[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5202-H5207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMON SENSE IN COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1541) to establish limitations, during any sequestration
period, on the total amount in awards or other discretionary monetary
payments which may be paid to any Federal employee, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1541
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Common Sense in
Compensation Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by
section 2105(a) of title 5, United States Code) holding a
position in or under an Executive agency;
(2) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given
such term by section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
(3) the term ``discretionary monetary payment'' means--
(A) any award or other monetary payment under chapter 45,
or section 5753 or 5754, of title 5, United States Code; and
(B) any step-increase under section 5336 of title 5, United
States Code;
(4) the term ``covered compensation'', as used with respect
to an employee in connection with any period, means the sum
of--
(A) the basic pay, and
(B) any discretionary monetary payments (excluding basic
pay),
payable to such employee during such period;
(5) the term ``basic pay'' means basic pay for service as
an employee; and
(6) the term ``sequestration period'' means a period
beginning on the first day of a fiscal year in which a
sequestration order with respect to discretionary spending or
direct
[[Page H5203]]
spending is issued under section 251A or section 254 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and
ending on the last day of the fiscal year to which the
sequestration order applies.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) no discretionary monetary payment may be made to an
employee during any sequestration period to the extent that
such payment would cause in a fiscal year the total covered
compensation of such employee for such fiscal year to exceed
105 percent of the total amount of basic pay payable to such
individual (before the application of any step-increase in
such fiscal year under section 5336 of title 5, United States
Code) for such fiscal year; and
(2) except as provided in subsection (b), during any
sequestration period, an agency may not pay a performance
award under section 5384 of title 5, United States Code, to
the extent that such payment would cause the number of
employees in the agency receiving such award during such
period to exceed 33 percent of the total number of employees
in the agency eligible to receive such award during such
period.
(b) Waivers.--For the purposes of any sequestration
period--
(1) the head of any agency may, subject to approval by the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management, waive the
requirements of subsection (a)(2); and
(2) the head of any agency may waive the requirements of
subsection (a)(1) with respect to any employee if the
requirements of such subsection would violate the terms of a
collective bargaining agreement covering such employee,
except that this paragraph shall not apply to any employee
covered by a collective bargaining agreement that is renewed
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Notification.--In the case of an agency for which the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management grants a
waiver under subsection (b)(1), the agency shall notify the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate of the percentage of
career appointees receiving performance awards under section
5384 of title 5, United States Code, and the dollar amount of
each performance award.
(d) Application.--This section shall apply to any
discretionary monetary payment or performance award under
section 5384 of title 5, United States Code, made on or after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.
The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe
regulations to carry out this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
General Leave
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 1541, brings common sense to the policies
governing Federal employee bonuses while still providing agencies
flexibility to recognize outstanding performance.
In fiscal year 2011, 75 percent of Senior Executive Service employees
throughout the Federal Government received bonuses at an average of
nearly $11,000 per person. The government's decision to furlough
hundreds of regular, often blue-collar, Federal workers while senior
employees cash in is unacceptable.
Americans are rapidly losing trust in government as the list of
abuses by Federal agencies grows, but bureaucrats continue collecting
large bonuses at the expense of hardworking taxpayers.
The IRS is a prime example. Between the years of 2006 to 2012, IRS
Director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, was paid a combined
total of $110,035 in bonuses.
Faris Fink, the senior IRS official best known for his starring role
as Mr. Spock in a ``Star Trek'' parody at the IRS conference received
some $149,506 in bonuses between 2007 and 2012.
The Federal Aviation Administration is another example. It threatened
90-minute delays for airline passengers in the weeks leading up to
sequestration. However, the FAA handed out more than $12 million in
bonuses during fiscal year 2012 despite knowing that sequestration was
likely to occur.
These bonuses exemplify Washington's spending problem. A national
debt of $17 trillion and an unemployment rate at 7.5 percent should not
add up to millions of dollars in bonus payouts.
Following the President's decision to impose a 2-year pay freeze at
the end of 2010, the administration issued a memo limiting the amount
available to pay bonuses for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This past
February, the administration issued a memo limiting bonuses to those
legally required, and in June, you, the administration, suspended rank
awards for senior leaders.
This bill builds on the administration's initiatives, limiting the
amount and number of bonuses paid to Federal workers in periods of
sequestration. It is time for the government to stop furloughing
workers who depend on paychecks from week to week while awarding
hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to senior employees.
I urge all Members to support the Common Sense in Compensation Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Republican leadership is
wasting the few days we have remaining before the August recess with
political message bills like this one instead of dealing with the major
challenges the American people want us to address.
The American people care about jobs. Let me say that again. The
American people care about jobs. And the Democrats have introduced a
Make It in America agenda that would create good-paying jobs by
rebuilding America's infrastructure, investing in innovation and
education, and reducing the deficit through a balanced approach.
But the Republican leadership apparently has chosen a No Jobs Agenda.
It has been 7 months since the start of this Congress, and we have not
passed a single jobs bill on the floor of this House. Instead, the
Republican sequestration plan is expected to cost up to 1.6 million
American jobs through next year.
The American people also want the Congress to pass a budget for our
country. More than 4 months ago, both the Senate and the House passed
their respective budgets, but the House Republicans are now refusing to
appoint conferees to complete negotiations. For years, Republicans
complained about not having a budget, yet now they are actively
blocking it by refusing to negotiate with the Senate.
Rather than dealing with these critical issues, we're being asked to
vote on H.R. 1541, which is one of many bills that are a part of a
relentless campaign to demonize Federal employees.
H.R. 1541 would impose an arbitrary, across-the-board cap of 5
percent of basic pay on the amount of bonuses that Federal workers can
receive and limit the number of senior executives who may receive
performance awards to 33 percent of those eligible in each agency.
These employees carry out our critical missions that serve and
protect the American people. Among these awards are Presidential Rank
Awards for senior executives who saved the Federal Government more than
$95 million last year, quality step increases for our highest Federal
employee performers, awards to law enforcement officers for foreign
language capabilities, and recruitment, retention, and relocation
incentives to fill critical gaps in such fields as nursing, information
technology, and cybersecurity.
I'm very concerned about the Federal Government's recruitment and
retention efforts if Congress eliminates agency discretion to provide
awards to our best performers.
In an analysis of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government,
the Partnership for Public Service and Deloitte found that only 4 out
of 10 Federal workers believed they will be rewarded or promoted for
doing a good job. This is the definition of counterproductive.
I don't understand how Republicans can call for pay for performance
and then eliminate the very performance awards they said they
supported.
Last Congress, our committee chairman, Representative Issa, and
committee member Dennis Ross sent a letter to the Government
Accountability Office proposing that we replace the
[[Page H5204]]
Federal Government's General Schedule system with a ``merit-based,
market-sensitive system that recognizes and rewards individual employee
performance.''
How can we take such proposals seriously if we are being asked at the
same time to slash the very awards that are supposed to incentivize
performance? Of course, we cannot.
{time} 1445
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R.
2579, and I reserve the balance of my time.
I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Lynch) to manage the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts will control the remaining time.
There was no objection.
Mr. MEADOWS. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the
State of Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).
Mr. BENTIVOLIO. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, common sense is something often discussed here but it is
rarely put into practice. It's time for that to change. That's why we
need the Common Sense in Compensation Act.
While the administration plays political games with the sequestration
by forcing hardworking Americans to take a furlough, they continue to
hand out bonus checks to highly paid bureaucrats. Between 2008 and
2011, the Federal Government spent $340 million on cash bonuses for
Senior Executive Service employees. Some of these bureaucrats have used
their time to attack the average American through regulations and the
Tax Code. The American people are not getting what they paid for from
many of these Federal regulators and senior staff.
The Common Sense in Compensation Act brings much-needed reform to the
bonus system for Federal employees. Under this legislation, employee
discretionary bonuses are limited to no more than 5 percent of their
base salary while the sequestration is in effect. Additionally, it
limits the total amount of Senior Executive Service performance awards
to 33 percent of all SES employees in a given agency. Both of these
changes prevent the most wealthy in the Federal system from becoming
richer while those actually engaging and serving the general public are
getting laid off.
Opponents of the bill may claim that limiting Federal Government
employee bonuses may be an unsound business move. Here's what I think:
it is an unsound business move being $17 trillion in debt and shackling
our grandchildren with a Nation worse off than how we received it from
our parents. When a business is struggling, they don't pass out
bonuses. They cut waste. It's time to rein in spending. And this
practice of excessive bonuses for the very top of our bureaucracy must
stop while we're all trying to tighten our belts.
If we truly want to rein in our spending, we need to fix not just the
amount of money we choose to spend, but how effectively we spend it as
well. Making sure that those who provide the actual services to the
public aren't being furloughed at the expense of luxurious bonuses for
upper management is a good way to start.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The tailored use of incentive awards, such as performance-based
bonuses, help agencies recruit, develop, and retain employees who have
the knowledge, skill, and ability to help agencies accomplish their
critical missions. Such incentives also allow agencies to compete with
the private sector for talent. Right now, we have incredible doctors,
nurses, therapists, and staff at the VA hospitals all across America,
that I'm sure--at least in my district--they could walk out that door
and earn sometimes twice or three times as much at a private hospital
as they do at the VA. The incentive programs that we have in place
allow us to rebalance a little bit of what they might be compensated,
but for the fact that they are committed to caring for our veterans.
It's a similar situation with the SEC. Obviously, many of our
securities analysts that we use at the SEC could go to Wall Street
tomorrow and earn multiples of what their salary is and have great
success and incredible rewards financially. But they work at the SEC
because they're committed to protecting the taxpayer and working on
behalf of their country.
We have similar examples of banking supervisors at the FDIC that have
such knowledge and such capability that they could go out tomorrow and
work for one of these big banks like Citibank or Bank of America and go
to work tomorrow at multiples of their salary. We have derivative
analysts over at the CFTC that do such great work on our behalf, that
I'm sure that--because that's such a hot area of employment--with their
expertise and their resumes, they could demand tremendous resources. As
well, we have scientists at NIH and lawyers over at the Department of
Justice that we're lucky to have working on behalf of the government
because we're trying to keep up with the changes in industry and in
these areas of commerce that require excellent talent.
For example, a 2010 Rand Corporation study found that the Department
of Defense's increased use of bonuses had positive effects on
recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. Notably, the study found
that without the increase in bonuses, Army enlistments would have been
20 percent lower between 2004 and 2008 when the war in Iraq was at its
peak. Further, the study found that bonuses were generally a cost-
effective measure.
Despite the importance of performance awards, this bill, H.R. 1541,
as amended, would prohibit Federal workers from receiving discretionary
bonuses that exceed 5 percent of their base pay during sequestration.
This bill couldn't happen at a worse time. H.R. 1541 would undermine
the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain its most
talented employees in the midst of a 3-year Federal pay freeze and
ongoing furloughs.
Right now, we have over 700,000 Federal employees at DOD that have
taken 11-day furloughs. I sat with a group of firefighters on an Air
Force base that are concerned about the safety protocols at that base
because of the number of employees that are affected by furloughs.
We've got 90,000 employees in other agencies that are taking between 2-
and 5-day furloughs. And those furloughs are going to continue.
H.R. 1541 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit
and retain our most talented employees in the midst of all these
cutbacks. This bill would simply continue to demoralize the Federal
workforce. By removing agency flexibility, the legislation would also
impede managers in their efforts to keep employees committed and
motivated to excel and to provide superior service.
It is understandable that these employees do accept less pay because
they work for the government, in many of these industries that I
mentioned. Further, these awards are exactly the type of individual
merit-based performance management tools that the committee chairman
and other committee members have embraced in the past.
During committee consideration, I offered an amendment that would
exempt collective bargaining agreements from the caps on awards. But
the majority modified my amendment so the caps would still apply to
future agreements. I believe that determining by law or statute the
terms of future bargaining agreements with the recognized
representatives of those employees improperly interferes with the
management and labor contract negotiations.
This legislation would restrict agency flexibility at a time when it
is critically needed for ensuring that the Federal workforce attracts
and retains the best and brightest.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R.
1541, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1541, the Common Sense in Compensation Act.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me this time.
I also want to commend him for coming up with this very sensible,
reasonable, moderate response in legislation to a problem that's been
growing bigger and bigger with each passing year.
[[Page H5205]]
As the previous speaker, the gentleman from Michigan, mentioned, in
one recent 3-year period there were over $340 million worth of Federal
bonuses given out. I didn't know about that figure but I have seen some
other figures which relate to this legislation that I would like to
mention at this time.
A couple of years ago, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic
Analysis completed a study showing that the average Federal employee
received a salary and benefits totaling $119,982, while the average
private sector employee made a salary and benefits of $59,909. In other
words, the Federal salaries and benefits were approximately twice or
double what people in the private sector were receiving.
The Washington Examiner newspaper, in a lead editorial after that
report came out, described these Federal salaries as ``scandalously
higher'' than private salaries, and added:
With the Federal deficit and national debt heading into the
stratosphere, taxpayers can no longer afford to support such
lucrative government compensation.
Certainly, it's already been mentioned that our national debt is now
approximately $17 trillion--a figure that almost no human being can
really comprehend.
At the height of the recession there was a front-page story in USA
Today, which said:
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time--in
pay and hiring--during a recession that has cost $7.3 million
jobs in the private sector.
The report in USA Today said that the ``highest-paid Federal
employees are doing best of all.''
I read a report a few months ago that said 6 of the 10 wealthiest
counties in this country were all suburban counties to Washington, D.C.
In addition to much higher Federal salaries and benefits, Federal
employees have the best pension plans in this country, while fewer than
20 percent of employees in the private sector even have any employer-
provided pension plan other than Social Security. These very high
pensions were started many years ago when Federal salaries often were
lower than in the private sector. But that is certainly not the case
today, when Federal salaries are averaging about twice what the average
salary is in the private sector. Also, Federal employees are allowed to
retire at younger ages.
Almost everyone, I realize, Mr. Speaker, feels underpaid when you
hear about these obscene, ridiculous salaries of CEOs and athletes and
movie stars. But Federal employees need to realize that you're talking
about just one-tenth of 1 percent of the people. Compared to about 96
to 97 percent of the American people, Federal employees are very
fortunate to have their jobs, and are very well paid.
I know from my experience with the Tennessee Valley Authority, where
they've given out many bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
range, this situation will spiral completely out of control because Big
Government can justify or rationalize almost anything.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MEADOWS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I will simply say that this is a good bill.
This is good legislation to limit these bonuses to about 5 percent of
these very high salaries. I hope all of my colleagues will support H.R.
1541, the Common Sense in Compensation Act.
Mr. LYNCH. Could I ask the Speaker how much time we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10
minutes remaining.
Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address a couple of issues the
gentleman has raised and say that I have enormous respect for the
previous speaker as well.
Oftentimes, these studies look at the average employee in the Federal
Government versus the average employee in the private sector. In recent
decades, the Federal Government has privatized a lot of our common
labor rather than employing them directly. We have become a much more
specialized and much more professionalized workforce, between the
doctors and nurses we hire at the VA; the scientists that we have at
the National Institutes of Health and the EPA; the lawyers we have at
the Department of Justice; financial analysts that we have at the CFTC
and FDIC, as well as the SEC and other banking industries. Those are
more professionalized employees.
{time} 1500
So naturally, if you look at a retail clerk, compare their salary to
a scientist, there will be a drastic disparity between what an attorney
is making or a financial analyst is making versus a secretary in the
private sector. So that's a very crude way of comparison.
One way of comparison is required in the Federal Pay Comparability
Act. That's a statute that we passed here in Congress. It requires that
we compare the levels of Federal doctors versus private sector doctors;
federally employed scientists versus private sector scientists; finance
analysts at the SEC versus those at Goldman Sachs. So we compared job
to job. At the end of that analysis, the studies showed that Federal
employees are making 26 percent less than their comparable job in the
private sector; just a point that I wanted to raise.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a few of the items that
have been brought up because we seem to talk about these in abstract
ways, but the truth of the matter is is that bonuses have gotten way
out of hand. You know, when we start to give out bonuses as a way to
bypass the payment structure that we have established for the Federal
Government employees, that is not what it was intended to do.
You know, the ranking member earlier, Mr. Speaker, mentioned a
survey, which was the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. He used that
data as evidence of, really, about performance pay, but I'd like to
quote from that same study, that same survey.
A recent survey found that only 22 percent of Federal employees
believe that performance and pay are linked. And I would like to point
out that this bill certainly would cover that.
We are not saying do away with all bonuses; quite the contrary. We
believe that people need to be incentivized. We believe in merit pay.
We believe in bonuses for those that work. But I can say this, that
when you start paying out bonuses to 75 percent of all senior executive
employees, the people back home don't understand. Maybe the people in
Massachusetts understand, but I can tell you the people in North
Carolina don't understand.
We've got some 7,000 Senior Executive Service employees that make an
average of $168,500 every year. So when you go back home and you say,
Well, they're making $168,000 a year, and on top of that we're going to
pay them a $30,000 bonus, those people don't understand. Whether they
work for the Federal Government or whether they are in the private
sector, they don't understand.
I've got single moms, Mr. Speaker, that said, You know what? I'd be
glad to go to work just for the bonus pay that you're paying some of
those Federal workers.
We go on a lot and we start talking about it, but it's interesting,
because many times my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle want
to go ahead and talk about what is fair. Well, this is not fair, Mr.
Speaker, when we start to look at that. The rich, indeed, are getting
richer at the expense of the hardworking American taxpayers, and that
is not what we should be doing.
I also want to go on a little bit further, because when we start to
look at these bonuses, it is the Federal employees in my district that
have a problem with it as well. I have two of them, Paula and Martha. I
won't give their last names, but Paula and Martha. I was there talking
to them, and they said, You know, we are sacrificing under this pay
freeze. We're having to give up. Why in the world are you awarding such
bonuses to these people when we're having to suffer?
Now, I know the gentleman from Massachusetts has a real heart for
Federal employees, as do I. I look here and there are a number of
people that I would call my friends. There are a number of people that
are watching this perhaps even on TV right now that are Federal
employees that I enjoy being with. This is not about them. This is
about being fair. What it is is, when we start to pick the winners and
[[Page H5206]]
losers with bonuses and bypass the payment structure that we have, you
know, it's not right, Mr. Speaker, and we have to adjust that.
I would be glad to work in a bipartisan way. If we're having a hard
time retaining scientists and doctors, I would be glad to work in a
bipartisan way with my friend opposite here to come up with a structure
that works on pay and merit pay to that and address it, but why do we
allow the bonuses that we have today to bypass the very fundamental
reason that we have it set up?
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out, though, if we're talking about
what's fair and what's not fair, I think the Federal employees have
taken it on the chin recently. They're in year three of their pay
freeze. A lot of them say that's not fair because as costs keep going
up, their pay has been frozen for the past 3 years. Now, on top of the
third-year pay freeze, they're being asked--at least 700,000 employees
in the Department of Defense, including civilian employees that we rely
on for a lot of key services--are being asked to take 11 days on
furlough without pay. About 100,000 other Federal employees are being
asked to take between 2 and 5 days right now. The first year of
sequestration I think we cut $37 billion. This year we will cut $52
billion, next year is 60. And this is just year 2 in a 10-year furlough
schedule. So if you want to talk about unfair, I think that they're
being asked to do more than their share.
I do want to remind the gentleman that the bonuses and awards limited
by this bill, H.R. 1541, are based on performance. The quality step
increases are given to rank-and-file employees who achieve superior
performance. The Presidential Rank Awards are given to senior employees
who achieve extraordinary results or who are able to sustain superior
accomplishments.
Recruitment bonuses, now, they can't be paid to employees who work
for the Federal Government, but someone who's done a very good job in
the private sector, you know, running a hospital might come onto the
Federal payroll to do that, and we might have to recognize that
person's prior service. An individual's performance rating is based on
how well they met or exceeded their expectations.
In addition, I know that my friends across the aisle are eager to cap
Federal employee and senior executive pay, but they're completely
silent on capping Federal contractor pay. Under current law, Federal
contractor executives can be reimbursed by the Federal Government for
their salaries up to $950,000--Federal contractors. This is the private
side. These are not the folks that are being capped. These are not
employees. These are private contractors, $950,000 for 2013. Not a
word, not a word in print or speech to cap those individuals.
Contracting employees at the Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and
NASA can also have their salaries reimbursed up to $950,000 as well in
this current year, 2013.
But just a comparison, the maximum salary for a senior executive in
the Federal Government is $179,700. For example, the VA Administration
head, the hospital director at one of my hospitals, he makes $179,700,
while the average salary in my district for a hospital director in the
private sector is $800,000. That's for the private hospitals in my
area. So my VA director earns about 25 percent of what they make in the
private sector.
By the way, the maximum salary for a General Schedule step 10
employee at the top of the ladder is $155,500. That's what we're
talking about here. And they are blown away by the salaries paid--as I
mentioned, $950,000 in 2013--for Federal contract executives who are
not Federal employees but are on the Federal payroll, about which this
bill says zero. Completely silent. Zip.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the
comments that the gentleman opposite made.
When he said not a word has been mentioned about bonuses for
contractors, I would remind the gentleman that in the NDAA we addressed
this very subject. So that was addressed, which I'm sure the gentleman
was here for that particular vote; but as we've looked at this, we have
addressed that particular thing. I will go ahead and talk about a
couple of other things, though.
We talk about this pay freeze and how we're asking so many people to
suffer. I'm not talking about the normal pay that we would give
employees. I'm talking about the excessive bonuses that have failed to
be an incentive anymore.
When you give a bonus to 75 percent of the employees, it ceases to be
an incentive; in fact, quite the opposite. All you have to do is make
sure that you are not in the bottom quartile. It says all I have to do
is perform better than only a few people to get my bonus. So if I'm
just better than the worst 25 percent, I get a bonus. That's not an
incentive. That's why we're looking at 33 percent. It rewards those
people who rise to the top, the cream of the crop, and we need to do
that.
I also want to mention that we were talking about all these pay
freezes. Where is a pay freeze not a pay freeze? Only in Washington,
D.C. Mr. Speaker, 99.4 percent of Federal employees got an increase in
salary during this pay freeze. That's the only ones we denied were 6
out of every 1,000 employees. So the gentleman opposite making comments
that they've sacrificed, indeed, they have, but it's not as if they
have not gotten pay increases.
What do I tell my constituents back home who are dealing with double-
digit unemployment? They would love just to have a job. Many of them
would take a job at 10 to 15 to 20 percent less than what they were
making if they could just go to work. Yet here we are talking about
people who continue to get raises as if they are suffering. You know,
we've got to make sure that we're clear on the subject and we need to
make sure that we're fair.
I keep coming back to the word ``fair,'' because when we are not fair
with the government responsibility that we have, the American people
lose trust in their government; and it is time that we hold it
accountable, give tools to those managers that reward good behavior and
good performance, but yet not continue to dole it out at the expense of
every American taxpayer.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Just one final point before I yield. The gentleman is
correct, we did address contractor caps on pay in the NDAA, but we
capped it at $950,000 a year. That's a far cry from anything that any
Federal employee is earning here.
As I mentioned before, the head of our VA hospitals makes $179,700.
That's the max. Meanwhile, private contractors working for the Federal
Government are making $950,000 this year, in 2013, with the NDAA caps
in place. I'm just saying, what's good for the goose is good for the
gander. There's an opportunity in this bill to cap these salaries, and
we have not done that.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his candor and
his passion with which he rises and debates it.
I do want to point out, though, that what we are talking about here
are apples and oranges. When you start to look at contractors and the
benefits of those contracts, those are really issues that we must
address, and I'm willing to work with him on a bipartisan basis, but
let's not take our eye off the ball.
Why would we allow Sarah Hall Ingram, who is going to be
administering over the Affordable Care Act, a bonus of $35,000? Why
would we award a bonus of almost $31,000 to a gentleman that played Mr.
Spock? It's indefensible to me. I can't imagine why my colleague
opposite would want to defend that and why he wouldn't want to have
tools to let managers manage the process.
{time} 1515
I'm going to close with this point: Daniel Pink writes in a book
called ``Drive'' that really it's about motivational theory; it's about
the fact that bonus impact is minimal. I think we see that even here
because of the surprising truth about what motivates us. It says:
The carrot and the stick approach to motivating employees
through bonuses and benefits is statistically ineffective.
What they would rather have is a mastery of their position,
they would rather have autonomy, they
[[Page H5207]]
would rather have a sense of purpose that the job that they
are doing is very meaningful.
So, in essence, what it says is that if we get rid of the
bureaucracy, our Federal employees will be more motivated to do a good
job knowing that they are fulfilling a purpose. Yet we continue to
throw bonuses at them over and over again, Mr. Speaker.
I just have a hard time going back home, as a number of my colleagues
would go back home, and defending these excessive bonuses.
I would urge all of the folks here, all of my colleagues, to join
with me in supporting this critical bill, the Common Sense in
Compensation Act, H.R. 1541, as amended.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, for the last four years, Congress has frozen
federal employee pay.
And this year, we are at it again, extending the freeze.
Congress has also increased federal employee pension contributions
for new hires without a corresponding increase in benefit.
And, through furloughs, we are essentially imposing a 20% pay-cut and
continuing to punish these people who took an oath to support and
defend our country.
All of this has added up--Over the last four years, Congress has
reduced federal employee pay and benefits by $118 billion. Per capita,
that's nearly $50,000 per employee--far more than any other American
has been asked to contribute towards deficit reduction.
I take issue with the practice of continuing to punish a workforce
that is predominantly composed of hardworking Americans, simply because
they happen to work for all of us.
Your public servants have already been injured financially by a
series of spirited provisions that are now law.
The bills before us today would strip the ability of managers within
the federal government to reward our federal workers. In fact, they end
up punishing some of our highest performing federal employees.
The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that federal employees
in highly skilled professions could earn much more in the private
sector.
The Federal Salary Council issued a report in 2012 finding that
federal employees were being paid nearly 35% less than similar
occupations in the private sector.
Why do they choose public service? Clearly, not for monetary gain--
they do it for love of country and the opportunity to make peoples'
lives better.
But they have families to feed, mortgages to pay, and children to
send to college. Where does it end?
From my first job as a budget officer at HEW through to my service
today, nearly 40 years later, I have witnessed countless occasions
where the federal government and federal employees have been a positive
force, improving the lives of their fellow Americans.
No matter how many times the House majority says the government
cannot solve problems, cannot create jobs or cannot help the American
people, it will never be so.
Why does this Congress insist on continuing to punish federal
employees for their service to the American people?
Bearing a disproportionate share of deficit reduction has directly
hurt them and their families. It's time to stop singling them out.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1541, as amended.
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. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________