[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5759-5769]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 5760]]

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 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

[[Page 5761]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5762]]

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, 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

[[Page 5763]]

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 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

[[Page 5764]]

     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.
       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.
  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;

[[Page 5765]]

     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 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

[[Page 5766]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 5767]]

  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 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

[[Page 5768]]

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 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

[[Page 5769]]

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
     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.

                          ____________________