[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H304-H312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TO EXTEND THE PAY LIMITATION FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3835) to extend the pay limitation for Members of
Congress and Federal employees.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3835
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PAY LIMITATION.
(a) In General.--Section 147 of the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242; 5 U.S.C. 5303
note), as added by section 1(a) of the Continuing
Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act,
2011 (Public Law 111-322; 124 Stat. 3518), is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``December 31, 2012''
and inserting ``December 31, 2013''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``December 31, 2012''
and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
(b) Application to Legislative Branch.--
(1) Members of congress.--The extension of the pay limit
for Federal employees through December 31, 2013, as
established pursuant to the amendments made by subsection
(a), shall apply to Members of Congress in accordance with
section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(2 U.S.C. 31).
(2) Other legislative branch employees.--
(A) Limit in pay.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no cost of living adjustment required by statute with
respect to a legislative branch employee which (but for this
subparagraph) would otherwise take effect during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on
December 31, 2013, shall be made.
(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``legislative
branch employee'' means--
(i) an employee of the Federal Government whose pay is
disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives; and
(ii) an employee of any office of the legislative branch
who is not described in clause (i).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Ross) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I ask unanimous consent that the Members may have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 3835, to extend the pay limitation for Members of Congress and
Federal employees. Our Federal employees provide an essential work
function for the Federal Government. They're good people. They do good
work. And they do good work so long as it's essential government
functions. We appreciate their service, and believe Federal employees
should be compensated fairly.
Yet, current Federal salaries and benefits are not in line with the
marketplace when compared to the private workforce. Federal civilian
workers receive generous benefits, pay, and job security. In fact,
there is a four times greater chance of losing your job in the private
sector than there is with the Federal workforce.
Our Federal workforce performs essential functions. We appreciate
their service, and believe Federal employees should be compensated
fully.
On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released a study which
found that total compensation for Federal employees was 16 percent
greater than for private sector workers. When they looked at the
benefits of hardworking taxpayers, they take home 72 percent less in
benefits than their government counterparts.
To top it off, these hardworking private sector taxpayers, with a
high school diploma or some college, make 32 to 36 percent less than
Federal employees with the same education level. Those who work the
hardest to pay taxes are the ones bearing the burden of a bloated
Federal government.
The contrast between the Federal Government and private sector is
troubling. With 13 million Americans unemployed, why would we allow
automatic raises to occur for a group of workers whose average
compensation exceeds $100,000, and for the Members of Congress, whose
compensation is $174,000?
The reality is that the Federal Government has no incentive or no
obligation to reduce salaries in order to be competitive to stay in
business. We simply raise taxes, or we go into more debt. And our
government continues to borrow. Just yesterday, for example, the CBO
released a report that our Federal budget deficit will top another $1
trillion for a fourth straight year in a row. This is unprecedented. It
is unsustainable.
The President's fiscal commission, a bipartisan commission, the
Simpson-Bowles Commission, a commission which not only the President
but this Congress should consider, has recommended a 3-year freeze on
civilian payroll and Member pay. In its report, the Commissioners
reminded us that ``in time of budget shortfalls, all levels of
government must trim back.'' Following this advice, the President, to
[[Page H305]]
his credit, did recommend, and this Congress did freeze Federal
employee pay through 2012. This measure alone saved the Federal
Government $60 billion.
As Americans continue to sacrifice, we must lead by example. H.R.
3835 continues the temporary freeze on across-the-board annual salary
adjustments for Federal civilian workers.
Federal employees will continue to receive salary increases under the
step program. Now, this has been going on, even despite the Federal pay
freeze, a step increase, 3 percent every year. 99.9 percent of all
Federal employees eligible for a step increase received it. Where else
can a pay freeze equal a 3 percent increase a year but in Washington,
DC?
Office of Personnel Management Director Berry said that there should
be no place in the Federal Government for non-performers to hide. This
chart proves that we continue to fund government at a rate well in
excess of that given to the private sector.
If we want to look for ways to cut, maybe we should look in some of
the Federal office buildings, because 6 out of every 1,000 employees do
not receive a 3 percent increase, despite a pay freeze. These step
increases which continue under this bill, if passed, will result in a
$1,303 average annual salary increase per Federal employee.
The bill before us today builds on the President's fiscal commission.
It follows the President's request to freeze Federal pay for Federal
employees. It is consistent with the House resolution, and mirrors the
provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011
passed by this House last December.
Opponents of this bill will argue that Federal employees have already
done more with less for the last 2 years. They will claim that
supporters of this bill view Federal employees as a cost to cut, and
that we want to cut the budget on the backs of Federal employees. I
disagree with that.
We have been fortunate, very fortunate throughout the years to have a
very good Federal workforce, to have talented and hardworking
individuals who have chosen public service. However, our appreciation
for their service does not bring a mandate to pay them above market
rates, with little regard to their individual performance.
In its March 2011 report to the President, the Pay Agent--and let's
go over who the Pay Agent is. The Pay Agent makes up the Secretary of
Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the
Office of Personnel Management, all appointed by the President, all
approved by a Democratic-controlled Senate. This is what they say. They
express serious concern about a process that requires a single
percentage adjustment in the pay of all white collar civilian Federal
employees in each locality area. Adding to their comments: We believe
the underlying model and methodology for estimating pay gaps should be
reexamined to ensure that the private sector and Federal sector pay
comparisons are as accurate as possible.
There is a reason why the Federal pay law has never been implemented
as originally enacted. It is based on an outdated, one-size-fits-all
model. In testimony before the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, Director
Berry agreed that the Federal pay system could use a reexamination, and
it ``does not reflect the complexity of the world we live in.''
Study after study has shown that, when compared to the private
sector, the Federal Government, on average, pays more than required to
recruit and retain a skilled workforce. Paying across-the-board wages
that are higher than market rate with no measure of individual
performance means less money available to meet the salary required of
highly skilled workers such as scientists and professionals, as this
graph accurately demonstrates.
We need to bring these high-level professionals in the Federal
Government in parity with the others, and this bill will allow us to do
that. It shows where we are out of whack from the private sector.
Madam Speaker, I ask Members and Federal employees to share in the
sacrifice necessary to help millions of Americans suffering under the
Obama economy, and urge support of H.R. 3835.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I stand in strong opposition to this legislation, but I want to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
{time} 1240
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I listened to the gentleman's comments. The
gentleman is new to the Congress and probably doesn't have the
background in terms of how this developed as to how we pay Federal
employees.
As the sponsor of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act in 1990,
signed by George Bush who worked with President Bush's OMB and OPM on
this legislation, obviously one of the things we did was to say if the
private sector doesn't get an increase, the public sector won't get an
increase. We keyed the increases to the economic cost index, which is
all to say that we need to tighten our belts when the private sector
tightens their belts.
Which is why, as I think I caught the gentleman's reference, that
over the last 2 years, Federal employees have in fact received cuts to
existing law which will result in a $60 billion savings. I think the
gentleman said that, but it bears repeating. It's not as if the Federal
employees haven't tightened their belts. They have. In point of fact,
the pay council to which he referred believes on average that Federal
employees are in fact behind, not ahead.
Now, I'm aware of the CBO report that was just issued. Mr. Cummings
has responded to that. Clearly, what they said is there is a disparity.
Those on the lower end of the scale are doing better. Those on the
upper end of the scale aren't doing so well. None of them are getting
paid as much as the gentleman is who made this speech or that I'm
getting. None of them are making as much as we are.
Now, what we have here is a very clever political effort to have
Members vote either for their pay or against their pay being adjusted
by a cost-of-living adjustment.
I'm going to vote against this bill. I am for bringing a bill to this
floor which will freeze our salaries, and I would hope that a unanimous
consent to do so would not be objected to on your side of the aisle.
I've been for that for the last 2 years, and I have worked in a
bipartisan way over the years not to demagogue Members and have Members
get cost-of-living adjustment. The sponsor of this bill, as a matter of
fact, is quoted as saying how much difficulty he's having supporting
his family on his salary.
Now, the fact of the matter is we ought to put a bill on this floor
and freeze our salaries. Federal employees have already contributed $60
billion of benefits to which they otherwise would have been entitled
because we, for the last 2 years, with my support, have frozen their
salaries at the cost-of-living adjustment.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would hope that the bill that is
sponsored by Mr. Van Hollen, that there would not be an objection to a
unanimous consent request to bring that bill to the floor so that
Members could express that, yes, we're prepared to tighten our belts
one more notch.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. But what we should not do is pretend that we're going to
balance the budget by undermining middle class workers, middle class
workers who work for, in my opinion, the finest country on Earth and
who give excellent service, extraordinary service to the people of this
country, and who, per capita, are fewer than they were 20 years ago per
capita.
The fact of the matter is that we ought to have a bill, we ought to
pass Mr. Van Hollen's bill, we ought to take the politics out of this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. Then I tell my friends what we ought to do is we ought to
pass a big deal. We ought to pass a $4 trillion to $5 trillion to $6
trillion big deal to get the fiscal house of the United States of
America in order. It ought to include all things on the table including
Federal employee pay and benefits, including the military pay and
benefits and expenditures, and domestic expenditures, as well as
entitlements. I've said that. That's what we
[[Page H306]]
ought to do. We ought not to piecemeal it as this bill reflects.
I hope that we'll support Mr. Van Hollen's bill.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the great
State of North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Duffy for introducing this bill.
As a consistent opponent of automatic pay increases for Members of
Congress, I am pleased to support the bill before us today which would
extend the pay freeze for Federal employees and Members of Congress for
another year through December 31, 2013.
With the record-shattering budget deficits racked up under the Obama
administration, immediate action is needed to restrain runaway
government increases and do no more harm to hardworking American
taxpayers.
President Obama's liberal Democrat enablers in Congress attempt to
ignore the true solution by suggesting endless tax increases, which
never have and never will represent the long-term solution to our
budget problem.
Excessive pay is part and parcel of a Federal Government that's too
large and over budget. While the Federal Government will never be
subject to market forces the way the private sector is, fundamental
reform of the Federal compensation system is needed.
The simple truth also is that Federal employees are more highly
unionized than their counterparts in the private sector. According to a
CBO report issued last month: ``The Federal Government and the private
sector also differ in the extent to which their workers are represented
by unions, which can influence employees' compensation. About 21
percent of Federal workers are members of unions, compared to only 8
percent of private sector workers.''
As a result, the Federal Government pays comparatively higher
compensation and provides more generous benefits and job security than
private employers.
It's offensive to those unemployed Americans struggling to find a job
to see unionized Federal employees continue to enjoy comparatively high
compensation which is used to pay dues to government unions which spend
heavily to elect politicians who promise them concessions.
According to the Heritage Foundation: ``Government unions were the
top political spenders outside the two major parties in the 2010
election cycle.''
That's why I'm pleased Mr. Duffy is offering H.R. 3835, which is a
modest bill estimated to save taxpayers $26.2 billion. This bill also
freezes the pay of Members of Congress, which so many taxpayers believe
is important in demonstrating our shared commitment to reining in the
spiraling Federal ledger. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I stand in strong opposition to this bill. Federal workers, Madam
Speaker, are literally the backbone of our government. They support our
troops on the battlefield, and they take care of our veterans when they
return home. They protect our borders, safeguard our food supply,
ensure that seniors receive their Social Security checks, and hunt down
terrorists like Osama bin Laden. They carry out each and every Federal
program, service, and initiative Congress has created.
Despite the critical nature of the services that Federal workers
provide, the majority believes that their pay should be frozen for yet
another year, that their retirement benefits should be slashed, and
that the size of the Federal workforce should be reduced sharply, even
though it is smaller now than it was under Presidents Reagan and George
H.W. Bush.
Federal workers have already made tremendous sacrifices to address
our Nation's budget deficits. The 2-year pay freeze to which they are
currently subject will save taxpayers $60 billion. Further, Federal
workers face the possibility of layoffs and furloughs in coming years
as automatic spending reductions mandated by the Budget Control Act of
2011 reduce agency budgets for salaries.
The only workable solution to our country's budget deficit is a
balanced one that includes shared sacrifice, including from the
wealthiest among us. To date, however, our Republican majority has yet
to bring before this House a single bill that will require millionaires
and billionaires to contribute more toward deficit reduction. Instead,
they are preoccupied with taking money out of the pockets of middle
class public servants.
For these reasons, last week I led 17 Members in sending a letter to
conferees working on extending the payroll tax cut urging them to
reject any and all measures that would disproportionately harm Federal
workers. I will continue to oppose any measure that would further cut
Federal employee pay or benefits.
Madam Speaker, I'm disappointed but not surprised given the way the
majority has run the House that we are now considering this bill under
regular order. Instead, the majority introduced a bill on Friday in a
pro forma session and is now rushing it to the House floor before any
action by appropriate committees can be taken.
{time} 1250
I am also disappointed that this measure was placed on the suspension
calendar, thereby blocking any amendments to the underlying
legislation. Finally, I am disappointed that this bill unfairly links
the pay of Federal employees to the pay of Members of Congress.
I strongly support Mr. Van Hollen's bill. The merits of pay increases
for Federal workers should be debated separately from our consideration
of the pay of Members of Congress. In short, this bill appears to be a
disingenuous and disrespectful attack against Federal workers and the
regular order of the House.
For these reasons, I strongly urge Members to oppose the bill, and I
call on the House leadership to allow us to consider legislation
through regular order that does not punish Federal workers in order to
score political points.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. I yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of this bill,
my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
I think it is important that we review the history of Federal
employee pay freezes. In the last Congress, this came up under a
Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and a Democrat
President. They voted for a 2-year payroll freeze for Federal
employees. They rightly excluded our military, and I think everyone in
this House agrees that our military should get a pay increase. But who
they wrongly failed to include in the pay freeze were Members of
Congress. They didn't include Members of Congress, but every other
Federal worker they did include.
So now, today, I've brought a bill to the floor to extend the pay
freeze for one more year. My bill is the exact same bill as the
Democrats' bill from 2 years ago. The only difference is that I've
carved in Members of Congress. Every Member in this House will have his
pay frozen just like every other Federal worker's. That is the right
thing to do. That's what should have been done 2 years ago but was not
done.
I was here to listen to the gentleman from Maryland, the former
majority leader, who is outraged that he doesn't have an opportunity to
singly vote for a pay freeze for Members of Congress. Yet, as the
majority leader, he had the opportunity to include Members of Congress
in his bill. Republicans didn't have a say. It was a Democrat House, a
Democrat Senate, a Democrat President, and Members of Congress were not
included. Now to come here today and to be outraged and say that the
Republicans are disingenuous because we have carved in Members of
Congress doesn't hold water.
I think it is important to also look at the facts behind Federal
employees as they are compared to the private sector. The Congressional
Budget Office came out and said that Federal employees make 16 percent
more on average than those in the private sector. At this point, what
my friends across the aisle have come to the House floor to say is, in
a very difficult economy, we want the private sector, which is really
the American taxpayer--the ones who have been forced to make
concessions with regard to pay, the ones who have been asked to work
less hours to keep their jobs--my friends across the aisle
[[Page H307]]
come to the House floor and say, what we want these American taxpayers
to do is to not get a pay raise themselves, but to pay for a pay
increase for Federal workers who already make 16 percent more than they
do.
That doesn't make sense. I hear a lot of conversation from my friends
across the aisle about fairness and parity. Well, I think you should
start to use the term ``fairness'' today. There should be parity
between the private sector and the public sector.
I come from central and northern Wisconsin, and we have a large
manufacturing sector in the community in my district. Time and time
again, there are rules, there are regulations, there is red tape, and
there are taxes that attack our way of life that come from this town of
Washington, that attack the way of life in Wisconsin. We bring it up.
We talk about it. We complain about it. And guess what? My friends
across the aisle turn a deaf ear to our complaints. But today we're
going to do a 1-year extension of a Federal employee pay freeze, and
they are outraged by that. They are listening, they are advocating,
they are arguing for more Federal pay.
Come on. Use fairness today. Use the argument of parity today. This
was your bill. This is a 1-year extension.
The final point: The President's debt commission, Simpson-Bowles,
said we should have a 3-year freeze on Federal pay. That's what my bill
does. I don't want the argument to be that my friends across the aisle
don't really care about the Federal employee pay freeze and that they
only care about their own pay freeze, because that is the only
difference. The only difference in my bill is that I've included
Members of Congress.
This makes sense. Let's come together. The American people are sick
of the partisan bickering. They would expect that there are issues on
the left and that there are issues on the right that this House could
and should fight about, but I think they're sick of commonsense issues
that come down in the middle that we should agree on. Let's get
together. Let's pass this bill. Let's freeze Federal employees'
salaries for one more year.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I think the record should be clear
that every year that the Congress has frozen Federal employee pay, we
have also frozen congressional pay. What we have not done is try to
hold Federal employee pay hostage to what we do on congressional pay.
We should also be very clear that all of us on the Democratic side
support freezing congressional pay in the year 2013.
Indeed, Mr. Cummings and I, Mr. Hoyer and others have introduced
legislation to do just that. It's H.R. 3858. The Democratic leadership
asked that we be able to bring that up on the suspension calendar
today, and we were denied that opportunity.
So I now ask unanimous consent that, after we complete debate on this
bill, we add to today's suspension calendar H.R. 3858 so that we can
vote as a body on freezing congressional pay.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the guidelines consistently issued by
successive Speakers, as recorded on page 752 of the House Rules and
Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the gentleman's
request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and
committee leaderships.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. This illustrates the point exactly.
As I said, Madam Speaker, we have been denied that opportunity by the
Republican leadership, so I want to just be clear.
We were denied the opportunity today to have an up-or-down vote on
freezing congressional pay. That's what we should do, and the refusal
to allow us to do that demonstrates that what we're really seeing is an
effort to use congressional pay as a political weapon to punish all
Federal employees: to prevent any COLAs--cost-of-living adjustments--
for Federal employees. Otherwise we would be able to bring up that bill
separately.
Now, what we're seeing again is an effort to single out Federal
employees as scapegoats for the economic problems that they had nothing
to do with--they had nothing to do with the meltdown on Wall Street;
they had nothing to do with the policies of the previous administration
that helped bring our economy to this position. Yet what we're seeing
today is what we're seeing in States, where we have Governors in
Wisconsin, where we have Governors in Ohio, where we have other, mostly
Republican, Governors scapegoating public servants in their States and
singling them out as if they were the problem.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Federal employees have already seen a 2-year freeze, which saved $60
billion, and Federal employees are willing to do their share. What we
should not do is single them out. Now, the President has asked for a
one-half percent cost-of-living adjustment. That still is short of the
1.7 percent cost-of-living that they will face.
So it's time that we stop saying to those folks who are out there
every day helping keep our food safe, helping track down Osama bin
Laden, other people who help protect our borders, and do other things
that we're going to single them out for unfair treatment as part of the
budget. Let's take it up as part of the full budget and not single them
out the way we're doing here.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 1, 2012.
Hon. Eric I. Cantor,
Majority Leader,
House of Representatives.
Representative Cantor: We are writing to request that the
bill, H.R. 3858 to extend the pay freeze on Members of
Congress, be placed on the suspension calendar. Federal
employees have seen no cost-of-living adjustment for two
years and will lose $60 billion in income over 10 years.
We believe that members should have the opportunity to vote
to freeze the pay of members of Congress without cutting pay
for all Federal employees.
Sincerely,
Chris Van Hollen,
Member of Congress.
Nancy Pelosi,
Member of Congress.
Steny H. Hoyer,
Member of Congress.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
bringing forward this important bill.
I want to refer to some facts here because we do have some good,
hardworking Federal employees. Make no mistake about it: They're just
as patriotic, if not more, than everybody else in our country. They
work hard, and they deserve just compensation. But the compensation
trajectory on which we're going forward in this country, Madam Speaker,
is neither sustainable nor fair.
I was hoping that when the majority leader was addressing us that he
would yield to the question, because one of the stats he threw out is
that none of these people are earning as much as Members of Congress.
Yet I would point out, for instance, that at the end of 2009 in the
Department of Transportation, there was one person earning a salary of
$170,000.
{time} 1300
And yet 18 months later, there were 1,690 employees in the Department
of Transportation earning at least $170,000 in compensation.
I would also point out that since President Barack Obama took office,
until now, there are an additional 144,700 civilian Federal employees.
These are new people added to the payroll, more than 144,000 new people
on the payroll.
In 2010, more than 50 percent of all General Schedule employees
received a step increase or a promotion, hardly a pay freeze that
President Obama would have led us to believe was happening. Also for
2010, 62.9 percent of all General Schedule employees received an award
or bonus. Now, in these dire economic times and people trying to
tighten their belts in the private sector, I think it's stunning that
close to 63 percent of our General Schedule employees, Federal
employees, got an award or a bonus.
Now, this new CBO study that came out this week right here, the
average Federal benefits that exceeded the private sector levels by 48
percent, the
[[Page H308]]
benefits that are being given to the Federal employees exceed the
private sector by 48 percent, according to the CBO. And the total
average Federal compensation is 16 percent when you weigh that in with
the other base pay, 16 percent above the private sector. Now, you can
find an isolated case where maybe somebody is being undercompensated,
but you can find a whole lot more people that are being
overcompensated.
Now, most people, if you ask in your mind, how many Federal employees
out there are earning at least $100,000 in their base pay, Madam
Speaker, that number is in excess of 450,000 people on our Federal
payroll who are earning in excess of $100,000.
In fact, if you go back and look at the payroll, the total Federal
payroll for the Federal Government, in 2008 it was roughly $400
billion; in 2011 it's projected to be $452 billion. You should also
look at one of the more stunning numbers that I saw, Madam Speaker, and
that is from 2010 to 2011, there were 16,000 Federal employees that
moved up to having at least a base pay of $100,000.
So to suggest that there has been some sort of pay freeze in place, I
would argue, is wholeheartedly incorrect. It is a matter of fairness
and balance.
I appreciate Mr. Duffy for his fine work in bringing this bill
forward because we should limit the pay of Members of Congress. We
should also do so for the Federal civilian workforce.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the other
side constantly brings up the CBO report. The much better report is the
Bureau of Labor Statistics report. They have more experience at this,
and they show that Federal employees were paid 26 percent less than
private sector employees.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, Washington is the headquarters of the Congress. It is
not the headquarters of Federal employees. Eighty-five percent of them
live in other cities and in towns and suburbs.
Let's all agree that deficit reduction is a priority, and that it is
appropriate to lead from the top. Nor should Federal employees be
exempt from this leadership by example. But it starts at the top, not
at the bottom of the Federal workforce.
These Federal employees live under often greatly differing costs of
living, depending on where they live in the country. It is up to us to
lead by example, not Federal employees, although they should not be
exempt from this leadership role.
However, it is an unfair ruse to compare the most-favored Federal
employees, Members of Congress, with the least favored, Federal
employees across the board. Some are paid a great deal, some are paid
very little, some come from high-cost areas of the country, some come
from low-cost areas of the country.
Most of our constituents will understand who we were voting for and
who we were voting against.
Democrats have a long history of respecting civil servants.
Republicans have spent years deriding them in good times and bad. They
know full well also that Congress would not dare take a raise now, and
they know that Federal employees should not become, as they apparently
have, the proverbial piggy bank for all-purpose deficit reduction.
We have had two freezes that were almost automatic on Federal
employees. That's the very reason why this bill should be sent to
committee to determine what is fair now in the third year after $60
billion in cuts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. NORTON. Precisely because there have been two almost automatic
freezes with no hearings, it is time to send this bill to the committee
to determine what is fair for Federal employees. Have they contributed
enough or, using my standard, leadership by example, should they
contribute more? If you want to lead by example, Members of Congress
should stand up and ask for a freeze for themselves, by themselves,
like men and women.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no further
speakers, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3835, which would
extend the current-year pay freeze for Federal workers for an
additional year through 2013. This will be the third year of a pay
freeze.
Similar to most of my colleagues who have spoken here today, I do
support a freeze for Congress. I have voted six times to freeze
Congress' pay.
While my good friend from Utah does point out that there are some
high-end, high-salaried Federal employees, you have to remember that we
have surgeons at the VA, very competent doctors at the VA that serve
our veterans. We have scientists at NIH. We have very, very good
attorneys at the SEC prosecuting very complex fraud cases. To attract
those individuals, we do need to attract very competent and highly
skilled individuals, and that's where those higher salaries are
aggregated.
But we should be reminded that the vast majority of our Federal
employees are middle-income earners. Oddly enough, we could have
addressed this if this bill had gone through committee, through regular
order. This bill has come to the floor without going through committee.
It has not been subject to amendment.
We could have come up with a bill that said, okay, we are going to
freeze the pay of high-income Federal employees. We didn't do that.
So you've got people out there making $30,000, $40,000 a year,
secretaries and other staff, that their pay has been frozen for. If
this goes through, it will be 3 years. So we could have done a better
job if this bill had gone through the regular order and gone through
committee.
I'm also concerned about the rationale behind this legislation.
Similar to many of my colleagues today, while I support the freeze on
congressional pay, we see a lot of legislation coming up in this
Congress that attacks Federal employees, and I think this is one more
example of that.
I totally oppose it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.
This is another in a series of legislative attacks that have targeted
our Federal workers throughout the 112th Congress. It will further
erode employee morale and diminish the Federal Government's ability to
attract the best and brightest to perform the important jobs that we
need to perform. Our dedicated civil servants play a vital role in such
critical areas as law enforcement, national defense, public health, and
the delivery of services to America's veterans, elderly, and the
disabled. They should not bear a disproportionate burden when it comes
to addressing our Nation's budget problems.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing any further efforts to
balance the Nation's budget on the backs of our hardworking Federal
employees by voting ``no'' on H.R. 3835.
{time} 1310
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, earlier it was referenced that there was
another study showing that the compensation was 26 percent lower than
the private sector. I would point out that that did not include
compensation for benefits. Certainly when you look at someone's total
compensation plan, you have to look at the benefits they are achieving.
I would also point out that in the CBO study on pages 10 and 11, the
total compensation is actually more askew for the lower-educated
people. People who earned high school diplomas or less are getting 36
percent more than they would in the private sector. It's actually the
higher end, people with
[[Page H309]]
professional degrees or doctorates who are actually being
undercompensated, at least according to this study. And they only
account for about 7 percent of our workforce.
So if you look at the bulk of our workforce, some roughly 93 percent,
you're going to see a double digit percentage increase versus the
private sector.
This is not an attack on our Federal workforce. Be grateful that you
have a job. What we have to understand is that it's the taxpayers'
money, and we have to be frugal with it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the
distinguished ranking member of the committee, for yielding me this
time to rise in strong opposition to an extension of the current pay
freeze for Federal employees.
This legislation is a cynical attempt to tap into misguided
resentment fostered by the far right against the Federal Government and
the 2 million men and women who serve our Nation as civil servants.
Of those 2 million, let me point out to my colleagues that nearly two
out of three civil servants work for the Department of Defense, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and the Department of Justice. In other words, two out of three Federal
employees work in jobs related to our national security at home and
abroad or caring for our veterans. Every one of those employees now
seems to be the target of this body's misguided anger, and that's just
wrong.
Most of our Federal employees work for the Defense Department to
enhance our security. Employees at the Department of Homeland Security
work to ensure that nuclear materials aren't smuggled into our country
by those who want to do us catastrophic harm. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation works to investigate and prosecute cybercriminals that
steal billions of dollars of intellectual property from our defense and
civilian industrial base every year. This body claims to care about
preventing nuclear terrorism and halting cyber crime, yet we want to
punish those charged with carrying out that mission.
Last year, a constituent of mine was awarded a ``Sammie'' from the
Partnership for Public Service for his work at the VA helping to
address veterans struggling with the human toll of warfare. My
constituent has devoted 30 years of his career building a national
network of small, community-based centers where veterans traumatized by
combat obtain counseling, job assistance, medical referrals, and other
services. The Partnership rewarded him last year, but today the House
wants to forfeit his pay raise for a third consecutive year.
This bill is the product of an ideologically extreme group of people
who got elected by insisting that our government is broken. And now
that they're elected, they want to try to prove that is the case. It's
not the case. We ought to be proud of our government and reject this
bill.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As I listen to the debate and as I listen to the other side--and I do
want to associate myself with the words of my colleague, Mr. Moran, and
the others who have spoken--over and over again we hear on the one side
of the mouth coming from our Republican colleagues that they love our
Federal employees so much and they do such a great job, but on the
other hand they say they want to freeze their pay.
One of the things that I have found so interesting, and we've heard
the argument over and over, is when it came to taxes with regard to the
millionaires and billionaires, they didn't want to tax them one penny
more, not one dime. But yet, the person who works here in this
building, the ones that work at Social Security and other places, the
ones that Mr. Moran just talked about, the ones who are protecting the
homeland, they say to them: We want to make sure we freeze your pay.
There's something awfully wrong with that picture.
I believe very strongly that we all should share in the benefits, and
we should share in the sacrifice, too. They didn't ask for one dime,
not a dime more from the millionaires and the folks that are making all
of the money. But yet still you've got people in the Federal system,
according to the CBO report, if you want to go there, and that CBO
report says those people with a master's degree or above, they are
making 23 percent less. What about them? What about the people who day
after day sacrifice and could possibly be making a lot more money in
the private sector, what about them? Some of them, by the way, are on
our staffs.
So I would just urge--and again, it's been implied that we on this
side have a problem with a pay freeze for our Members of Congress. We
don't have a problem with that. I will go on the record saying that.
And these issues should be divided.
With that, Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this very
bad bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I'm new here. I'm one of those freshmen. I'm one of those freshmen
who's been told you don't know how Washington works. I'm one of those
freshmen who's been told you need to get in line, that's been told you
need to get in line.
Well, if successive 4 years of trillion-dollar deficits is the way
Washington works, then I don't want it working that way. You see, I
wasn't sent here to learn how Washington works; I was sent here to
change the way Washington works.
And when we have a President proposing a military budget that cuts
our military back to pre-World War II levels, and yet we continue to
increase our Federal payroll while private sector payroll employment
goes down, there's something wrong with the way Washington works.
Washington is broken, and I submit to you that we need to lead by
example. We have done so already by reducing our MRAs, our Members'
accounts, by 11 percent. We've done so already by reducing our
committee budgets. But we need to go further if we're going to lead by
example, because you see, leadership is not a title. Leadership is an
act. And I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that today we lead by example,
and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3835, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, once again the Republican
leadership is attacking America's 2.3 million civilian Federal
employees. In a brazen act of political opportunism, Speaker Boehner is
using the public's well-founded dissatisfaction with Congress to
bludgeon public servants. H.R. 3835, which we will vote on under
suspension of the rules on Wednesday, will freeze pay for Members of
Congress . . . and Federal employees.
Two million of the 2.3 million Federal employees--which is 86%--do
NOT live in the Washington, DC metropolitan region. They live in what
has been referred to fondly as the ``real America.'' The region with
the highest percentage (37 percent) of Federal employees is the South,
home of such venerable institutions as the Oak Ridge research lab, Red
Stone Arsenal, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The majority of
Federal employees work on defense and homeland security. They guard our
borders, protect the safety of airline travel, fight forest fires, and
track down online child predators. Would it be unreasonable to point
out that passage of this bill could aid and abet terrorists, cross-
border gun runners, and child pornographers?
We can all anticipate the anonymous PAC-funded television ads that
will run against those of us who oppose this ignominious legislation:
``Call and ask why Congressman X voted to raise his own pay.'' The
other consequences of this bill, should it pass, are far worse.
Freezing pay of a workforce that already receives 26 percent less than
the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, will
further degrade critical public services and weaken an already fragile
economy.
Federal employees' pay has been frozen for the last two years. While
private sector pay has grown, Federal pay has stagnated. By denigrating
public service and dismantling Federal pay and benefits, we are
crippling our ability to recruit and retain the next generation of top
tier public servants. The victims of this assault on public employees
are our constituents--the public we are supposed to serve--who rely on
services provided by Federal employees every day in every American
community.
[[Page H310]]
I respectfully request that we maintain whatever shreds of dignity
this institution has left and reject H.R. 3835.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this latest
attack on Federal workers.
H.R. 3835 is not a balanced proposal.
Federal employees have already been asked to make significant
sacrifices to help reduce our debt. So far, they have contributed $60
billion through a two-year pay freeze and they face the prospect of
furloughs and layoffs in the coming years as the Budget Control Act's
automatic cuts reduce agency budgets. Despite this, House Republicans
continue to push for expanded concessions in compensation and benefits.
H.R. 3835 would require Federal workers to forego an additional $26
billion in pay over the next decade even though Federal employees
actually earn less than their private sector counterparts when factors
such as skill and education level are taken into account.
H.R. 3835 is not a serious attempt to address the budget deficit. The
$26 billion it would raise over 10 years would cover only 2 percent of
the projected budget deficit for FY 2012 alone. True deficit reduction
will need to be balanced and sacrifice will need to be shared.
H.R. 3835 is also misguided policy.
The Federal government should not be an employer of last resort. Our
citizens depend on our ability to recruit the most qualified
individuals to treat our wounded veterans, inspect our food, oversee
nuclear power plants, protect us from terrorism, and provide a broad
range of other critical services. While H.R. 3835 would get us almost
nowhere in tackling our long term debt, and shield the wealthiest
individuals and corporations from making any kind of contribution, it
would have a devastating long-term effect on the quality of government
services and operations.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3835.
This bill is yet another example of the Republican majority's desire to
play political games instead of promoting commonsense legislative
solutions to our Nation's problems.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is exactly the wrong time to raise
salaries for me and my colleagues in Congress. We shouldn't get it. But
I do not believe that millions of hardworking Federal employees should
be punished. They already gave $5 billion with their salary freeze over
the past two years.
One of my top priorities in Congress is protecting the rights of
middle class families, which includes many millions of Federal workers.
I have the utmost respect for the hard work and public service that
Federal civilian employees perform each and every day, and I believe
they deserve to be compensated fairly. Federal workers are not
overpaid. Comparison studies show that for the educational level and
job category, they are paid less than others. In fact, Federal workers
with a professional or doctorate degree earn 23 percent less, on
average, than their private sector counterparts. In order to attract
the most talented men and women to Federal service, it is imperative
that we offer competitive salaries and benefits. This legislation sends
the wrong message to the millions of men and women who serve the
American people. It tells them that we may value the work that they do
on behalf of the American people, but not enough to compensate them
fairly.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a game. It is not a serious attempt to
address the deficit or debt. It is ``gotcha'' politics. Pay for Federal
workers did not get us into a deficit--two unpaid wars, a prescription
drug benefit, and several tax cuts for the rich blew a hole in the
budget. But rather than address those root causes, the majority today
is blaming hardworking Federal employees.
Madam Speaker, rather than this phony bill, I am a cosponsor of
Ranking Member Van Hollen's legislation to extend the pay freeze for
Members of Congress through 2013 without affecting the salaries of the
men and women of our Federal workforce. Members of Congress should not
get a pay increase this year. This is something we all agree on, Mr.
Speaker. When the legislation to forego a cost of living pay raise in
2011 came before this body in April 2010, it passed by a vote of 402 to
15. Bring this bill to freeze Members' pay through 2013 to the floor
and I will support it. So would most of our colleagues, I believe.
Mr. MARINO. Madam Speaker, it is undeniable that our nation faces
dire economic circumstances. This Congress must continue to cut
spending and reduce the size and scope of Washington. I strongly
support the efforts of House Republicans to make responsible and
necessary cuts to the federal workforce. A responsible federal pay
freeze is an important part of that equation, particularly for Members
of Congress, the President, and political appointees.
However, I rise today to express concerns regarding H.R. 3835 which
we are now considering. I believe that the current pay freeze and a
continuation of it has a disproportionate impact on employees that face
mandatory retirement age, such as many of our law enforcement officers.
These employees put their lives at risk every single day to defend our
safety and freedom.
I recently toured several federal prisons located in my district and
it is unbelievable what these guards go through to ensure that some of
the most violent criminals in America remain behind bars. Due to the
physical and mental abuse that these guards go through during their
careers, it is mandatory that they retire at 57. Unfortunately, the
officers currently near the mandatory retirement age will not be able
to make up any lost salary by working a few extra years.
Additionally, I am concerned about the effects a continued pay freeze
will have on recruitment and retention of federal law enforcement
officers. Prison officers already face a long and rigorous hiring
process and deplorably low wages. The prospect of not seeing an
increase in pay will add yet another barrier to recruiting the best and
most fit to guard our prisons and protect our safety.
I will support this legislation because I believe that Members of
Congress and political appointees should not see a pay increase and
that a responsible pay freeze is needed. I ask the sponsor of this
legislation, House and Senate leaders, and the administration to
consider the lasting impacts of a pay freeze on the federal law
enforcement officers who put their lives at risk every single day to
ensure that our families are safe.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, today, I voted in favor of extending the
pay freeze on Members of Congress. While Members of Congress should not
be getting raises during a recession, our federal employees who provide
services to our military members and ensure senior citizens receive
their checks on time do not deserve to bear the brunt of cost-cutting
efforts. The federal employees who daily show up for work in a spirit
of service to our country deserve our respect and support.
Federal employees deserve thanks for the work they do, often at lower
pay than they could command in the private sector, out of a spirit of
service to our country. These federal workers don't deserve to be the
pawns in cynical political showdowns. Shared sacrifice is necessary
from all Americans as we continue finding ways to balance budget and to
preserve critical programs, targeting one group over another out of
political spite is not the answer. Federal workers are hard working
American and I thank them for their efforts on behalf of the American
people.
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, tonight the U.S. House of Representatives
will vote on a Republican bill that attacks federal employees and aims
to balance the budget on the backs of hard-working federal civil
servants for political points. Republicans claim this bill freezes the
salaries of Members of Congress, but what they fail to mention is that
this bill would also freeze the pay of federal employees, including
10,000 civil servants in El Paso.
Federal employees have already made significant sacrifices to help
reduce the government's budget deficit. They are now enduring a two-
year pay freeze that took effect in January 2011. Federal employees
also face the possibility of layoffs and furloughs in coming years as
automatic spending reductions mandated by the Budget Control Act of
2011 cut federal agency budgets.
Republicans need to stop attacking federal employees. This pointless
legislation only serves to distract from the real issue: helping
revitalize the economy and create jobs. I will continue to stand with
federal employees and their families.
The Republican message is clear to our hard-working federal
employees, over 12,000 in El Paso, who secure our border, care for our
veterans, and protect our air and water--they would rather freeze the
wages of middle class workers than raise taxes on the millionaires and
billionaires. I want to reassure all federal employees in El Paso that
I will continue to work hard against attacks that jeopardize their
livelihood and ability to support their families.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that Members of Congress
should receive a pay raise, and that is why I am voting for this bill.
However, today's bill isn't just a vote on whether or not to freeze
salaries for Members of Congress. The second part of this legislation
extends the pay freeze for federal employees for a third consecutive
year. This gives me serious pause. These issues should not be tied
together. There should be one vote on Member salaries and a separate
vote on extending the pay freeze for federal employees.
I am concerned that the language in this bill pertaining to federal
employees' pay has not been considered through the normal process. I'm
not arguing that freezing Members' salaries needs a hearing. That's
obvious. Freezing our pay doesn't need to be vetted.
Federal employees are the issue. This bill has been rushed to the
floor less than a week
[[Page H311]]
after being introduced. No hearings have been held. Only 40 minutes of
debate are being allowed. No amendments are permitted.
Has anyone fully considered the impact that a three-year pay freeze
will have on the CIA, the NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and
the National Counter Terrorism Center?
Or the impact on the FBI, which has, since 9/11, disrupted scores of
terrorist plots against our country?
Or the impact on our military, which is supported by federal
employees every day on military bases across the Nation?
Or the impact on VA hospitals across the country, which are treating
military veterans from World War II to today?
Or the impact on the Border Patrol?
Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists,
especially on the nine-year anniversary of the tragic loss of the
Columbia crew and a week after the 45th anniversary of the loss of the
Apollo 1 crew?
Or the impact on NIH, and other federal researchers, scientists and
doctors?
Clearly, federal employees don't just sit behind desks. They are
members of our communities who are out in the field, often in harm's
way, protecting our Nation. Just here in northern Virginia, residents
recently mourned the loss of two federal employees who died in the line
of duty--U.S. Park Police Sergeant Michael Andrew Boehm of Burke, and
National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson, who previously
worshipped in Lovettsville.
Their sacrifices remind us that many federal employees are often put
in dangerous situations. Since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees
have paid the ultimate price while serving their country, according to
the Office of Personnel Management. The first American killed in
Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent of mine from
Manassas Park. I attended his funeral. Over 100,000 CIA, FBI, DEA
agents, and State Department employees have served side-by-side with
our military to carry out the War on Terror in locations such as Iraq
and Afghanistan. Two years ago, I attended funerals for some of the
seven CIA agents who were killed by a suicide bomber at Forward
Operating Base Chapman near Khost on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
And we should not forget that the CIA agents who planned and helped
execute the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden are federal employees.
Every day, Border Patrol agents and ICE agents are working to stop
the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. Federal
firefighters work to protect federal lands and mitigate the spread of
deadly fires. Immediately following the December 2011 shooting at
Virginia Tech, some of the first law enforcement officers on the scene
were ATF agents. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs
performed by federal employees.
Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also
dedicated public servants. The medical researchers at the National
Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes,
Alzheimer's and autism are all federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins,
the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the
NIH, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologists
who track tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as the FDA inspectors
working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees.
It is cheap grace to claim that today's legislation will in any way
address our Nation's fiscal obligations. The national debt is over $15
trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21
trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of more than $1 trillion. We
have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. This bill
does not even direct the Congress to use the ``savings'' from today's
bill to be used for deficit reduction or any other particular purpose.
I am concerned that this vote is merely an attempt to position the
House to use federal employees as a ``pay-for'' to fund the further
extension of the payroll ``holiday'' legislation that is currently
before a conference committee.
This is wrong. And my vote today to freeze Members' salaries should
not be construed in any way to indicate that I would support such a
position from the conference committee. Let me be clear, the payroll
``holiday'' should expire on schedule at the end of this month. It does
nothing more than steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is
already going broke. And, according to recent polling reported by The
Hill, most Americans haven't noticed any benefit from this ``holiday.''
Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated
tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today
funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits.
Because you pay now, a future worker will pay your benefits. That is
why, until last year, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by
both political parties.
Social Security is on an unsustainable path. Today's medical
breakthroughs were simply not envisioned when the system was created in
1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and
16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is
78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million
people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today.
Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65.
This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these
numbers sound sustainable to anyone?
The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2036 the trust fund will
be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive
an across-the-board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money
they paid into the system.
After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the
deficit, the president and Congress are now continuing to advocate for
a payroll ``holiday'' that's barely, if at all, improved our economic
outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden.
And does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get
money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet
changed his buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension? Or
did General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, the head of President
Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness who recently shipped GE's
medical imaging division from Wisconsin to China, benefit from this
``holiday?'' Leadership from both parties have stated that extending
this policy is paramount. I regret that time is being spent on a flawed
policy instead of tackling the difficult choices to address our
nation's unfunded spending obligations.
We all know what needs to be done to address the deficit and debt and
that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this
crisis, including the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget,
the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget
Control Act.
I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who
urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in
savings. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution,
which would have established critical institutional reforms to ensure
that the federal government lives within its means. In addition, since
2006, I have introduced my own bipartisan legislation, the SAFE
Commission, multiple times.
While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the
necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve
this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration--all
entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including
defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax
code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks and
loopholes that cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
Yet on the floor today, the Congress won't even, at a minimum, commit
the savings from this bill towards deficit reduction. There is
something fundamentally wrong with this scenario.
I've always had a policy where my staff in Washington, Herndon and
Winchester were treated the same as federal employees. They work hard.
But when federal employees faced furloughs, so did my staff. And
because federal employees work under a pay freeze, my staff is working
under a pay freeze. I have always felt that federal employees, and
congressional staff, committee and leadership staff, should be treated
equally. I feel that the moral choice has always been to treat everyone
equally.
Above all, we should not let today's vote distract us from having the
difficult conversations that are necessary to ensure that programs and
services are reduced in a manner that responsibly lowers the deficit.
There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the longer
we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the
greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. America is living on
borrowed dollars and borrowed time. We must stop leaving piles of debt
to our children and grandchildren.
It was disappointing to hear the president deliver a campaign speech
from the floor of this House during the State of the Union. It is
disappointing that this House is now following his lead.
Federal employees live, work, pay taxes, liaise with contractors and
businesses, and spend the money that is driving the private sector
growth here in Virginia. We shouldn't use them as offsets for a failed
policy that steals from Social Security.
Voting to freeze member pay is the easy thing to do. Let's be sure
that today's actions don't distract us from the tough choices ahead. We
should let the payroll ``holiday'' expire on schedule. We should put
everything on the table--including discretionary spending, tax earmarks
and loopholes, defense spending, and entitlements to address our
nation's debt. We should be balancing our books to eliminate the need
for sequestration. It's time to get to work.
[[Page H312]]
Let's not continue to kick the can down the road as we wait for a
better political moment. I stand ready to continue to work with my
colleagues to find real, comprehensive reforms to our spending, tax,
and entitlement systems to ensure that these programs exist. Our
children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H.R. 3835, which would extend the pay limits for federal
employees through 2013. Nearly 2 million federal civilian workers stand
to be affected by this pay freeze if it is enacted by Congress.
For the last two years, federal employees and their families have
suffered the consequences of an across-the-board pay freeze. While the
cost of vital goods such as food and gas, medical expenses, and rent
continue to rise, H.R. 3835 seeks to prolong that burden on millions of
families by extending this pay freeze for another year. Federal
employees and their families are no less affected by downward trends in
the economy than any others in the workforce, and it is unfair to ask
that they continually make these sacrifices when Congress will not even
ask the same sacrifice of millionaires, billionaires, and the largest
corporations.
These kinds of pay freezes do more than just take precious disposable
income away from working families. So many federal workers came to the
federal government because they have excellent credentials and are
committed to public service. By limiting the amount of money that the
federal government can offer to prospective employees, Congress is
effectively limiting its own ability to attract and retain highly-
educated and highly-skilled workers to carry out important roles such
as national security, maintaining critical transportation
infrastructure, and caring for our veterans.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3835 is simply another partisan attempt to hold
working families hostage for petty political gain. Federal employees
have already contributed $60 billion toward reducing the deficit the
past two years, and it is time to finally ask the wealthiest businesses
and members of society to start paying their fair share. H.R. 3835 is
sorely misguided and I will oppose this bill in any way that I can.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 3835.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________