[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.

                          ____________________