[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 60 (Tuesday, April 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2909-H2912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROHIBITING A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN 2011

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 5146) to provide that Members of Congress shall 
not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5146

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN PAY OF MEMBERS OF 
                   CONGRESS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment 
     shall be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of 
     living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal 
     year 2011.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel 
E. Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
on this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while there are positive signs of economic recovery 
around the country, the budget deficit is still an important issue. 
Therefore, it is appropriate that we continue to forego a cost-of-
living adjustment at this time as we did for 2010. I hope all of my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, providing 
Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in 
pay during fiscal year 2011, sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Mitchell), actually mirroring language that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) has had before our body for some period of time. Both 
gentlemen have worked on this together, it is my understanding.
  Across the country, we know that there are serious issues plaguing 
Americans, mainly a deteriorating economy and very high unemployment 
rates. In my home State, the underemployment rate is over 20 percent. 
In my district, Sacramento County has an unemployment rate of 12.9 
percent, which is actually lower than some of the cities in my 
district. The city of Galt, for example, has an unemployment rate of 15 
percent. So it goes without saying that things are not well in our 
economy and people are suffering.
  As Americans around the country are struggling and sacrificing to 
make ends meet, it appears that we in Congress should not be immune. 
Other institutions are doing likewise. The Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court recently announced in his Year-End Report for the Judiciary that 
he would not be requesting the usual salary increase for Federal judges 
given that ``so many of our fellow citizens have been touched by 
hardship.'' The President has also announced a pay freeze for top White 
House officials and other appointees in the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, recently in this House we passed H. Res. 1257, 
supporting the goals and ideals of National Financial Literacy Month, 
2010. This legislation sought to raise public awareness about financial 
education through highlighting the importance of maintaining and 
managing personal finances, increasing personal savings, and reducing 
indebtedness in the United States. Some would ask whether we in 
Congress ought to undertake that same examination with respect to our 
spending in this House and our spending overall on the Federal budget.

                              {time}  1530

  At a time when we are passing resolutions telling Americans to be 
more cognizant of their financial situation, their debt, their savings, 
we do need to do the same in the House.
  Millions of Americans are not getting a pay raise this year. Many, 
unfortunately, are not even getting paychecks. Under these 
circumstances, Congress must forgo a pay raise to save the hardworking 
taxpayers and hard-looking job seekers in this country a little of 
their money. Relative to the overall Federal budget, this single act 
doesn't have that great an impact. But any dollar, any Federal dollar, 
is something that we should treat with utmost responsibility because it 
comes to us in a sense involuntarily from our constituents. It comes 
through taxes or future taxes to pay for current debts.

[[Page H2910]]

  So under these circumstances I think most of my colleagues, if not 
all of my colleagues, would agree that this is the time for us to forgo 
a pay raise. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this 
resolution, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
bill's sponsor, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5146, the 
Cancel the Pay Raise for Members of Congress in Fiscal Year 2011 Act, a 
bill to stop Members of Congress from receiving an automatic pay raise 
in fiscal year 2011. Last week the Senate approved this same 
legislation, and I am pleased that today the House is finally following 
suit.
  With unemployment high and so many families under stress, it would be 
simply unconscionable for Congress to raise its own pay. But that is 
precisely what will happen in fiscal year 2011 unless Congress takes 
action to stop it. This bill is simply the right thing to do. Earlier 
this year, Chief Justice Roberts announced that, in a major break from 
tradition, he will not seek a salary increase this year for Federal 
judges in light of the fact that, quote, ``so many of our fellow 
citizens have been touched by hardship.'' Likewise, President Obama has 
announced a pay freeze for senior White House officials as well as top 
appointees across the Federal Government. And as I mentioned, last week 
the Senate approved legislation to block the next automatic pay raise 
for Members of Congress.
  It is time--past time--for the House to act. The American people are 
not getting a raise this year. Neither should Congress.
  I want to thank Representative Ron Paul for his steadfast leadership 
on this issue. He and I have worked closely with each other for several 
years now to block the annual pay raise, and today's vote would not 
have been possible without him. Dr. Paul, thank you.
  I also want to thank the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens 
Against Government Waste for their support of our efforts to block the 
pay raise. And of course I want to thank Representative Jim Matheson 
for his work on this legislation, as well as House leadership for 
allowing this important bill to come to the floor today.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time I 
would like to yield 5 minutes to the indomitable distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who has worked on this issue for some 
time.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to 
compliment Mr. Mitchell from Arizona for getting this bill to the 
floor. We have worked on this for several years. I am pleased that this 
is going to be passed today.
  Much has been said about the unemployment rate in this country. And I 
saw one other take on unemployment today, where it said that for low-
income people below $20,000, the unemployment rate is actually 31 
percent, which shows how devastating this recession is, and for some it 
is an actual depression.
  I would like this bill to be passed, but not just as symbolism. It is 
good symbolism and important symbolism. As was mentioned by the 
gentleman from California, it is not a tremendous amount of money, but 
it is important for us to recognize that we have a serious problem in 
this country and that we shouldn't be careless about the way we think 
about this problem. It shouldn't make us feel necessarily good because 
we passed this. This is just necessary.
  It does remind me of a piece of legislation I introduced many years 
ago, in the 1970s, when we had rampant inflation, which I anticipate 
will probably come back to this country. Back then we had a 15 percent 
inflation rate. My suggestion then in the form of legislation, to get 
the Members' attention to understand what inflation was all about, I 
said we should take a pay cut at the rate of inflation. Even today we 
might suggest that. There is a lot more inflation out there than we 
admit to. So maybe not only should we freeze our salaries, maybe we 
should be taking a pay cut so that we can do a better job, because we 
really can't brag about the job that we have done for the country 
because of the condition the country is in.
  But I would like to extend this motivation to freeze the pay of 
Congressmen to freezing a few other things. I would like to see our 
budget at least frozen where it is. That would go a long way to solving 
some of our budgetary problems. And how about freezing the debt level. 
Let's not raise the debt level. Instead, this next year our national 
debt is going to go up about $2 trillion when you add up all that we 
borrow from our trust funds.
  Also, I would like to see a freeze on regulations because regulations 
usually backfire. There are unintended consequences, they cost a lot of 
money, they act as a tax, and they don't improve the economy overall.
  I would be in support of freezing the wealth transfer system, the 
system that most people think is going to help all the poor people. The 
trouble is the wealth transfer system helps the rich people, and they 
are the ones who get the bailouts and the poor people don't. So a 
freeze on wealth transfer would go a long way toward restoring a free 
society and a constitutional government.
  Also, I think the consensus of the American people today is we ought 
to freeze the bailouts. Let's not bail out anybody anymore. But it 
looks like it will be a long time before that happens because we have a 
monetary system where we have somebody over there called the Federal 
Reserve that says we can print money at will, and our job is to be the 
lender of last resort. That means to bail anybody and everybody out 
that needs money. And it looks like that will be domestic as well as 
international.
  I would like to freeze the ability of the Federal Reserve to print 
money out of thin air. That in moral terms is counterfeit, and yet that 
is the encouragement for us to run up our deficits because the Fed can 
come in and increase the money supply. A sound monetary system would 
have frozen anybody's ability to just create money out of thin air.
  I would also like to freeze the income tax at the 1912 level. And 
that indeed would be a real boost to the people of this country. All of 
a sudden there would be great wealth in the hands of the consumer. Just 
think if all the money that we spent on the bailouts that just tided 
things over, if just a portion of that had been used to get rid of the 
income tax, I think the money would have been better spent because the 
people would have been spending the money instead of the bureaucrats 
and the politicians and the regulators that bailed out the people who 
were making all the money in the first place.
  But I would also extend this freeze onto some other things, too. I 
would like to freeze some of our militarism. I think we have enough 
fighting going on. I don't think we should expand the war. I don't 
think we should be looking for another enemy. I would like to freeze 
the sanctions on countries. I would like to see a lot more free trade. 
I would like to see that the bombing is not extended, that we quit 
allowing our CIA to extend the bombing of countries that have not 
attacked us. I would also like to put a freeze on this concept of 
preventive war. This whole idea of the concept of preventive war means 
that we can literally start the war.
  So, yes, it's good that we are freezing the salaries of us here in 
the Congress. But if we really want to restore the Republic, we will 
freeze a lot of these other issues as well.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
bill's cosponsor, the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, as so many people in this country continue 
to struggle to find work, let alone receive a pay raise, I am glad 
Congress has chosen to highlight this issue. Now, last year Congress 
recognized how inappropriate it would be to accept the stealth salary 
increase and passed a measure to block a congressional pay raise for 
the current fiscal year. This past week the Senate continued the freeze 
on congressional pay without a single dissenting vote. And now I urge 
my fellow House Members to follow suit and pass this commonsense 
measure.
  The need for this bill also underlines another significant problem 
with the

[[Page H2911]]

congressional pay raise system because every year, unless both the 
House and the Senate actually vote against a pay raise, like we are 
talking about doing right now, we automatically receive a pay raise. In 
almost every profession, salary increases are dependent on performance, 
experience, tenure, or any number of factors other than really showing 
up to work every day.
  This system which shrouds the congressional pay increase in arcane 
procedures deters a healthy, open debate of the issue. This legislation 
is a straightforward measure to stop the pay increase for fiscal year 
'11 and has been widely supported in a bipartisan manner.
  I commend Congressman Mitchell and Congressman Paul for their work on 
this issue over the past 2 years. Now, beyond this one-time issue we 
are talking about today, I would be remiss if I didn't mention I have 
introduced a separate piece of legislation which would permanently 
repeal the provision of the law granting automatic pay raises and bring 
this issue to an open, up or down vote to let the public know where we 
stand on this issue every year. The Senate has also passed this 
legislation. I look forward to discussing this issue as we move forward 
to address our budgetary priorities.
  As I have said for the past many years, spending priorities in a time 
of war and economic turmoil should not include an automatic salary 
increase for Members of Congress. I urge my fellow Members of the House 
to prevent a pay raise for 2011 and vote in favor of the legislation on 
the floor today.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  After listening to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I am reminded 
of some freezes I would like to see. In addition to this freeze on our 
pay for a year, I would like to see us put a freeze on regulations on 
small business.
  The previous speaker just mentioned that he believes we have somewhat 
of an arcane procedure for providing for pay raises to Members of 
Congress. That may be true. But there is certainly no more arcane 
activity that we engaged in than when we passed the health care bill in 
that having a new burden on business, particularly small business. And 
I speak of section 9006 of the health care bill, which has nothing to 
do with health, but has everything to do with regulation in that now, 
as opposed to the law which has existed for many years in which you had 
to file a 1099 on someone who provided a service for you, the purpose 
of which was to make sure that there was some paper trail to see if you 
were paying payroll taxes, we now have decided under this bill, the 
health care bill, section 9006, to require anybody involved in a trade 
or a service, that is any type of business who makes a purchase from 
some other corporate entity of any type that amounts to more than $600 
cumulatively over a single year, that requires a 1099 to be filed with 
the person that you purchase the product from and the Federal 
Government.
  What this means is that now if you purchase plane tickets and it 
amounts to more than $600 and you are engaged in a business, you will 
have to file a 1099 with United Airlines or American Airlines and the 
Federal Government. If you purchase food for your company and it 
amounts to more than $600, you will have to file a 1099. If you happen 
to be a rancher and you purchase bales of hay, you are going to have to 
keep a running tab all year long, and when you go over $600 you are 
going to have to file a 1099. If you in fact utilize FedEx or UPS, if 
during the course of the year it is more than $600, you will have to 
file a 1099 with FedEx or UPS and the Federal Government.
  So this is a new burden that will require accounting procedures for 
anybody involved in business, particularly imposed on small business. 
But more than that, there is a double-edged sword to this. And that is 
this is a dagger at the heart of small business. Because if you have 
this obligation, it is easier to deal with one single big vendor than 
to have a number of them. Instead of going to your local hardware store 
if you are a small company and you need some hardware, you ought to go 
to one of the big guys because their universe of products is greater. 
And so if you have everything you purchased from them, knowing it is 
going to be over $600, you only have a single 1099 to file.
  So what we have done in one fell swoop is make it more difficult to 
actually operate with this new regulatory scheme, and on the other 
hand, create disincentives for small business.
  Now, when we contacted the Internal Revenue Service to see how they 
are going to interpret it, they said we haven't interpreted it yet 
because we are waiting for HHS to give us guidance. So now we have tax 
policy going to be determined by HHS.

                              {time}  1545

  All I'm saying is, if people think that we've had arcane procedures 
for means of pay raises for Members of Congress, it is nothing compared 
to what we've done in this health care bill with regulation on small 
business. I actually call that provision of the health care bill the 
``universal snitch act'' because, when you file this 1099, it has 
nothing to do with your obligation to pay taxes. It has got to be 
premised on the idea that every vendor you deal with cheats and that 
the only way to catch cheaters is to have this new paper trail.
  So I don't know. It just seems repugnant to me that we would do that, 
and I happen to have a bill that I introduced yesterday that would 
repeal that.
  I just bring this up because the gentleman from Texas prompted this 
thought in my mind about freezes that would be appropriate. Then when 
the previous speaker mentioned arcane procedures, there was nothing 
more arcane than the health care bill we passed.
  In fact, when we called the IRS, they weren't sure that this was in 
the bill. When we talked to the Congressional Research Service, they 
said, Oh, it couldn't be. Then when we pointed out that the new 
language in the bill is property and not just services--and that 
includes anything that you purchase--it has an unbelievable obligation 
on small business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Teague).
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, as a small business man in the oil and gas 
industry for over 30 years, I know that, when times are tough, we have 
to tighten our belts. That is why the very first bill that I sponsored 
in Congress was a bill to stop the automatic pay raise for Members of 
Congress.
  Last year, we were able to get enough signers to stop this pay raise 
for this year, and I was proud to work to get that done. I am proud 
that our work has again paid off and that I am standing here today in 
support of a bill that will again stop the automatic pay raise that 
Members have taken advantage of for too long.
  While many working New Mexicans are struggling to make ends meet, it 
is insulting that anyone would accept an automatic pay raise, which is 
something most of the constituents in my district will have to do 
without--if they are earning salaries at all. Our constituents expect 
honest and responsible leadership from their Congress. That's why I 
encourage my colleagues to just say ``no'' to the dough.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to take this a step further. I call on my fellow 
Members of Congress to cosponsor legislation I have sponsored with my 
colleague from Arizona, Representative Kirkpatrick. Our bill would cut 
pay for all Senators and Representatives by 5 percent beginning January 
1, 2011. This would be the first congressional pay reduction since 
1933.
  I think it's about time that Congress has their pay cut just like the 
rest of the country, so I ask you to join me in this fight today.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the pride of the Coast Guard, the distinguished gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. I thank my friend from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of this bill.
  Some would say, Well, it's just a symbolic gesture. Well, it may be 
symbolic, but it is symbolically significant. What better time to 
impose a freeze against ourselves than now during these harsh economic 
times of people being beneficiaries of pink slips, of being told their 
jobs are gone. Then

[[Page H2912]]

they see that Congress gets an automatic COLA. I think this is a good 
bill, and I urge its passage.
  I thank the gentleman from California for having elevated me to the 
``distinguished'' category as well.
  Folks, we are on the right track here. This bill needs to be passed. 
We need to impose a freeze upon ourselves for the next fiscal year. I 
think it would send a message which would be well received by our 
constituencies across this land.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time.
  I would just urge my colleagues to support this resolution. This is 
appropriate at this particular time. I think all Members of Congress 
recognize the difficult economic straits we are in. It is a simple 
resolution. It forgoes the pay raise for the year 2011, and I would 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment very 
briefly because my colleagues were asking for basically a freeze on a 
status quo of the health care that we know today.
  They spoke of repugnant policies. I want to talk just for a minute 
about the repugnant policies that we know of today, which don't allow 
people to get insurance if they have preexisting conditions that have 
ratings which discriminate, particularly against women, and which make 
it almost impossible for small business to be able to take care of and 
to help their employees when it comes to health insurance. So, yes, we 
have some policies that we have been trying to change. Unfortunately, 
my colleagues are asking for a freeze.
  Yet I do want to applaud the fact that we are here on a singular 
effort today, and that is to forgo the cost-of-living adjustment for 
Congress. I think that's a good idea. It is a very timely idea, and it 
is very important that we move forward with it today.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, Kansans continue to suffer from the 
effects of the recession. Times remain tough for many. Small business 
owners are struggling to keep the doors of their businesses open. 
Families are struggling to pay their bills. When faced with difficult 
times, Kansans make sacrifices. They cut back where they can and 
stretch every dollar to make ends meet.
  Times are also tough for the Federal Government. The national debt is 
more than $12 trillion and it continues to grow every day.
  When times are tough, Kansans expect their government to act like 
they do--to make sacrifices and cut spending. Yet, the Federal 
Government is spending more than ever before.
  One of the first places Congress should look to cut spending is the 
annual cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress. Representatives 
and Senators do not deserve a raise, especially when many Kansans will 
not receive a raise this year and the unemployment rate remains high.
  I have long been opposed to the hidden process by which Members of 
Congress get an increase in their pay. The lack of transparency in the 
yearly raise only serves to increase skepticism, disillusion and 
distrust of government. Last year, I sponsored H.R. 1597, which 
eliminates the automatic pay increase for Members of Congress. If 
Members of Congress believe they have earned a raise, they should vote 
on it in full view of the public.
  I am pleased today, that the House of Representatives is considering 
a bill in clear view of the public that would do away with the cost-of-
living increase for next year. While this legislation, H.R. 5146, is 
only a one-year fix to the problem, it is an important first step and I 
am proud to be one of the sponsors of this legislation. I oppose the 
yearly automatic increase in pay and strongly support today's 
legislation to make sure Members of Congress do not get a raise next 
year.
  Our employers, the voters, are right to be unhappy with Washington's 
spending spree. There should be no increase in congressional pay until 
Congress listens to the public and cuts spending.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5146.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________