RECESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE

Document Type: 
Collection: 
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
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 26, 1984
Content Type: 
MEMO
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP86B00338R000400520035-5.pdf1.2 MB
Body: 
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