Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely. If it would pass, we would get our increase.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think we could make that observation. Obviously, the Senate receded in this instance, as the gentleman knows, I think wisely so. I would hope that this conference committee would pass based upon the merits of this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, and to all those who are concerned about this issue, the fact of the matter is, I am on their side and we lost. But I would urge the gentleman to look at the balance of the bill, because in terms of all of the rest of the bill, in terms of IRS, in terms of Customs, in terms of Secret Service, in terms of ATF, in terms of the White House, in terms of all of the other issues that this bill covers, it is a very positive bill for many of the folks that the gentleman and I represent. I would urge the gentleman that this is really an issue that needs to be addressed in the gentleman's committee. It should not be in our committee, the gentleman is absolutely right. The fact of the matter is the majority believed that this should pass, and we did not have the votes to stop it. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, obviously salaries and expenses for Federal employees are in every bill that deals with every agency, as the gentleman knows. The gentleman is correct that this bill deals with the Office of Personnel Management. He is further correct that from time to time this bill has been used as a vehicle to stop the COLA adjustment. It could be effected in any bill, I tell the gentleman. So the gentleman's comments are as relevant to any bill that we consider as they are to this one.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the gentleman that nothing in this bill will affect his salary one way or the other.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate the gentleman's position. As the gentleman knows, in fact, I share his position on this issue, and voted that way in committee before the bill was reported to the floor. As the gentleman well knows, I lost, and his position, as articulated now, lost as well. On a point of order it was struck, but the fact of the matter is the reality was that the majority of the conferees on the House side and the majority of the conferees on the Senate side were for doing what the Senate did. I will tell my friend, who I believe serves on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the real problem is the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight did not demand that the jurisdiction of the committee be honored in this instance. Very frankly, this is an issue for the gentleman's committee. He is absolutely correct. I regret that the initial recommendation of the gentleman from Arizona, Chairman Kolbe, which was, back when we did the supplemental in March, to defer this issue to the gentleman's committee for action, did not in fact happen. I appreciate the gentleman's point.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking member. Clearly, for those of us who represent large numbers of Federal employees, September 30 is always a traumatic day for them to face. In fact I think both sides of the aisle have agreed that we are not going to put them at risk as we move through the appropriations process trying to get our work done on time, and I just wanted to come to the floor to say that I, for one, and I know all of the other Members on both sides appreciate the fact that we are moving on when nobody intends to shut down the Federal Government, to do our business, to resolve our differences in an orderly and productive fashion. I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member for this time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] from the Baltimore region, but also impacting on the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention in particular the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. McIntyre] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price] who have joined with us in the offering of this amendment along with, as I said, the other Members from the Atlantic Coast States. I want to in closing again thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], who have worked very closely, I know, with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and her staff on the nonpoint source pollution, which, of course, is very much a part of the pfiesteria problem so that this is a very closely related issue. I want to thank Jennifer Miller as well, who has been so conscientious in assisting us to get this agreement. We thank the gentleman from Kentucky very much, all of us who know that this issue is so critically important to our States, to our people, to the economy as well as the ecology of our waterways and our land.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, my very good friend, who probably works as hard on these issues as anybody I know and does so with great knowledge and great sensitivity. I am proud that he is a Member of our delegation.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who has worked so hard on this issue. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise on behalf of the Members from both sides of the aisle from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. We are very appreciative, all of us, to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for helping us work on this amendment and thank very much the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for his assistance in coming to this agreement. So that the body understands, this amendment is in two parts. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone]), the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] and others offered an amendment which will add $1 million to nonpoint source research for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. This amendment that I rise to offer on behalf of my colleagues from the States I mentioned is appropriating $3 million to NOAA to assist the States in determining the factors responsible for the toxic organism pfiesteria. Clearly NOAA is one of the best equipped Federal agencies with the technical expertise and the scientific know-how to determine the causes and controls of pfiesteria outbreaks. NOAA's recently established interagency national research program called Ecohab will use this funding to understand what pfiesteria is and why it morphs into a toxic state, and to establish ways to react to outbreaks when they occur. Moreover, $1 million of this funding will be used by NOAA to assist the affected States in expanding, monitoring and developing new, more rapid techniques for identifying the toxic phase of pfiesteria as well as the environmental conditions potentially conducive to these outbreaks. This enhanced monitoring support will be essential to overcoming the difficulty in detecting pfiesteria outbreaks because of the sporadic nature of the organism and the rapid response needed to observe the toxic phase. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has a responsibility, a duty, to assist the States, however possible, in this fight. It will be important that the Congress give the agencies the necessary tools to accomplish this task. This funding will be yet another important step in the Congress' response to this ongoing problem. I want to thank, as I said earlier, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for their help.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the distinguished former Governor of Delaware, who saw this problem as a Governor, and now as a legislator in the Federal Congress is dealing with it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is a vote about what we think of ourselves, what we think of this institution, and the trust and confidence we have in those who send us here; a vote on whether we believe that they believe we are worth what they pay us. This issue is about staying even; not about raises, about staying even. Ask any of our Social Security recipients or our veterans when they get a cost-of-living adjustment if they got a raise, and they will say, my friend, you do not understand. My grocery costs went up, my prescription drugs went up, my oil heat bill went up. Yes, perhaps even my college tuition for my child went up. This is about staying even. Let me reiterate what the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] said. In 1989, the Members of this House, in a courageous and honest vote, said to their constituents, we are not going to take outside income. We will rely only on our salary, not on the payment of special interest gussied up to be honoraria for speeches. In 16 out of 28 years, or 18 out of 26 years, we said we were going to take no cost-of-living adjustment, and as a result, the pent-up needs of our families led us to invoke, from time to time, raises of very substantial proportions, as much as 27 percent. Our constituents and our public were outraged, because they did not know that we had not gotten a raise the 6 previous years. They did not know that we were catching up. They thought that we were taking some outrageous pay. Can you blame them? Of course not. So what the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the Republican leadership proposed was a mechanism whereby we would not do that to ourselves, to this institution, or, very frankly, to add to the cynicism of our public, and that all we would take is a cost-of-living adjustment, which, as I reiterate, keeps us even with the increased costs that we are confronted with on an annual basis. That increased cost would be less by half a point than the private sector increase. Now, my friends, let me say, so we do not feel badly about what I hope we are going to do, that since 1970, the CPI has increased by 292 percent. Military pay has increased by 320 percent. All private sector pay has increased by 264 percent. Manufacturing blue collar workers, I tell my friends, has increased by 281 percent. Federal retiree pensions increased by 291 percent, just about the CPI Federal civilian pay by 243 percent, and Members of Congress by 207 percent; I tell my friends, again, some 70 percent below manufacturing jobs. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona talked about our Founding Fathers who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Most of us in this body do not have fortunes to pledge, but if, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said, we do not on a regular basis stay even, not a raise, stay even with the increased costs confronted by our families, then, of necessity, we will become a body of those who only have fortunes. Our honor. I ask every one of my colleagues who has come up to me over the last 10 years and said, I hope you effect a pay raise, to vote for this, for if that is true, there will be about 375 of my colleagues who will vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote for exploited children's protection, vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote ``yes'' on the amendment to instruct the Senate to protect exploited children.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to inform Members that the bill was on the floor for over three-quarters of an hour.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lampson].

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who probably has taken more heat and shown more courage and more intellectual honesty on this issue than anybody in the House.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].