and also all the other Members who have spoken on behalf
of the resolution.
The problem I have with the resolution is this: we have a limited
amount of money to operate national defense with this year; and,
according to CBO, we are some $30 billion a year behind in
modernization. That means new equipment for our forces. That means
replacing those 18-year-old helicopters and those 15-year-old fighter
aircraft and making up that 8 to $10 billion shortfall in munitions.
And we pledged this year, and I pledged, to try to make sure that we
shape the defense budget this year in such a way that we try to shift
as much as $2 billion into the theater, into the fighting theater where
our soldiers and Marines are right now fighting against a very deadly
enemy in the theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And that means coming up with extra money for force protection; that
means armor for vehicles; new sensor capability to be able to see the
battlefield, tell where the enemy is at, and work surgically against
him; and also munitions, which are in short supply. We need to recharge
our munitions stockpiles because we have expended a great many of them.
For that reason, I hate to see that, if this action is followed by an
appropriations shift that takes money from the operational military,
and we have calculated roughly $1 billion would come from the
operational military, to move it over to accommodate the pay increases
above the President's proposal, that means we take $1 billion away from
the accounts that do fund the force protection and the munitions and
the extra surveillance and sensor capability that we are trying to
direct and focus in the Afghan and Iraq battlefields this year. So for
that reason, I reluctantly oppose this very well-intentioned motion. I
think we need to focus on the task at hand. The emergency at hand is
this shooting war that we are in right now.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
{time} 1130
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), and my other colleagues who have exercised leadership on this
resolution.
This is an unusual procedure, because we are facing an unprecedented
denial. In war and peace, there has always been pay parity. This is not
the time to set up invidious comparisons between people who do the same
kind of jobs, sometimes on the home front, sometimes overseas.
It has never been considered a reflection on the military for there
to be pay parity, and we ought not inject that into this debate now. We
take nothing from their sacrifice now, as we have taken none in the
past. We know we have a volunteer army. We know most of our troops are
support troops. We know that almost all of them do the same things that
we do in civilian life. There are very few, in fact, in combat.
This is no time to break with pay parity, because if you think this
will be remembered as the era of war, I tell you, this will always be
remembered as the era of homeland security. This will be remembered as
the era when we in fact called Federal employees to do what they have
never had to do before, and that is to protect the homeland. The
homeland is not being protected by the military. The homeland is being
protected by civil servants here during alerts, by civil servants who
in fact are taking care to see that we are not at risk right here. The
last thing we need to do is to tell them that we are going to break pay
parity, right when we expect more from them, right when we are counting
on them to save us from risks that none of us know about today.
Indeed, these employees are being asked to do much more. The great
bulk of them who are in DOD and Homeland Security are having their
lives turned upside down with all kinds of systems being proposed that
are revolutionary in the way you would pay them, evaluate them, involve
them in collective bargaining; and now we want to say we are going to
deny you, as well, as the pay parity you were entitled to when none of
this was going on.
You want to do comparisons between Federal workers and the private
sector? I do not think you want to go there. That has been one of the
most controversial issues for decades, and we are still not at pay
comparability. Indeed, for many years Federal service has been
uncompetitive.
Young people for many years now have been going far more into the
private sector than the Federal sector, and the quality of the Federal
workforce is going to suffer for it. Both the House and Senate have had
hearings and joint hearings on, of all things, recruitment and
retention in the Federal civil service, because half of these folks
could go out the door tomorrow or shortly after tomorrow.
They are greatly unappreciated as it is. Do not make it worse. Do not
break the precedent of pay parity right when we are asking more from
civilian employees of the civil service.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We have heard discussions about how the vast majority of Federal
employees do not go in harm's way. Let me make a comparison.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has just
raised an important point, and that is in the war on terrorism and
protecting the homeland we are relying on our Federal employee
workforce, and many of these people were drafted into this.
We look at the Oklahoma City bombings in my friend's home State, over
100 Federal employees died just for being Federal employees and for
being there as a symbol of this government, their lives involuntarily
on the line, dying for this country.
[[Page H1757]]
Officer Johnny Spann was killed in an Afghan prison uprising on
November 25, 2001, the first American combat death in Afghanistan, a
Federal civilian employee, a CIA employee.
Inspector Tom Murray, a 31-year veteran of the Customs Service, died
from toxic fume inhalation during an inspection of the hold of a vessel
at the Port of Gramercy in Louisiana in October of 2001.
Twenty-three firefighters died in wildland fire-fighting incidents in
2002, primarily in California and Colorado, where the fire season was
especially severe. These account for almost a quarter of the on-duty
deaths of firefighters in 2002, Federal employees.
Who are our Federal employees? Hundreds of Federal firefighters spent
weeks without pause, working day and night to quell the multiple
wildfires that consumed much of Southern California.
Coast Guard Chief Kevin Concepcion directed the safe and orderly
seaborne evacuation of 70,000 confused and frightened people from Lower
Manhattan amidst the chaos of the September 11 attacks.
FBI agents William Fleming and Ben Herren brought to justice two of
the men responsible for the infamous 1963 bombing of an African
American church in Birmingham, Alabama, 40 years after they committed
the crime.
Dozens of foreign service officers have returned to the embassies in
Nairobi and Kenya after bombs demolished the embassy buildings in 1998,
killing and wounding dozens of embassy officials.
Employees from the Federal Highway Administration, the Social
Security Administration, HUD, DEA, Agriculture, Secret Service, all of
these died in the Oklahoma City bombings in April of 1995.
Three-and-one-half percent. Over 20 percent under what the Federal
Salary Council recommended to the President Federal employees ought to
get this year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, were we to adopt this policy of across-the-board raises,
we would prevent the ability to prioritize for those people who
actually put their lives at risk and put themselves in harm's way. I
have worked in local government, I have worked in State government, I
have worked in the Federal Government. Typically we make a distinction
between people, whether they are police, whether they are fire, whether
they are law enforcement, whether they are in the military. We make a
distinction between those who put themselves in harm's way when we
consider what we need to do in employment.
But if all the resources are consumed on saying, no, we have got to
give everybody an across-the-board increase, then we cannot target our
efforts towards those people who do put themselves in harm's way. That
is what the President's proposal seeks to do, have an adequate across-
the-board cost-of-living increase, so that you therefore retain the
resources to target the additional assistance where it is most
justified. This resolution wipes out that approach. This resolution
says, no, somebody that works at a desk, and maybe doing a very
important job at that desk, has to be given the same increase as
someone who puts their life in harm's way. That is a wrong approach.
The people that we have a challenge retaining are those who do put
their lives in harm's way. But across-the-board, they virtually never
had as little a retention problem as they do now in the Federal
Government. A 1.6 percent attrition rate. That is it.
This is not a matter of keeping the Federal employees in general.
This is a matter of conserving the resources so that we can target
them, as the President's budget proposal wants to do, to where it is
most needed.
I wanted to cite from the letter that the White House sent over: ``If
added to the President's proposal for $2 billion in pay increases for
civilian employees, the additional cost of providing every civilian
employee with the identical across-the-board raise proposed for the
military would be about $2.2 billion dollars. Because Congress cannot
provide this funding without exceeding budget limits or shifting money
away from higher priorities, this increase essentially acts as an
unfunded mandate.''
The letter goes on to state: ``The President's proposal is for
targeting resources to where it is most needed, rather than taking this
across-the-board approach that prevents us from making sure that we
retain the people who have the specialties that are in highest demand
and for whom we must compete with the private sector.''
This is a sop to people who wanted to treat everyone the same because
perhaps they are part of the same employee organization. That is not
what we need to do.
We go to great measures to protect Federal employees. As the
Representative of most of Oklahoma City, come out and see the new
Federal building that is being dedicated in about a month's time and
look at the extraordinary security measures that we have put into place
to protect our Federal civilian workforce, because we know their value,
we know their importance. But that does not mean that we treat everyone
as though they were putting their lives in harm's way and, therefore,
undercut what we do to keep the good people that do put their lives in
harm's way on behalf of the citizens of this country.
We do not have the extra $2 billion for the across-the-board increase
this resolution seeks to do. We have got enough problems with the
deficit already.
I ask people to oppose this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the gentleman, and maybe I can talk him
into supporting this resolution when I ask him to read it here, the
language of the resolution itself makes it clear this is not across the
board. It says: ``Compensation for civilian employees and members of
the uniform services must be sufficient to support our critical efforts
to recruit, retain and reward quality people in government service, and
to help achieve this objective, compensation for civilian employees
should be adjusted at the same time and at the same proportion as our
rates of compensation for members of the uniform services.''
Nothing in there mandates across-the-board. This language, in fact,
was changed from previous years to accommodate some of OMB's concerns.
But I have got to tell you, where I get the most concerned is that
last year on this floor I put an amendment on this floor to add $500
million for a Human Capital Compensation Fund so we could give out
bonuses and award people on the basis of merit, and the gentleman's
subcommittee did not fund it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that we did not have
the money to fund it because the very across-the-board language that
you propose today had already been put in and soaked up the money?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, I am
not aware of that.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairman of my
committee, Mr. Chairman, that is inaccurate. It is inaccurate, because,
as you know, you did not fund that in subcommittee. In subcommittee,
the provision to which you refer had not been added.
So you are inaccurate. You had the money available. And, by the way,
as you know, I supported that $500 million so that we could give
additional compensation above and beyond what the law requires. The
law.
This is not some speculation. The law requires that we give special
compensation to high performers. I agree with that premise, as does the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the
gentleman is aware, this authorization was authorized by the full House
in an
[[Page H1758]]
up-or-down vote. Unfortunately, we called on the appropriators to fund
it, the money was there, as the gentleman noted, earlier on before the
additional money was appropriated; and it still was not funded. So it
is easy to talk one way, but we have to look at consistency and action.
All we are asking the House to do today is do what we did last year,
the year before, the year before, what the Senate did in their budget
resolution. This is 20 percent below what the Federal Salary Council
has recommended this year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking
member of the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this
resolution. However, it is regrettable that this resolution even needs
to be offered. In my opinion, it should be a well-settled principle
that Federal civilian employees will receive the same annual pay raise
as military personnel. Unfortunately, we are faced with an
administration that does not appreciate the importance of the Federal
workforce.
We have seen countless examples of Federal employees coming under
attack from this administration. Over the past 2 years, 800,000
civilian employees at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense
have seen the revocation of their collective bargaining rights, due
process rights and appeal rights. We have seen an ideologically driven
campaign to privatize Federal jobs.
This administration wants to use arbitrary numerical goals for
converting Federal jobs; and when there are competitions between
Federal employees and the private sector, the administration wants
employees to compete with one arm tied behind their backs.
Now we see the continuation of efforts to shortchange Federal
employees. In this year's budget, the President has proposed giving
civilian employees a 1.5 percent raise, less than half, less than half
the raise that military personnel will receive. That is unfair to the
hard-working Federal workers who make personal and financial sacrifices
to serve their country.
{time} 1145
Much has been made of the enormous sacrifices of the military
personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave men and women
deserve our deepest gratitude. However, we should not forget that
civilian employees at the Defense Department and other agencies are
playing an instrumental role in supporting both the war effort abroad
and the war on terrorism at home.
Ironically, while the administration cannot seem to find enough money
to give raises to civilian employees, it has no problem awarding
financial bonuses to its political appointees. In some agencies, the
average bonus to political employees has exceeded $11,000. That is
outrageous.
Now, we have heard this is a matter of priorities. The priority for
this administration is to give tax cuts to billionaires, not to
adequately pay for civilian employees of the Federal Government.
I am pleased to be part of a bipartisan coalition of Members who
value the contributions of Federal civil servants and believe they
should not be treated as second-class employees. I strongly urge my
colleagues to support this resolution. It is the only fair thing to do
to keep faith with those who are working for us and deserve a pay raise
and should not be excluded because of priorities for billionaires
getting tax cuts while our civilian employees do not get the parity
that they deserve.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we had some interesting discussion about, well, why have
we not gone to this system of saying let us reward people based upon
their performance. Let us target, let us target funds, as the President
wants to do. And the gentleman asked, well, why was it not done in the
appropriations bill last year?
That program has not been created. There is no program to fund. We
could not put it in the subcommittee mark. The gentleman from Virginia
chairs the committee that has the ability to bring the legislation to
the floor, to promote what the President wants to do. Let us not
undercut.
If the gentleman agrees it is a good idea, I agree it is a good idea,
if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.Tom Davis) agrees it is a good idea,
and certainly the White House promotes it, then instead of doing this
one-size-fits-all across the board, why do we not support the
President's proposal and bring that Human Capital Performance Fund,
that is what he calls it, why do we not bring that legislation to the
floor? But, for goodness sakes, do not pass this resolution soaking up
the resources that would have to go to pay for performance.
The ball is in the court of the committee of the gentleman from
Virginia. I know he is sympathetic toward the President's approach, but
I am sure he would not want to adopt a resolution that defeats his
ability to move the Federal Government to be more responsible, to say,
we know that not all employees perform equally, not all are placing
themselves in the same level of risk as others are, and we ought to be
able to make distinctions.
Do the cost-of-living adjustment, the 1.5 percent that is proposed,
that is already in the budget, but do not pass this resolution to take
away the ability of pay for performance. Do not say that just because
we have retention problems in the military and they are so poorly
underfunded that, therefore, we have to do the same for the Federal
civil service.
The Federal civil service, in the last 7 years, for every dollar
increase in the cost of living, has already gotten $1.66 in increases,
faster than anybody else. It is time to have a year where we say, let
us hold back. Let us only do the cost of living adjustments, but, at
the same time, put the pay for performance in place.
We do not need this. The turnover rate for Federal employees is at
virtually an all-time low. There are spots where we need to be able to
keep people with specific skill sets, and the President's proposal
would let us address those. But we do not do it by giving a pay raise
to the people that we do not have a problem retaining and then not be
able to retain the people that do have the special skills.
Do not pass this resolution. Do not try to handcuff us and prevent us
from reforming the Federal civil service process. We are being more
than fair with the 1.5 percent. We do not need to go overboard.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining
time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Virginia for yielding me the time, as well as for his leadership
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the concepts of equality, equal justice, equal
opportunity, and equal pay have undergirded and guided the development
of this Nation. One of the things that Americans have always been able
to think ahead for is the idea that they are going to be treated
equally, they are going to be treated fairly, and they are going to be
compensated justly. We are simply talking about fair compensation. We
are talking about the fact that we have an aging workforce in the
civilian sector.
Recruitment is not as easy as one might think. Individuals are about
to retire in large numbers, and there is a great deal of concern about
our human capital, individuals to carry on the work of this great
Nation.
So, again, I commend and compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis) for initiating this resolution, I urge its strong passage,
and suggest that it is not a slight in any way. We do not undervalue
the importance of our military, but equally important are those in the
civilian sector.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and
then allow the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) to respond and
close, and then I will make a very brief closure.
I think it is important to note again that this resolution does not
mandate
[[Page H1759]]
across the board. We took any language here that mandates that out. In
fact, we have agencies right now where pay for performance is the rule.
They are working under it at DHS. DOD passed a performance review last
year. The IRS and FAA already have those provisions of pay for
performance in there. Before this last Congress, GAO came and asked for
it. They have it. These are agencies that our committee and other
committees in the House, working together, are already working to pay
for performance.
But if we do not pass this legislation, there can be no pay for
performance. There will be no pay for performance without pay
comparability. Otherwise, they do not even get the 1.5 percent, Federal
employees. So this is a natural precursor to get what the gentleman
from Oklahoma, what the administration, and what we all want. This has
got to be there first.
So I think maybe we have a chicken-and-the-egg situation, but we have
to have the money, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, before we can do
the other kinds of things. And we took the mandatory, across-the-board
language out of this resolution exactly for that purpose: to give us
all an opportunity to work together, to give Federal employees pay
comparability, but to do it in an appropriate fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that people should vote for this
resolution based upon someone's claim that, well, it really does not do
anything, because the language, the very last phrase, makes it clear
that it calls for the compensation for the civilian employees of the
United States to be adjusted at the same time and in the same
proportion as the rates of compensation for members of the Armed
Forces. If the Armed Forces, as is proposed and as we know is going to
happen, get 3.5 percent, then the Federal civil service would have to
get 3.5 percent as well, rather than the 1.5 percent that is proposed.
Again, this has been looked at by the Office of Management and
Budget, and I quote once more from their record about what this would
cost. They say, ``It would be about $2.2 billion, and because Congress
cannot provide this funding without exceeding budget limits or shifting
money away from higher priorities, this increase essentially acts as an
unfunded mandate that agencies must cover.''
We are talking about a vote to spend an extra $2.2 billion. That is
what we are here about this morning. We are here because some people in
the House insist that that ought to be the case, and they want to use
this vote to leverage the appropriations process and everything else.
But the taxpayers are looking over our shoulders. They know that the
Federal workers have gotten twice the cost of living over the last 4
years, and they have not. Federal workers have had their pay improved
far beyond what has happened in the private sector. It is not out of
line to say, let us just hold it down to inflation this year, but let
us make sure that we hold back the resources to target, to target pay
where we most need it for recruitment or for people who are putting
their lives at risk. That is what we ought to be doing. We should not
be voting for this resolution.
I ask my fellow Members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in opposing this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining
time.
The world has changed. It might have been a decade ago where you
looked at the Federal workforce being uninvolved and in a different
light from our men and women in uniform somewhere else across the
world. But, today, the battleground has shifted here to the Pentagon,
to Oklahoma City, to Manhattan, to our embassies abroad, and it has
seen in each instance Federal employees dying on the front lines, just
performing their day-to-day duties as targets of terrorists. We see
that the first individual killed in the Afghan war was a Federal civil
servant. Every Federal employee now, as they go to work, is a potential
target of a terrorist.
In addition to that, OMB's opposition to this is nothing new. We saw
this under the previous administration. That is traditionally the line
they take. That is why Congress passed and President Bush won, signed
the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act in 1990, to try to have an
independent body review what it would take to get pay comparability.
Because the American taxpayer does not want an underfunded rocket
scientist, a cancer researcher at NIH that we are not paying
appropriately. We do not get top talent on the cheap, and that is not
what they want.
So the Federal Salary Council appointed by President Bush made the
recommendation. They recommended a 25 percent increase; and the
administration said, no, we want 1.1 percent. All we are saying today
is comparability says this ought to be at 3.5 percent, the same as
military, and how we spend that money we can decide through the process
as we move forward in the appropriations process.
This resolution does not even mandate it across the board. In fact,
in some agencies, those have gone by the wayside as we formed the pay
schedules there.
This is an important issue for this Congress. It is an important
issue to our Federal workforce and our military workforce, of which we
have shown support to some of those groups as well.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this. Let us send a message to our
Federal employees and our military personnel that we honor what they
do, we value what they do, and we are going to pay them appropriately.
I ask for support of this resolution.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H. Res. 581, which urges
this administration to provide pay parity to civilian government
workers and uniformed government workers.
I was greatly disappointed at the President's meager pay raise for
Federal workers and feel it should be closer in line to the raise our
uniformed service members received. I represent the Rock Island
Arsenal, which employs about 6,000 civilian Department of Defense
workers. Many of these employees are directly supporting our uniformed
personnel in the war on terror. This includes many working around the
clock to produce an urgent order of armored kits for our Humvees and
trucks being sent to Iraq. Hundreds of other workers are either
deployed or recently deployed from service in the Middle East to
support our service members. Yet, unlike their uniformed counterparts,
they only received modest pay increases.
Not only are Defense Department civilian workers serving in the war
on terror, but Federal fire fighters, police, marshals, and armed
agents of the FBI, DEA, ATF, Amtrak, Postal Service, and numerous other
agents.
This administration wants to outsource our Federal employees, rewrite
their labor rules, and ask them to do more with less. And then they hit
them in their pocket book. We need to support our Federal workers and
this resolution sends a strong message.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and let the President know
our Federal workers deserve his respect.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The resolution is considered
read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 585, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution and on the preamble.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 299,
nays 126, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 104]
YEAS--299
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burns
Burr
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
[[Page H1760]]
Clyburn
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--126
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Linder
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Portman
Putnam
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--8
Harris
Hulshof
Kirk
McHugh
Pickering
Rodriguez
Tanner
Tauzin
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1233
Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, SIMPSON, BASS, FEENEY, CANNON, COX, ISSA,
BACHUS, NEY, BONNER, and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. EVERETT and Mr. JEFFERSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________