Date: 1982-12-16
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. I have been through this baptism of fire. To those of you who remember the 29percent pay raise around here. I led the fight. I tied it to the ethics bill. If we were going to have a pay raise of 29 percent. I felt we should have an ethics bill. But I stood up for that increase right- up front. and went right down the cannon barrel. Of course. in the past campaign. my opponent reminded the voters of that. I do not find anything wrong with the Senators amendment per se. It makes the annual salaries payable on September 30. 1982. remain in effect until affirmatively changed by law. I see nothing wrong with that. The Constitution provides that Members of the Congress shall be paid a compensation by law. Those are not the exact words. but it is provided in the Constitution that the Members of Congress shall. by law. determine their compensation. I am on record as being against a pay raise for Members of the Senate as of right now because of the high unemployment. I find it difficult when the Members of the House have taken a standopenly. publicly. right above board. had two rollcall votes. and voted to raise their own pay. The House is acting in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. They can and will answer to their own constituents. If their constituents do not like it because the House Members voted to increase their pay. their constituents will take care of that. Why should the Senate deny the t S 15190 CO other body the pay increase for its Members that it voted for openly? They did not have a voice vote. as I understand it. they had a RECORD vote. It is all right if we want to deny Senators a pay raise. but House Members have voted to increase their own pay and I do not think we ought to interfere with the decision that they made with respect to their own compensation. It will not be any precedent. In the early days of the Republic. Members of the Senate elected to pay themselves $3 a day and pay the House $2 a day for its Members over there. That arrangement did not last very long. because the House was indignant. In any event. Senators were paid more than House Members and the House Members did not like it. I hope that we would at least let the House Members be responsible to their own constituents for their own votes. which have been made in accordance with the Constitution. and that the Senate would not vote to take away the pay increase from the House Members which they have already stood up and openly voted for themselves. Senators are not affected and will not get an increase. We do not have to vote ourselves a pay increase. but I do not think we should deny the House a pay increase it has twice voted for. Those Members who have to go to conference on this bill are going to have a lot of problems. I want to tell a little story. My senior colleague and I passed a bill through the Senate the other day that would make a few changes in the northern and southern judicial districts of West Virginia. We have oneandahalf judges in the north and fourandahalf judges - in the south. We want two judges in the north and four judges in the south. When that little bill went to the House. it was held up. Why? Because