RECESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 12, 2008
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: January 26, 1984
• Content Type: MEMO

A
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-2(
I
qP
OLL 84-0287
26 January 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director, Office of Legislative Liaison
Deputy Director, Office of Legislative Liaison
Deputy Director of Personnel for Special
Programs
Chief, Administrative Law Division, OGC
Legislation Division
Office of Legislative Liaison
SUBJECT: Recession of Congressional Pay Raise
1. Attached for'your information are S. 2202, S. 2206 and
S. 2211, bills recently introduced to rescind the 3.5 percent
pay raise for members of Congress. These bills would not
rescind the 15 percent pay raise that Congress gave themselves
in July 1983. Similar legislation, H.R. 4594, H.R. 4600 and
H.R. 4603, has been introduced in the House.
2. Each of these Senate bills would return a Congressman's
salary to its 31 December 1983 level of $69,800. These bills
do not affect the recent 3.5 percent pay increase for the
General Schedule (GS), Senior Executive Service (SES), and the
Executive Schedules. Neither will `these bills affect the "pay
caps" for GS or SES pay which are tied to Level V ($66,000) and
IV ($69,600), respectively, of the Executive Schedule and not
to Congressional pay. Additionally, these bills retain the
3.5 percent pay raise for Congressional officers and employees
whose pay rate is linked to the members pay.
3. I will continue to monitor and report on this
legislation as appropriate.
cc: Liaison
DISTRIBUTION:
Original - 1 Each Addressee
1 - OLL Chrono...:
4--,LEG File: Personnel General
1 - ROD Signer
ROD:csh (26 January 1984)
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
 S 46'
reau of Land Mang
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
COIXESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 23, 1984
ty officials,
00,
the
ori-
bill to reduce the rates of
amount of the increase taking effect
on January 1, 1984, and for other pur-
poses; to the Committee on Govern-
ment Affairs.
REDUCING RATES OP PAY OP MEMBERS OP
CONGRESS
0 Mr. JEPSEN. Mr. President, I send
a bill to the desk and I ask that it be
appropriately referred to the commit-
tee of jurisdiction.
Mr. President, the bill I have just in-
troduced would repeal the 3.5-percent
pay raise received by Members of Con-
gress on January 1 of this year.
While some may argue that this pay
raise is justified, I would point out
that it was less than 1 year ago that
Congress approved its last pay raise.
In addition, at a time when people
are clamoring to castigate the size of
the Federal deficit, it would be the
height of hypocrisy for Congress to
accept this raise. Indeed, we in Con-
gress must show leadership and reject
this pay raise.
Lest my colleagues get the idea that
this is just another bill that will lan-
guish in the committee, rest assured
that I intend to offer this legislation
as an amendment to the first appropri-
ate bill that comes before the Senate
for debate and vote.
In addition, I have been assured by
our distinguished majority leader,
Senator BARER, that this issue will re-
ceive priority consideration.
Not only is this pay raise unwarrant-
ed, but I strongly object to the manner
in which it occurred.
Once again, instead of having the
courage to vote up or down on this pay
raise, Congress took the easy way out
and allowed the raise to go through
without even so much as a whimper of
debate.
Rest assured, millions of Americans
are watching what Congress does on
this issue.
We can stand here and'make all of
the eloquent speeches about how terri-
ble it is that we have $200 billion defi-
cits.
We can stand here and say how we
think the budget can be balanced.
We can stand here and debate the
merits of tax increases versus budget
cuts.
But the bottom line is not how well
we speak. It is not whether we score
points in the debate.
Rather, it is in how we vote. Are we
willing to exercise the restraint that
will be necessary to control Govern-
ment spending.
I am prepared, Mr. President, to
stand and be counted as one Senator
who says, enough is enough.
While President Harry Truman was
right that the buck does often stop at
the desk of the President, this is one
issue where Congress has the opportu-
nity to assert its conscience and state
emphatically, the buck stops here.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a copy of this bill appear in
the REcoRD at this point.
There being no objection, the bill
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
6.2202
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in, Congress assembled, That (a) on
and after the date of enactment of this Act,
the rate of pay for an office or position re-
ferred to in section 601 (a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31)
shall be the same as the rate of pay payable
for such office or position on December 31,
1983.
(b) For the purposes of any rule, regula-
tion, or order having the force and effect of
law and limiting the annual rates of com-
pensation of officers and employees of the
Congress by reference to the annual rate of
pay of any Member of the Congress, the
annual rate of pay of such Member shall be
deemed to be the annual rate of pay that
would be payable to such Member without
By Mr. SPECTER: -
2203. A bill to repeal sect 2392
Departm t of Defense funds to re-
lieve econd c dislocations, and for
other purpose- to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr esident, today
I am introducing legis Lion that re-
peals the Maybank amen ent to re-
burgh, PO N's, company which is illus-
trative oft opportunities for small
business in go rnmental procurement
being given an o ortunity to bid.
viduals and has so a $3 million In
gross 'sales annually, 0 percent of
which goes to the Navy. t is a model
and presentation by minoritI . It is
ent
a ve prosperous and an exc
14
were made the Department of De-
fense . to find usinesses around the
country in are of high unemploy-
ment, such as tsburgh, Pa., and
such -as many p of my State of
ennsyly ia, that the Department of
Defense a enditures could have a
ual benefit. hat is, to prepare the
nited States i defense context and
o deal with th very serious prob-
ems of unemploy t in labor sur-
us areas. ?
e Maybank amen t is a clas-
ic a ple of outmoded F eral Gov-
ernmen olicy which exacerb es eco-
nomic d ocations. When 'ally
passed in t 1950's, the Nation
experiencing a outburst of econom
activity and the employment rate
was in the range of 24o 3 percent. Fur-
t r, the Nation only d a total of 26
LS ' spread among 12 tes. Today,
here re 1,435 LSA's in 45 ates plus
the Dis 'ct of Columbia an erto
Rico. At t time, it may have ade
sense to pr ibit the Departmen of
Defense from 'tiating programs o
relieve economic ' locations, but that
policy hardly make nse today when
employment is in ess of 10 per-
c in many States an in excess of
15 p cent in many local s. In my
State Pennsylvania, the verage
total un ployment rate for 83 is
estimated be 11.8 percent vers a
national aver of 9.7 percent.
As the Natio ' largest employer,
the Department o efense has a sub-
tantial influence ov the shape and
h lth of regional eco ies through
the eer size of the de a budget.
Since age of the Mayb amend-
ment, dbLribution of Defense epart-
ment fun has increasingly fa red
areas of his economic growth, w e
penalizing tho areas experiencing
high rates of un ployment. For ex-
ample, the Northe Midwest region's
share of military p contract dol-
lars decreased from 7 . percent in
1951 to 38.7 percent in 19 according
the Northeast-Midwest tute. In
ad ion, the Defense Departm t es-
tima that by 1990, over 50 pe nt
of DO prime contracts will go
contracto ocated in only three
States.
In order to edy the inequities
created by the bank amendment,
the Congress initiat a test program
in fiscal year 1981 ex pting certain
contracting by the Def e Logistics
Agency from the provisi of the
aybank amendment. The t t origi-
ly set aside $12 billion in ense
co acts over the 3-year period, cal
year 1981-83, but the Defense
partme only awarded $0.5 billion in
fiscal ye 1981, $2.2 billion in fiscal
year 1982, $2.8 billion in fiscal year
1983 under ' program. Clearly, the
Defense Depart ent has failed to meet
though the price differential was
dropped from 5 perce to 2.2 percent
in 1983. This failure h exacerbated
the serious economic dis ations ex-
erienced in many areas t oughout
e country.
e legislation I am intro cing
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
 Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
till will only contr people like
wan mr mocrat'
k or anyone else ho is not II 1_~
1
and to Mr. Ro,l
Wick, do M
law enforcement acity. I
'eve very many p I
dqp in
n a,
owl
atio- almost over b said he wanted to eak out
gage in this kind pri-
t ing of
tivity. I do not w, as a citizen reg ding Mr. Wick's telephone conver ions.
will say I is, Mr. President, And here is wha he said:
b
een terribly ercised about th
Mr. Wick. I do What is at issue is t unethical taping
e
lieve we enjoy single freedom versation without he knowledge of
precious than th right to be so or many individua , and, secondly,
i e our homes an the right e the with is blic fact, you perception that failed o admit the
our privacy bein invaded. extent o omplete nature of t activity.
han an invade someone' rivacy And he
sis Part of a
urreptitiously re rding c umn by
hone versation in whic ou Richard Co
ry to ad the person i o Hark ye wh think ye live in dern
9 certain tatements? It ma times, come see e
e used for itical purposes: It medieval medicine
orse than the dise e used for a but all of them ole.host of pur- t t tempest in a to
nstitute an in. - Al ir, in which the dir
f privacy.
form ion Agency secretl
call the radio s taped
in my phone lls. He is accused of
vasion
just a vacy As result, his and lots
ng. , I ple's priva has been invaded.
recorded. At the m ent, for instance, tran-
ere are Senators scripts of Char Z. Wick's tapes are fitting
nd, fairs Committee. In dition, both comml
re in the offices of e Senate Foreign ela-
they call a dio station an tion Committee the House Foreign
hey ajie being rded.
t
es have stenographi otes of 83 other
press
b.q!on tape-records conVersa-
e~P phi
out telling the
M
Mr.
have
t b
ten b
i
min
lute-
Ih
have had a
t is just like a rep
d was recording
13i
ppen during
hat hap-
phone cone
rector of t
versation. The transc is and notes are
be' read by seven staff a es, two in the
and five in the Hous and will be Senat
have Table to members of b h commit-
tees-a tot of 52 lawmakers.
ion I Should yo believe that the con is of
g these tapes (es cially the more inter ting
ones) will not su ce in the press, I ha a
bridge in Brooklyn sell you. Even befo
nrress got into the t, partial transcripts
printed in the p ss. And now the
committee, indicat g that the only
Ing re sacred than pri y is publicity,
s urge Wick to publish it 1-after, of
urse, get 'fig the permission those he
better than I co`
Olin Robison, pi
College-
tion
co
taped.
I am seeking
pt passage)
ned from the Unite States Ad-
'ssion on Public Di macy to
rreptitious taping f tele-
rsa ' ns by Charles L k, di-
re ted States Inform ion
January 24, 1984
Mr. resident, I ask u nimous con-
sent t t the bill be prted in the
There b ng no objection,~the bill
was ordere to be printed ryy the
2205
given
ereof:
bill to reduce the rates of
amount of the increase taking effect
on January 1, 1984; to require a re-
corded vote on each legislative meas-
ure providing for an increase in such
rates of pay, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
ROLLBACK OF CONGRESSIONAL PAY INCREASE
Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, today I
am introducing legislation to rollback
the most recent congressional pay in-
crease. At a time when $200 billion
deficits threaten our economy it is
just plain wrong for Members of Con-
gress to give themselves another pay
increase. Fiscal restraint should begin
here at home.
The legislation I am introducing
today does two things. First, it elimi-
nates the most recent pay increase,
which went into effect on January 1.
Second, it requires that a recorded
vote be taken on any future measure
leading to a pay increase for Members
of Congress.
On January 1, Members of Congress
received a raise of $2,400. This in-
crease was on top of a $9,137.50 pay in-
crease that the Senate gave itself July
1. These two raises mean increased sal-
aries for Members of the Senate of
over $11,500 in the past 6 months
alone.
Many Americans live on an income
that is far less than that. As the elect-
ed representatives of the people, we
cannot in good faith ask our constitu-
ents to help reduce Federal spending
when-we give ourselves this special
treatment. Instead, elected representa-
tives should set an example of re-
straint.
The second component of my bill re-
quires that a recorded vote be taken
on any future congressional pay in-
crease. We should 'also have the cour-
age to go on record when we do raise
our own salaries. This would eliminate
any automatic or back door raises Con-
gress has created for itself.
I hope that many of my colleagues
will join me in this effort to review the
policies governing congressional pay
increases and to eliminate the second
raise we gave ourselves on January 1.
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
 January..24, 1984
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
4P
TENBERG, Mr. MELCHER, Mr. HoLL-
INGS, Mr. HATFIELD, and Mr. BOSCH-
provements i the child support enforce-
ment program, that all children in the
United States wh are in need of assistance
in securing financt support from their par-
ents will receive su assistance regardless
of their circumstanc , and for other pur-
S. 2208. A bill for the elief of Spalding
and Sons, Inc.; to the Co ittee on the Ju-
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. SIMPSON:
gibility of certain disabled veterans for auto-
mobile adaptive equipment; to the Commit-
tee on Veterans Affairs.
By Mr. BAKER (for Mr. NICKI.ES) (for
himself, Mr. BAKER, Mr. JEPSEN, Mrs.
KASSEBAUM, Mr. KASTEN, Mr. DECON-
CINI, Mr. BOREN, and Mr. BURDICK):
S. 2211. A bill to reduce the rates of pay of
Members of Congress by the amount of the
increase taking effect on January 1, 1984,
and for other purposes, placed on the calen-
dar.
By Mr. BURDICK:
S.J. Res. 211. Joint resolution designating
the week of November 18, 1984, through No-
vember 24, 1984, as "National Family
Week"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr.
HATCH, and Mr. GRASSLEY):
S.J. Res. 212. Joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States relating to voluntary silent
prayer or meditation; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT
AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions
and Senate resolutions were read, and
referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. STEVENS:
S. Res. 308. Resolution expressing the
ther steps to safeguard universal telep one
service in the wake of the Americ Tele-
phone and Telegraph Co. divestiture/to the
Committee on Commerce, Scie e, and
Transportation.
By Mr. BAUCUS:
NUNN, Mr. URMOND, Mrs. HAW-
KINS, Mr. S MMS, Mr. BOREN, Mr.
MOYNIHAN Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. DE-
CONCINI,/Mr. DENTON, and Mr.
S. Con. Re 88. Concurrent resolution ex-
Dressing th sense of the Congress that the
nization f American States to consider as
soon as/bossible the question of the involve-
ment y the Government of Cuba in drug
deal g. smuggling, and trafficking in the
W
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
By Mr. CHILES (for himself, Mr.
NuNN, Mr. THURMOND, Mrs. HAw-
KINS, Mr. Symms, Mr. BOREN, Mr.
MOYNIHAN, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. DE-
CONCINI, Mr. DENTON, and Mr.
BoscHWITz):
S. Con. Res. 89. Concurrent resolution
urging the President to direct the Perma-
nent Representative of the United States to
the United Nations to bring before the
United Nations the question of the involve-
ment by the Government of Cuba in. drug
dealing, smuggling, and trafficking; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself,
Mr. RUDMAN, Mr. RANDOLPH,
Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. HUDDLESTON,
and Mr. MELCHER):
S. 2205. A bill to amend section 2511
of title 18, United States Code; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
TAPING OF CONVERSATIONS
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this
ncy Director Mr. Wick's recording
pings, incidental)
warned by various
lutely
S93
There are 81 tapes that Mr. Wick re-
corded now reposed with the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. With
all due respect to that committee or
any other committee that deals wit
some of the more scintillating part of
those conversations are not goi to
be put into the national p ss is
White House, President arter, Ed
Meese and whoever else as recorded,
all those people are very apprehensive
about those phone c . I think the
one with James Bak from the White
House has already' been largely re-
But, Mr. Pre dent, to get down to
the substanc of 'my bill and to de-
scribe the atus of existing law on
this kind f a situation, here it is:
There is resently a criminal statute,
18 U.S.. 2511, that makes it a crime
to r ord telephone conversations
wit ut telling the other party or par-
ts to the conservation, but there is
enough to drive 10 wagons and teams
through. The truth of the matter is
that the exception says do not record
unless you happen to have the urge.
Here is the law. Section 2511 of title
18, United States Code, says that
anyone who:
Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to inter-
rent. or Drocures any other person to inter-
esterday, said so ably on ter for a person not acting under color of
abso- communication or where one of the parties
when to the communication has given prior con-
id, munication is intercepted for the purpose UL
ti act in
committing any criminal or Lor ous
violation of the Constitution and laws of the
United States or any State or for the pur-
That is the sorry sad state of laws on
at my bill does, very simply, is to
the communication has
consent" and inserting in-
ng conversations," and he
said yes, he did, in fact, record two or
three conversations. And then on the
third inquiry he said "Yes, I have
been recording everything." co
not intend to dwell on him at length "wher
he had initiated. It is bad enough to tion of the crime
d conversation when you are felony subject to
recor a
r- 1lod by someone else. but he called a years in prison, if y
cniA ""Mr President. what do you that you are recording.
broadcast across the country. crime, or that they are about to,
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
 Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
January 24, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
I ask unanimous. consent that the
complete text of my bill be printed in
the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the bill
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
8.2206
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Members of Con-
gress Pay Reform Act of 1984".
SEC. 2. (a)(1) Paragraph (1) of section
601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended-
(A) by striking out the paragraph designa-
tion; and
(B) by redesignating clauses (A), (B), and
(C) as clauses (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of such
Act is repealed.
(b) The rate of pay for an office or posi-
tion referred to in section 601(a) of the Leg-
islative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C.
31) shall be the rate of pay payable for such
office or position on December 31, 1983.
Such rate of pay shall take effect on the
date this Act is enacted as prescribed by
law.
(c) For the purposes of any rule, regula-
tion, or order having the force and effect of
law and limiting the annual rates of com-
pensation of officers and employees of the
Congress by reference to the annual rate of
pay of any Member of the Congress, the
annual rate of pay of such Member shall be
deemed to be the annual rate of pay that
would be payable to such Member without
regard to subsection (b) of this section.
SEC. 3. Section 225(i) of the Federal Salary
Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 359) is amended to
read as follows:
"(i) A recommendation of the President
with respect to an office or positions de-
scribed in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), or
(D) of subsection (f) of this section shall
take effect only if enacted into law.".
SEC. 4. (a) Each House of the Congress
shall conduct a separate vote on each provi-
sion which is included in a bill or joint reso-
lution and, if enacted, would increase the
rate of pay of any Member of the Congress
for service as a Member of the Congress.
Each such vote shall be recorded so as to re-
flect the vote of each Member of the Con-
gress voting thereon.
(b) Subsection (a) is enacted by the Con-
gress-
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power
of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, respectively, and as such the provi-
sions of such subsection shall be considered
as part of the rules of each House, respec-
tively, and such rules shall supersede other
rules only to the extent that they are incon-
sistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitu-
tional right of either House to change such
any time, in the same manner, and to the
same extent as in the case of any other rule
By Mr. ADLEY (for himself,
Mr. DII ERGER, Mr. GRASS-
LEY, Mr. PA wooD, Mr. MoYN-
IHAN, Mr. UTENBERG, Mr.
MELCHER, Mr. OLLINGS, Mr.
HATFIELD, and M . OSCHWITZ):
S. 22 . A bill to amen part D of
title IV the Social Secur Act to
assure, t ugh mandatory
'ncotue
withholding, incentive payme s to
States, and of r improvements i he
child support a orcement progra ,
assistance in secur-
on Fil?ice.
Mr. BRAD Y. Mr. President, today
I am introducin egislation to address
fail to make court-o ered child sup-
ort payments.
hen parents bring c ' dren into
the orld, that have a res sibility
to car or t child. Too of te non-
custodial rents do not fulfill tha e-
sponsibility. has
become a nation
disgrace.
This legislatio , which is cospon-
sored by Senato DURENBERGER,
RASSLEY, PACKWOOD, YNIHAN, LAU-
ERG, MELCHER, HOL GS, . HAT-
FIELD, d BOSCHWITZ, is a ' artisan
effort t' assure the payment child
support t ough mandatory in e
withholding; ' centive payments
States, and nth improvements in the
child support enf ement program.
We cannot act so enough. In the
past years, the num r of children
4Bing in single parent fa ilies has in-
c ased dramatically. In 80 there
we more than 8 million fam 'es with
mino hildren headed by one ent.
Both p nts should be responsibl or
giving th ' children food, shelt
health care, d an education.
Too often, o parent is not doing
his or her share rovide support. In
1978, about 7 millio women were rais-
ing children under th age of 21 in a
household where the dren's fa-
t ers were not present. ly 40 per-
ce of those mothers re ved no
child pport awards. Of the per-
cent w were entitled to child up-
port, 28 p cent never got the. mon
and 23 per t consistently receive
less than the ount awarded by the
court. This legis tion is designed to
confront the probl of child support
enforcement and to b in solving it.
The bill mandates th States must
e ct laws requiring the a of speci-
fie in the op ation of
their ild support enforcem t and
paterni establishment pro s.
The majo equired procedures ar
follows:
quent in an amouri
support.
r
for f
Ths
refun
AFDC c
quent in S A pa
Fourth, r uirinj
have demonst ted
quent payments
some other guart_~
ment of past-due su
child support enforcement
services be publicized.
State commissions on child sup-
port.
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
1W -
S95
In addition, the bill replaces the
present s centive formula which re-
wards Stat for collections made on
behalf of C families with a new
formula which ewards States for col-
lections made on ehalf of both AFDC
and non-AFDC fa 'lies. The Federal
incentive payment creases as the
State's ratio of collects s to mins-
rative costs improves. F allyad, the bill
a orizes $15 million a ye for dem-
ons tion grants to State to test
metho of improving interst to col-
lections.
In New Je y some steps have en
taken to imp e the collections
child support. T State runs a solid,
cost-efficient progr . And we have
an outstanding child port enforce-
se nt program in Essex unty begun
County Executive Pe Shapiro
Ivor than 2 years ago. Wen d simi-
lar in 'atives extended to very
county an every State in this Na 'on.
The bill t t Senator DuRENBERG
and I are intro cing today is identica
sentative MARGE OUKEMA in the
ouse. That legislate passed unani-
m sly and I look forwa to the same
actin in the Senate.
Mr. sident, I ask unani ous con-
sent that he bill be printed the
RECORD.
There being -1-40 objection, the ill
RECORD, as follows:.
S. 2207
e it enacted by the Sena gad House of
Re esentatives of the Unite States of
Ame in Congress assembled,
S T TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENT
SECTION . This Act may be cited he
"Child Suppo Enforcement Amendme s
of 1984".
TABLE CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title; tab of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose of the pr am.
Sec. 3. Improved child sup rt enforcement
management systems Nsed in
income withholding and Cher
Sec. 6. Financial inc tives for balanced
and efficien tale programs.
Sec. 7. Special project gr is to promote
 S 96 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Sec. 15. Wisconsin Child Support Initiative.
Sec. 16. Inclusion of medical support in
child support orders.
Sec. 17. Increased availability of Federal
parent locator service to State
agencies.
Sec. 18. Extension of eligibility under title
XIX when support collection
results in termination of AFDC
eligibility.
Sec. 19. General effective date.
PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM .
SEC. 2. Section 451 of the Social Security
Act is amended by striking out "and obtain-
ing child and spousal support," and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "obtaining child and
spousal support, and assuring that assist-
ance in obtaining support will be available
under this part to all children (whether or
not eligible for aid under part A) for whom
such assistance is requested,".
IMPROVED CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH REQUIRED STATE LAWS AND PROCE-
DURES
SEC. 3. (a) Section 454 of the Social Secu-
rity Act is amended-
(1) by striking out "and" at the end of
paragraph (18);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of
paragraph (19) and inserting in lieu thereof
and"; and
(3) by adding after paragraph (19) the fol-
lowing new paragraph:
"(20) provide that (subject to section
466(d)) the State (A) will have in effect all
of the laws required by section 466, and (B)
will implement the procedures (designed to
improve child support enforcement effec-
tiveness) which are embodied or prescribed
in such laws.".
(b) Part D. of title IV of such Act is fur-
ther amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new section:
"REQUIREMENT OF STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED
PROCEDURES TO IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS OF
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
"SEC. 466.'(a) In order to be in compliance
with the provisions of section 454(20)(A) at
any time, each State must have enacted
(and have in effect at that time) laws estab-
lishing, embodying, or requiring the use of
the following procedures, consistent with
regulations of the Secretary, to increase the
effectiveness of the program which the
State administers under this part:
"(1) Procedures described in subsection (b)
for the withholding from Income of
amounts payable as support.
"(2) Procedures assuring (in accordance
with regulations of the Secretary) that the
State will make all reasonable efforts to ex-
pedite and otherwise improve the establish-
ment of, compliance with, and enforcement
of, child support obligations and any related
obligations arising under or in connection
with the support orders Involved.
"(3) Procedures under which, at the re-
quest of the State child support enforce-
ment agency, for the purpose of enforcing a
support order of that or any other jurisdic-
tion-
"(A) any refund of State income tax
which would otherwise be payable to an in-
dividual will be reduced, after notice to that
individual of the proposed reduction and
the procedures to be followed to contest it
(and after full compliance with all procedur-
al due process requirements of the State),
by the amount of any past-due support (as
defined in section 464(c)) owed by such indi-
vidual, in every case where the support obli-
gation involved has been assigned to the
State pursuant to section 402(a)(26), and in
any other case at the option of the State;
and
"(B) the amount by which such refund is
reduced will be retained by the State for dis-
tribution in accordance with section
457(b)(3), and notice of the individual's
home address will be furnished to the State
agency administering the plan approved
under this part.
The Secretary may prescribe regulations
specifying the minimum amount of a,
refund, and the minimum amount of past-
due support, to which the procedures re-
quired by this paragraph may apply.
"(4) Procedures under which liens are im-
posed against real and personal property for
amounts of past-due support (as so defined)
owed by an absent parent who resides or
owns property in the State.
"(5) Procedures which permit the estab-
lishment of an individual's paternity for any
child at any time prior to such child's eight-
eenth birthday.
"(6) Procedures which require in appropri-
ate cases that an individual give security,
post a bond, or give some other guarantee to
secure payment of past-due support (as so
defined) if such individual is an absent
parent who has a demonstrated pattern of
overdue support payments, after notice to
such individual of the proposed requirement
and the procedures to be followed to contest
it (and after full compliance with all proce-
dural due process requirements of the
State).
"(7) Procedures by which information re-
garding the amount of past-due support (as
so defined) owed by an absent parent resid-
ing in the State will be made available to
any consumer credit bureau organization (as
defined in section 416 of Public Law 96-374)
upon the request of such organization;
except that (A) if the amount of the past-
due support involved in any case is less than
$1,000, information regarding such amount
shall be made available only at the option of
the State, (B) any Information with respect
to an absent parent shall be made available
under such procedures only after such
parent has been notified of the proposed
action and given a reasonable opportunity
to contest the accuracy of such information
(and after full compliance with all procedur-
al due process requirements of the State),
and (C) a fee for furnishing such informa-
tion, in an amount not exceeding the actual
cost thereof, may be imposed on the re-
questing organization by the State.
"(8) Procedures under which child support
payments under this part will be made
through the State agency or other entity
which administers the State's income with-
holding system (described in paragraph (1)
and subsection (b)) in any case where either
the absent parent or the custodial parent re-
quests it, even though no arrearages in child
support payments are' involved and no
income withholding procedures have been
instituted; but in any such case an annual
fee for handling and processing such pay-
ments, in an amount not exceeding the
actual costs incurred by the State in connec-
tion therewith or $25, whichever is less,
shall be imposed on the requesting parent
by the State.".
"(b) Under the procedures referred to in
subsection (a)(1) (relating to the withhold-
ing from income of amounts payable as sup-.
port)-
"(1) in the case of each absent parent
against whom a support order is or has been
Issued or modified in the State, so much of
his or her wages must be withheld, in ac-
cordance with the succeeding provisions of
this subsection, as is necessary to comply
with the order and to provide for the pay-
ment of any fee to the employer which may
be required under paragraph (6)(A) (except
that the amounts withheld shall not exceed
the amounts permitted under section 303(b)
of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 1673(b)), and the amounts to be with-
January 24,'1984
held to satisfy arrearages may be appropri-
ately limited by the State law);
"(2) such withholding must be initiated
without the necessity of any application
therefor in the case of a child (whether or
not eligible for aid under part A) with re-
spect to whom services are already being
provided under this part, and will be initiat-
ed upon the filing of an application for serv-
ices under this part with the State agency in
the case of any other child in whose behalf
a support order has been issued or modified
in the State; and in either case such with-
holding must occur without the need for
any amendment to the support order in-
volved or for any further action by the
court or other entity which issued it;
"(3) such withholding must be carried out
in full compliance with all procedural due
process requirements of the State and must
begin as soon as is administratively feasible,
in any event by the earliest of (A) the date
on which such procedures become effective,
the date on which such order becomes effec-
tive, the date on which the payments which
the absent parent has failed to make under
such order are at least equal to the support
payable for one month, or (if the absent
parent contests the withholding) the date
specified in the notice given such parent
under paragraph (5)(B), whichever of the
four is latest, (B) the date as of which the
absent parent requests that such withhold-
ing begin, or (C) such earlier date as the
State may select;
"(4) such withholding must be adminis-
tered by a public agency designated by the
'State, and the amounts withheld must be
expeditiously distributed by the State or
such agency in accordance with section 457
under procedures (specified by the State)
which provide for the keeping of adequate
records to document payments of support
and permit the tracking and monitoring of
such payments, except that the State may
establish or permit the establishment of al-
ternative procedures for the collection and
distribution of such amounts (under the ad-
ministration of such public agency) other-
wise than through such public agency so
long as the entity making such collection
and distribution' is publicly accountable for
its actions taken in carrying out such proce-
dures, and so long as such procedures will
assure prompt distribution, provide for the
keeping of adequate records to document
payments of support, and permit the track-
ing and monitoring of such payments;
"(5) the State (A) must provide advance
notice to each individual to whom para-
graph (1) applies regarding the proposed
withholding and the procedures the individ-
ual should follow if he or she desires to con-
test such withholding on the grounds that
withholding (including the amount to be
withheld) is not proper in the case involved
because of mistakes of fact, and (B) if the
individual contests such withholding on the
grounds specified in clause (A), shall deter-
mine whether such withholding will actual-
ly occur, and (if so) shall notify the individ-
ual of the date on which such withholding
Is to begin, within no more than 30 days
after the provision of such advance notice;
"(6)(A)(i) the employer of any individual
to whom paragraph (1) applies, upon being
given notice as described in clause (ii), must
be required to withhold from such individ-
ual's wages the amount specified by such
notice (which shall include a fee, estab-
lished by the State in accordance with crite-
ria prescribed by the Secretary, to be paid
to the employer unless waived by him or
her) and pay such amount (after deducting
and retaining any portion thereof which
represents the fee so established) to the ap-
propriate State agency (or other entity au-
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
 Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
S-164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 24, 1984
Boundary and Water
the permitting
to the hydraulic and
these two rivers.
to improved rela 'ons with that country.
Enclosed are the raft amendatory legisla-
tion and a statemen iving the background
and analyzing provis s of the proposed
The Office of Manage ent and Budget
has advised that from the s dpoint of the
proftal to the Congress.
Wit rdial regards,
Si i rely,
and and Intevernmental Affairs.
By Mr. BAKER (for Mr.
NICKLES) (for himself, Mr.
BAKER, Mr. JEPSEN, Mrs. KASSE-
BAUM, Mr. KASTEN, Mr. DECON-
226, 24 Stat. 1011) con-
lbition.
inary estimate made
the International
ater C fission (IBWC).
system 1_ posed in this
saving of as
com
ith the ex-
Jo;~ain, as i's pr :n par ~d
au-
~'zpose is
orts.
:y
Commission,
long regulat-
a-tottift of the increase taking effect
on January 1, 1984, and for other pur
poses; placed on the calendar.
REPEAL OF 3.5 PERCENT PAY RAISE FOR MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS
? Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, con-
gressional pay seems to be one of the
most sensitive issues that I have en-
countered since my Senate term began
in 1981. Even today it still remains to
be highly volatile and I suspect so for
many years to come.
My Senate and House colleagues are
aware that as of January 1 they re-
ceived a salary increase of 3.5 percent.
This occurred from recommendations
made by the President in August 1983
for a pay increase for most Federal
workers, including Members of Con-
gress. Unfortunately, Members did not
have an opportunity 'to vote on this
latest recommendation. Previous rec-
ommendations were nixed or modified
by Congress for-pay increases for
Members and certain other Federal
employees or effectively denied
through the use of pay caps.
Last November, there remained a
strong possibility that we would have
the opportunity to vote on the ques-
tion of a pay increase. Included in the
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1983
were provisions dealing with Federal
pay, including Members of Congress.
With the lead of Senator GARN, an
amendment was to be proposed to that
act to deny the increase. However, due
to the tight legislative schedule, the
bill never reached the floor of the
Senate. At that time, I offered an
amendment to the Department of De-
fense Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1984 prohibiting any increase in
congressional pay. Any amendment to
that bill, however, would have jeop-
ardized or eliminated its chances of
passing the Congress since most of the
House Members had anticipated recess
and left town, plus, changes meant
that a conference on the bill would be
necessary, further adding to the
scheduling difficulties. In light of
these factors, I decided to defer my
action on the amendment until this
year. I also received assurances from
Senator BAKER that I would be afford-
ed an opportunity to. have the measure
considered.
Therefore, today I am introducing
along with Senators BAKER, JEPSEN,
GARN, KASSEBAUM, KASTEN, BOREN,
BURDICK, and DECONCINI, a bill to
revoke the automatic 3.5-percent pay
increase given to Members of Congress
which took effect on January 1. The
revocation would be effective on the
date of enactment and would apply to
subsequent pay periods.
Soon we will receive the Federal
budget submission from the President
which will detail nearly $1 trillion in
Federal spending with a deficit of ap-
proximately $150 billion to $200 bil-
lion. I find it extremely difficult to
consider a congressional pay raise in
light of such awesome figures. We
have in the past and will in the future
ask for sacrifices from virtually every
sector of our society. Congress should
set an example and refuse to give itself
a pay increase until it shows further
fiscal responsibility in cutting
runaway Government spending.
I sincerely appreciate the efforts of
Senator BAKER in allowing for an op-
portunity to debate this issue. His
commitment to do so was not an easy
decision due to A he controversial
nature of a pay increase. I know, how-
ever, it is his desire to see the Senate
work its will. For these reasons I wish
to commend the majority leader for
his work.
I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill to printed at this point
in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
S. 2211
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a) on
and after the date of enactment of this Act.
the rate of pay for an office or position re-
ferred to in section 601(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31)
shall be the sa ie as the rate of pay payable
for such office or position on December 31,
1983.
(b) For the purposes of any rule, regula-
tion, or order having the force and effect of
law and limiting the annual rates of com-
pensation of officers and employees of the
Congress by reference to the annual rate of
pay of any Member of the Congress, the
annual rate of pay of such Member shall be
deemed to be the annual rate of pay that
would be payable to such Member without
regard to subsection (a).?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I
am' joining with Senator NICKLES and
others in offering legislation to repeal
the 3.5-percent pay raise for Members
of Congress that took effect on Janu-
ary. 1. My reason is simple. This Con-
gress now faces the very real prospect
of $200 billion deficits each year to the
end of this decade. If we are to have
any hope of constructively addressing
that serious problem, then we-the
Members of this body-must demon-
strate some restraint as an example
for the Nation.
It will do no good at all for ~us to rail
against the deficit while we quietly
accept yet another raise in our own
pay. The message that this transmits
to all of those groups who will have to
sacrifice in any effective solution for
deficits is exactly the wrong message.
It is another refrain of the old song
about letting someone else bear the
burden. How can we ask others to sac-
rifice when we ourselves refuse to do
so?
Last year a substantial pay raise was
approved for Members of the Senate.
Very, very reluctantly, I voted for that
measure because I believed it was the
only way to resolve the mess we had
made of congressional salaries. But I
can see utterly no justification for an-
other cost-of-living raise on top of that
increase. The people of this country
want us to deal with the deficit, not
raise our own salaries. It is time for us
to do that, beginning with the repeal
of this 3.5-percent raise for Senators
and House Members.
NNAL FAMILY WEEK
? Mr. BUR K. Mr. President,
today I am intr ucing again a joint
resolution to auth' ize the President
nat
throw
tional
tee on the
al Family Week."
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
 Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5
January 24, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S-103
under paragraph (1) of this subsection, in
any district court of the United States;
"(3) Any person who constructs new works
or modifies existing works without having
received a permit, or violates any term, con-
dition or limitation in a permit issued by the
United States Commissioner under this sec-
tion, and any person who violates any order
issued by the United States Commissioner
under paragraph (1) of this subsection-
(A) may be punished by a fine of not less
than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than one year, or by both; and
(B) may be subject to a, civil penalty not to
exceed $10,000 per day of such violation.
If the conviction under subparagraph (A) is
for a violation committed after a first con-
viction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment may be by a fine of not more
than $50,000 per day of violation, or by im-
prisonment for not more than two years, or
by both.
"(e) The term person, as used in this sec-
tion, means an individual, corporation (in-
cluding any responsible corporate officer),
partnership, association, state, municipality,
commission or other governmental organiza-
tion of a state, or any interstate body."
"(f) Any agency of the United States Gov-
ernment proposing to undertake a project
that will result in any construction in the
areas described in subsection (a) shall, at
the earliest feasible time, coordinate with
the United States Commissioner to secure
approval of the proposed project. Such ap-
proval may be made subject to such terms
or conditions as are deemed necessary to
ensure compliance with the provisions of
pertinent international agreements in force
with Mexico.".
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED
This is a legislative proposal to amend
Public Law 92-549, the American-Mexican
Boundary Treaty Act of 1972. This amend-
ment would authorize a permitting system
as the primary means of prohibiting the
construction of works which may cause the
deflection or obstruction of the normal or
flood flows of the boundary sections of the
Rio Grande and the Colorado River. By
authorizing a regulatory or permitting
system, this amendment would provide a
more practical and less expensive means of
implementing the terms of Article IV(B)(1)
of the Mexican Boundary Treaty of 1970 (23
UST 371; TIAS 7313) than is now author-
ized under P.L. 92-549.
.The purpose of Article IV(B)(1) of the
1970 Treaty is to prevent deflections or ob-
structions of flows from causing a change in
the location of the international boundary
and thus to avoid a repetition of disputes
which have arisen between the United
States and Mexico. The predecessor 1884
Convention (TS 226, 24 Stat. 1011) con-
tained a similar prohibition.
According to a preliminary estimate made
by the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC),
the permitting system proposed in this
amendment could result in a saving of as
much as $20 million, compared with the ex-
ercise of eminent domain, as is presently au-
thorized under P.L. 92-549. Its purpose is
consistent with federal flood control efforts.
the IBWC would exercise this authority
based on a technical analysis of the antici-
pated impacts on levels and flow velocities,
including flood flows, of proposed works, in
light of the considerable data and experi-
ence accumulated by the IBWC With respect
to the hydraulic and other characteristics of
these two rivers.
The International Joint Commission,
United States and Canada, has long regulat-
ed construction affecting boundary waters
along our northern border by an analogous
approval system pursuant to the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty (see 22 CFR 401.12
et seq.).
Public Law 92-549, ? 101(2)(C), 22 U.S.C.
? 277d-34(2)(C), authorizes the Secretary of
State, acting through the United States
Commissioner, to acquire by donation, pur-
chase or condemnation, all lands or inter-
- ests In lands required to give effect to the
responsibility of the United States under
Article IV(B)(1). The proposed regulatory
process would be applied only when this
would result neither in a taking, nor a cur-
tailment of present uses, and would be a
substantially less expensive alternative to
the exercise of eminent domain. The option
of exercising eminent domain is reserved
where in the Commissioner's judgment it is
desirable and appropriate, or where a specif-
ic denial of a permit is deemed a taking.
Subsection a) makes it unlawful to con-
struct new works or modify existing works
on the United States side of either the main
channel or on adjacent lands subject to
overflow of the limitrophe sections of either
the Rio Grande or Colorado River, unless
an application showing the location and
plans of any proposed works has been sub-
mitted to the United States Commissioner
and the United States Commissioner has
issued a corresponding permit. The role of
the United States Commissioner acting
alone is ministerial; the discretion whether
or not to approve a work, and if so, on what
conditions, lies with the joint Commission,
which is an international organization
under Article II of the 1944 Treaty Relating
to the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado
and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande.
(9 Bevans 1166, 59 Stat. 1219).
Subsection b) contemplates that the
United States Commissioner, in order to
ensure compliance by the United States
with the terms of the Treaty, will refer an
application to the joint Commission for de-
cision, and will incorporate in the permit
any conditions deemed necessary and appro-
priate in cases where the work is permitted.
Every effort_will be made to provide appli-
cants with speedy processing of requests for
authorization, in particular by means of ex-
pedited Commission procedures in very
simple cases, while at the same time ensur-
ing that United States Treaty obligations
are carefully respected in appropriate coop-
eration with the Mexican Section of the
Commission. The flexibility provided by the
proposed permit process is consistent with
the discretion implied by the Treaty provi-
sion in framing procedures to achieve its ob-
jectives. The criterion incorporated in the
first sentence of the subsection specifically
reflects and is in accordance with the obliga-
tions of the two countries under Article
IV(B)(1) of the 1970 treaty.
Subsection c) authorizes the United States
Commissioner to promulgate and publish in
22 CFR permit application procedures, and
to ensure that these procedures are consist-
ent with other legal responsibilities of the
joint Commission and the United States
Section. Since the joint Commission is an
international organization which performs
foreign affairs functions, its procedures
need not be consistent with the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 et seq.
See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(a)(1); Sec. 554(a)(4).
This subsection also requires the United
States Commissioner to coordinate applica-
tion procedures with the Corps of Engineers
and other specified federal agencies to avoid
needless duplication.
Subsection d) deals with enforcement pro-
cedures and possible penalties for violation
of the requirements of this section.
Paragraph d)(1) authorizes the United
States Commissioner to issue an order to
compel cessation of construction (including
modifications of existing works) without a
permit, or require compliance with the con-
ditions contained in a permit, and to bring a
civil action under paragraph d)(2) upon fail-
ure to comply with his order. The Commis-
sioner may issue an order at the commence-
ment of construction or at any time thereaf-
ter.
Paragraph d)(2) authorizes the United
States Commissioner to commence a civil
action for appropriate relief whenever he
would be entitled to Issue a compliance
order under paragraph d)(1).
Paragraph d)(3) details penalties for viola-
tions of this section.
Subparagraph d)(3)(A) contains criminal
penalties which may be imposed for failure
to obtain a permit or violation of conditions
contained in a permit, or failure or comply
with an order issued by the United States
Commissioner under paragraph d)(1), in-
cluding penalties for multiple violations of
this section.
Subparagraph d)(3)(B) contains civil pen-
alties which may be imposed for failure to
obtain a permit, violation of the conditions
contained In a permit, or failure to comply
with an order issued by the United States
Commissioner under paragraph d)(1).
Subsection e) defines the term "person" as
used in this section.
Subsections d) and e) are generally con-
sistent with provisions of existing, analo-
gous United States legislation.
Subsection f) provides an informal process
to be utilized by federal agencies to seek ap-
proval of federal projects. The proposed
permit system provided for in subsections
a)-d) is not intended to apply to projects of
agencies of the Federal Government. While
still subject to the need to coordinate with
the United States Commissioner, and secure
.the approval of the joint Commission, in
order to ensure full United States compli-
ance with Treaty obligations, federal agen-
cies under this subsection would utilize a
more informal process, and would not be
subject to enforcement measures for non-
compliance applicable to "persons" as de-
fined by subsection e). The United States
Commissioner would refer requests for ap-
proval to the joint Commission, on the same
basis as described in respect of subsection
b), above.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D. C., November 15, 1983.
Hon. GEORGE BUSH,
President of the U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Enclosed for your
consideration and appropriate reference is a
legislative proposal to amend Public Law 92-
549, the American-Mexican Boundary
Treaty Act of 1972. This amendment would
authorize a permitting system as the pri-
mary means of prohibiting the construction
of works which may cause the deflection or
obstruction of the normal or flood flows of
the boundary sections of the Rio Grande
and the Colorado River. By authorizing a
regulatory or permitting system, this
amendment would provide a more practical
and less expensive means of implementing
the terms of Article IV(B)(1) of the Mexican
Boundary Treaty of 1970 (23 UST 371; TIAS
7313) than is now authorized under P.L. 92-
549.
The purpose of Article IV(B)(1) of the
1970 Treaty is to prevent deflections or ob-
structions of flows from causing a change in
the location of the international boundary
and thus to avoid a repetition of disputes
which have arisen between the United
States and Mexico. The predecessor 1884
Approved For Release 2008/09/12 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5