[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1537-1546]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   ELIMINATION OF 2013 PAY ADJUSTMENT

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 66, I call up the 
bill (H.R. 273) to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for 
Federal employees, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 66, the bill is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 273

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

     SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 2013 PAY ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 147 of the Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242; 5 U.S.C. 5303 
     note), as amended by section 114(a) of the Continuing 
     Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 112-175; 126 
     Stat. 1316), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking the matter after 
     ``ending on'' and before ``shall be made'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2013,''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking the matter after 
     ``ending on'' and before ``no senior executive'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2013,''.
       (b) Elimination of Delayed Adjustment.--Section 114(b) of 
     the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 is repealed.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.R. 273 and to include extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Good-paying, full-time jobs should not be limited to those fortunate 
enough to work for the Federal Government.
  At a time when hardworking American taxpayers are struggling to find 
work and keep their heads above water, the Federal Government offers 
its workforce sufficient and generous pay and job security. This is not 
to imply that they're overpaid. This is not to imply that they're 
overcompensated. That's a discussion for another day.
  But certainly, at a time in which the American people saw their 
household income drop by $4,000, that has not happened in the Federal 
workforce. Year after year, the Federal workforce has received step 
increases and other pay increases. And with the exception of a 
relatively limited pay freeze done under President Obama's executive 
order, they, in fact, have received consistent pay increases and their 
benefits have been maintained.
  At this time, we are faced with sequestration. Sequestration for our 
men and women in uniform means aircraft do not fly, ships do not get 
maintained, and, yes, furloughs may very well happen. To avoid 
furloughs, to avoid arbitrarily cutting the most junior individuals or 
stripping away our military's ability to protect us, it is a small 
price to pay to, consistent with the President's previous pay freeze, 
to hold pay increases of Federal employees for one more year.

                              {time}  0940

  It is my sincere hope that, working together, we will both resolve 
the budget shortfalls and get America working again over the next year. 
But at a time when most--a great many--of the average Federal workers 
make more than their private sector counterparts, when a great many 
make more than $100,000 a year, at a time in which Members of Congress, 
appropriately, have frozen their own pay year after year, it is a price 
that we have the authority--and we ask the Federal workforce to agree 
with us that in fact this is a year not to raise the pay of Federal 
workers. Last year, we spent $11 billion on non-merit pay increases for 
Federal workers. It's the right time to say no increases other than 
those specifically deemed by specific merits under statute are 
important.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not agree with 
this, I have no doubt. But let me say one thing. I know that Mr. 
Cummings and I do agree that we have to find viable alternatives to 
stripping away the capability of our military to maintain our safety. 
We have to find viable alternatives to cutting the important work on 
medicines and other lifesaving Federal programs that in fact our 
seniors and all of our citizens rely on. We could do this today, or we 
could cut the National Institutes of Health. We could do this today, or 
we could park two or three of our aircraft carriers and lay off the 
crews. I don't think the other side has any question that a viable 
alternative to those kinds of across-the-board cuts are clearly 
important.
  So I ask the minority to join with me today in realizing that this is 
not what we want to do. This is what we need to do if we're going to 
prevent arbitrary cuts that in fact will touch Americans, in many 
cases, in all the wrong ways.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 1538]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 273. Given the 
many critical challenges our Nation faces, I and many of my colleagues 
hope that the 113th Congress would bring a new era of shared purpose 
that would enable us to work together to grow the Nation's economy, 
create jobs, and invest in our country's future. There are only 5 
legislative days, Mr. Speaker, left before the across-the-board cuts 
required by sequestration will take effect. Rather than seeking 
solutions to the urgent challenges we face, our Republican friends are 
wasting 2 days simply renewing their attacks on middle class, 
hardworking Federal employees.
  H.R. 273 has one purpose: it would extend the current freeze on 
Federal employees' pay for a third consecutive year. Mr. Speaker, 
Federal workers--the same Federal workers who care for our veterans, 
the same ones that clean our offices, the same ones that find cures to 
devastating diseases at NIH, the same ones that secure our borders, the 
same ones that regulate our drug supply--have already contributed more 
than $100 billion towards reducing the deficit and funding unemployment 
benefits for millions of American workers. No other group of Americans 
has contributed more to reducing the deficit. No other group has 
contributed more to ensuring our government remains strong. No other 
group has worked harder to ensure we're securing our Nation from 
threats. No other group has worked harder to provide the services on 
which our fellow citizens depend.
  If H.R. 273 becomes law, the same middle class, hardworking workers 
would be required to contribute another $11 billion towards deficit 
reduction, for a staggering total of nearly $115 billion. These are the 
same workers who have had their pay frozen for years. And these are the 
same workers who are now facing the very real threat of furloughs and 
layoffs if Congress fails to resolve sequestration by March 1. It's 
estimated that 1 million employees will suffer furlough days. The 
administration estimates that the arbitrary across-the-board budget 
cuts for Federal agencies that would be required under sequestration 
will result in the furlough of, again, a million employees.
  We are at a tipping point in our Nation. The American people have 
reelected President Obama and voted in favor of policies that will 
support continued growth, create new and expanded job opportunities, 
and ensure the safety and health of our great Nation. However, here in 
the House, the voters are not being heard, and we continue to waste 
time considering measures that will only make our fellow Americans less 
financially secure, less secure in their health care, less secure in 
their children's education, and less secure in their jobs.
  One of the arguments that we consistently hear is that we need 
certainty. People need to know exactly what is going to happen in their 
lives. We've heard that argument over and over and over again. Yet when 
it comes to Federal employees, we leave them in the lurch, not knowing 
how much the next paycheck will be. At the same time, House Republicans 
have refused to consider asking the richest among us to contribute a 
dime more. And that's one of the most painful things about this entire 
thing. A lot of times when I'm interviewing people to come to our 
staff, a lot of them tell me, Congressman, we don't mind not taking 
paychecks from the private sector because we want to do good for the 
public sector. And they say that they want to simply feed their souls. 
They want to do something significant. They want to affect broad groups 
of people. But yet this is what they get.
  We could have spent today considering a proposal to eliminate tax 
breaks used by oil and gas companies and hedge fund managers. We could 
have spent today considering a limit to itemized deductions for the 
wealthiest Americans. Instead, House Republicans continue to return to 
the same hardworking middle class American workers over and over and 
over again.
  The problem is that these repeated cuts will impair the ability of 
the government to carry out its mission and service to the American 
people. Social Security is located in my district, and I have seen and 
talked to our Social Security employees, as they are my neighbors. And 
they tell me that they have seen cut after cut with regard to 
employees. And now you've got people who once had three people doing a 
job, now there's one. And the cuts continue. They don't mind working, 
they don't mind sacrifices. But they said that if you're going to make 
us sacrifice, then let's have some equal sacrificing from people who 
can afford the cuts.
  As President Obama has emphasized, ``our economy succeeds and our 
economy grows when everybody's getting a fair shot and everybody's 
getting a fair shake.'' I urge my colleagues to move beyond this 
partisan agenda of denigrating our Nation's public servants and join 
together to address the real issues Americans elected us to solve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The loyal opposition is entitled to their opinion but they're not 
entitled to their facts. Let's go through some facts.
  The ranking member may not remember January 1. I know it was a long 
time ago--over a month. On January 1, with the President's blessing and 
insistence, we raised the taxes on the highest income producers and on 
family businesses by 5 percent on their ordinary income and by 5 
percent on their capital gains. Capital gains would be a 33 percent 
increase, from 15 to 20 percent.
  These were not small increases. These were huge. I didn't vote for 
them. My ranking member did. I didn't vote for them because in fact the 
President deliberately said, Oh, no, we're not going to touch anything 
else in taxes, except to stick it to the rich. And he did. And this 
body did. That was a decision. But I hope my ranking member will 
remember that a month ago and a few days we had a huge tax increase--of 
the President's choosing.

                              {time}  0950

  It had been offered up by Republicans to work together to find 
loopholes, but that was rejected in favor of a stick-it-to-the-rich tax 
increase that he chose.
  There was $500 billion worth of revenue that would have been 
generated per year--$5 trillion over 10 years--if the President had 
been willing to go back to Bill Clinton-level taxes on all. He was not. 
So it is the height of hypocrisy to come in 30 days--actually, in about 
1 day--and begin talking about the next round of tax increases on a 
relatively limited group of our population, the 1 percent or 3 percent, 
and in fact start reducing their ability to have working capital for 
new oil exploration, for new natural gas exploration, the things that 
the President, just a few days ago, standing in front of where you are 
today, lauded as great. We're becoming oil self-sufficient. We are 
natural gas self-sufficient. We are, in fact, able to move to cleaner 
fuels for our energy.
  But let's break something else down. My opponent--and I keep saying 
opponent, he's my ranking member, but he is the loyal opposition here--
he talks about $100 billion. I think we need to break it down. That's 
$100 billion over 10 years. It's not even $10 billion in the first 
year. His $100 billion of sacrifices, many of those sacrifices won't 
even occur because people aren't going to necessarily be here for all 
10 years, because next year or the year after, this Congress might be 
able to increase pay to make up for what we have to hold back this 
year. We may have that good time and good employment and good ability 
to do that, and I would join with the Member to try to find that way.
  But the fact is what actually is being asked to be given up by the 
typical Federal worker--the one that the President is calling such a 
huge sacrifice--is $274 per employee per year.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Ross), who has been a leader on this issue and who understands the 
hardworking men and women of the Federal workforce and why this is 
necessary.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your efforts and leadership 
on this particular issue.

[[Page 1539]]

  Mr. Speaker, at a time when our country is more than $16 trillion in 
debt, I rise today in support of H.R. 273 and in support of my 
colleague from Florida's efforts to hold the Federal Government more 
accountable to taxpayers.
  As a former chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee 
on the Federal Workforce, I held hearings about the discrepancies in 
compensation and benefits between Federal employees and private sector 
employees. And it's interesting to see what we found out. For example, 
the Congressional Budget Office found that the total compensation for 
Federal employees was 16 percent greater than that for the private 
sector employees. The CBO has also reported that Federal employee 
benefits were 48 percent more costly than the private sector employees' 
benefits.
  As a former small business owner, I'm shocked to learn how serious 
these discrepancies truly are. In the private sector, I've had the 
responsibility to make a payroll, balance my budget, and reduce 
spending during difficult economic times. At a time when our children 
and our grandchildren are funding the Federal Government with a credit 
card, Members of Congress have a responsibility to make the tough 
choices and reduce spending. That is why, during my time as chairman, I 
oversaw 2 years of Federal pay freezes.
  However, these Federal pay freezes were not my idea. In fact, it was 
a bipartisan idea. The President, in his Simpson-Bowles Commission on 
Fiscal Responsibility, recommended a 3-year pay freeze for Federal 
employees. As a proponent of the Simpson-Bowles plan, I am happy that 
the House will be following through today on this recommendation.
  Our talented Federal workforce performs exceptional duties critical 
to the effective day-to-day operation and functioning of our 
government. However, the government must also examine every area of its 
budget during these difficult economic times in order to become more 
accountable to taxpayers.
  Just so we're clear, this legislation also freezes pay for Members of 
Congress--that's right, Members of Congress, including my own--for the 
remainder of the year. If we are asking families of the Federal 
workforce to bear some of this burden and to live within their means, 
so should we, as Members of Congress, do the same.
  With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bipartisan Bowles-Simpson recommendation and vote 
``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans keep citing the Simpson-
Bowles Commission in support of the bill. The Simpson-Bowles Commission 
was a comprehensive deficit-reduction proposal that called for shared 
sacrifice from all groups of Americans. I see only one group of 
Americans being asked to sacrifice in this bill, and that's Federal 
employees.
  The studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, the 
American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation rely upon 
U.S. Census Bureau's current population survey, which consists of self-
reported data from surveys of households. This data is not as reliable 
as the data tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is used by 
the President's Pay Agent to set the annual Federal pay adjustments.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.
  In furtherance of a point he was making, you can cite different 
studies on this question, so let me cite the authoritative study, the 
Federal Salary Council, 2012, a finding that Federal employees were 
paid nearly 35 percent less than employees in similar occupations in 
the private sector. This study was compiled by experts in labor 
relations and pay policies, and it used data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.
  Federal employees have not asked for a pass, but there is no way to 
justify singling them out as a solitary target alone, repeatedly picked 
out and picked on for cuts, apart from the rest of the Federal budget.
  Three years of frozen pay is a punishing cut in pay. Yet our Federal 
workforce--although much smaller than it was 25 years ago--is so 
efficient that they are serving millions more here and abroad. Each of 
these hardworking civil servants, the best educated and most 
specialized public employees in the country, either themselves perform 
essential services the country cannot do without, or render vital 
support for these services.
  The majority has graduated from demonizing Federal employees; they 
now want their pay. They don't have the support from the country to cut 
Federal pay, so for 3 years they have found a backdoor way to do 
exactly that with never-ending pay freezes.
  Mr. Speaker, if enough was ever enough, enough freezes is enough this 
year.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the committee and a 
newcomer, but not someone who hasn't watched this play out time and 
time again as people call $274 a catastrophe for the Federal workforce.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, we must change the way this government spends money. We 
have to be responsible with the money that the government makes our 
citizens send to Washington, D.C. Taxpayers deserve our best efforts to 
put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path.
  Now, this bill represents a small, but commonsense, measure that will 
save taxpayers $11 billion. It reverses the President's executive order 
at the end of last year which provides an automatic pay increase for 
nonmilitary Federal employees, the Vice President, and members of the 
President's Cabinet.

                              {time}  1000

  It also extends the freeze on pay for Members of Congress through the 
rest of the calendar year. This policy, as has been pointed out by some 
of my colleagues, implements one of the recommendations of the 
bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. Many government employees do 
great work. Forestalling an automatic pay increase is not a reflection 
on their work, but simply recognizes our current fiscal reality and the 
fact that government salaries must bear some relationship to the 
private sector salaries that support them.
  It should be stressed that this is a modest measure. This does not 
prevent pay increases based on promotion or longevity or bonuses for 
Federal employees from their agencies. Indeed, during the last 2 years 
when this freeze has been implemented, the average Federal salary 
increased by an average of $3,328, while the average private sector 
employee saw an increase of just $1,404--if she was even lucky enough 
to have a job at all.
  I hope this body will make decisions in the coming weeks that will 
put the Federal Government on a path to a budget that will reach 
balance within the next 10 years. If we can get our fiscal situation 
stabilized, we can lay a foundation for robust economic growth and 
private sector job creation which will benefit employees of all 
stripes, government and private alike.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to get away from the abstract here about studies 
that talk about who's making what. I've got three VA facilities in my 
district: the Brockton VA Hospital, the Jamaica Plain Veterans Hospital 
and the West Roxbury Veterans Hospital. I spend a lot of time at the 
VA. Earlier this week, I had a chance to go through and talk to a lot 
of my VA folks: the nurses, the docs, the therapists, the nursing 
assistants, and the orderlies.
  Right now, we are trying to deal with the traumatic brain injury and 
PTSD issue at the VA, which is increasingly pernicious. We've got a lot 
of folks who are doing a lot of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan coming 
home, four, five, six

[[Page 1540]]

tours of duty, and they've got problems. So we're relying on our folks 
at the VA to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home, 
and they're hurting.
  Well, I just want to talk about one young woman who is a nursing 
assistant down in Brockton at the VA. She's a GS-3. That's who we're 
talking about. We're going to freeze her pay for the 3rd year in a row. 
And she is trying her hardest to take care of our veterans. She's a GS-
3 under the system. She makes $27,322 a year. That's what that young 
woman makes. She's a nursing assistant. She's working in a psychiatric 
ward trying to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home 
who need help, and we're freezing her pay by this bill. I'm talking 
about real people doing real work for brave Americans.
  This is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace that we're doing 
this. I thought that maybe after the President's election and the new 
Congress coming in we'd get by this stuff. It is just disheartening to 
see this thing go on. This is the 3rd year in a row that this young 
lady's pay is going to be frozen. Not only that, but we don't have 
enough folks coming into the VA system because we're keeping the wages 
down. We can't compete with the private hospitals that are paying a lot 
more money. The docs at the private hospitals in my district, and I've 
got a bunch of them, the nurses and the therapists, they're all making 
a lot more money than the folks at the VA. And we're driving down the 
wages of these people and not taking care of them.
  I don't want to point out the stuff about the pay for Congress. We 
ought to have our pay frozen. I have voted six times to freeze 
Congress' pay since I've been here in Congress, and we should do that. 
We shouldn't do it for a few months, like this bill does. We should 
freeze it right through the end of the Congress, because we should lead 
by example. I really believe that. We should freeze congressional pay.
  I have a bill here that will do that right through the end of the 
Congress. I know it doesn't make some of my colleagues happy and their 
spouses happy, but I think it's something we ought to do. So let's get 
away from this stuff, beating up Federal employees. Let's try to do the 
right thing. It's an honorable thing, public service. We ought to take 
care of our folks at the VA. Don't freeze their pay.
  I ask my friends across the aisle to please join with me in voting 
against this measure.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier, and now I have to repeat it, 
the other side is entitled to their opinion but not their facts.
  Mr. Speaker, that's the number. Almost half a million out of 2 
million of our Federal workforce receive over $100,000, but the 
gentleman from Massachusetts chose to pick a GS-3. Okay, fine. This is 
an entry-level, unskilled position. But let's understand something. It 
still pays better than the minimum wage job that you're hoping to get 
in some cases, and it pays more than an awful lot of jobs out there. As 
a matter of fact, it pays about the average for somebody who has no 
special skills coming in. But we won't even debate that. We won't 
debate any of that.
  Let's have the facts, the truth. That woman receives a step increase 
every year. She has gotten a pay increase every year, like the rest of 
most of the workforce. As a 3 level, she's getting a step increase. So 
to say that she didn't get a pay raise is just not true. If my 
colleague from Massachusetts were better informed, he would have said 
that himself rather than leaving that fact out of the pay raise that 
was achieved, because step increases occur even during pay freezes.
  With that, I will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman in 
bringing this forward and the comments that have been had.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation because I believe the 
American people have had enough hypocrisy. This is not about Federal 
workers. This is about financial reality. This is what we've got to 
look at right now. What I have told my staff, and I have told many in 
our district too many times that we cannot let the emotion of the 
moment miss the honesty of the moment.
  Last month, many Americans saw their own paychecks decrease as a 
result of a payroll tax increase. While average Americans were feeling 
the effects of this tax increase at home, the President was pushing 
through a pay raise for Federal employees and, yes, including Members 
of Congress.
  There are hardworking men and women in my district who are struggling 
to make ends meet. They would love a raise, but, unlike the 
administration, they don't have the power to unilaterally take taxpayer 
dollars and increase their own paycheck. Instead, they have sacrificed, 
made cuts, and they've gotten rid of the extras in their daily lives 
and found ways to live within their means.
  They have done these things using a process that the President could 
learn from. Families across the State of Georgia and across the Nation 
sit down and decide their priorities, and they make tough decisions on 
how to spend their money. I cannot support the government taking on 
more debt to give raises to Members of Congress and the Federal 
employees at this time.
  I submitted an amendment on this to Rules Committee extending this 
pay freeze through the end of next year. I'm glad to see my friend from 
across the aisle from Massachusetts would agree with me on that, 
because I believe we need to resolve this issue and move forward with 
serious reforms to address our Nation's fiscal crisis. Just as millions 
of Americans have done for their entire lives, Washington needs to 
learn to make do.
  America does not need pay raises for bureaucrats. They need real 
leadership. They need real reform and a real commitment to putting our 
country back on a path of prosperity. American taxpayers deserve no 
less.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch mentioned a nurse taking care of 
veterans. I just want to say that it's not about somebody being 
unskilled. She's taking care of some folks who have served us and need 
skillful workers, and $27,000, I don't know whether anybody has looked 
at daycare here lately, but just daycare can cost you $27,000.
  Mr. ISSA. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I don't have much time, unless you're going to give me 
some time. If you give me some time, I'd be happy to yield. I've got a 
number of speakers.
  Mr. ISSA. I'll wait.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 273, a deeply flawed bill 
that punishes all Federal workers across the Nation by not even 
allowing them to have a half of a percent salary increase.
  Once again, the majority is showing America that they do not care 
about the suffering of middle class Federal employees after they have 
already accepted a 2-year pay freeze and a freeze on retirees' cost-of-
living adjustments.

                              {time}  1010

  Federal employees are intelligence analysts who defend America's 
borders; they are nurses and doctors who care for our veterans; they 
are scientists who conduct lifesaving research, which is producing 
remarkable results and generating new jobs across this country; and 
they provide countless other Federal services to all of our 
constituents.
  It is wrong to intentionally target our Nation's best and brightest 
public servants by giving them good reason to quit their government job 
and move to the private sector.
  My friends, the sad truth is that this bill is not really about 
deficit reduction. It is just the latest act in more bad political 
theater that does nothing to strengthen our economy.
  My honorable colleague, Federal employees are my constituents and 
your constituents. They are hurting. We

[[Page 1541]]

should not be wasting time on political nonsense like this.
  I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to put our country 
before our politics. Let's defeat this reckless and unfair bill, and 
then let's sit down together to force a reasonable compromise that will 
reduce the deficit, avoid the sequester, and restore economic security 
for middle class families.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again the facts speak louder than the rhetoric. The .4 
percent is less than a quarter of the exit rate in the Federal 
workforce of the private sector, one of the reasons people in the 
private sector are fighting to figure out how to get a job that pays 
better. This is our exit in the public sector.
  They're not leaving because they weren't paid enough. There's no 
draconian cuts.
  Mr. CLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. Not any more than your Member did.
  The fact is this is the truth, and the facts speak louder. Only 22 
percent of the Federal workforce believes that their pay is linked to 
performance. Of course the Federal workforce doesn't like not getting 
$274 more for the remainder of this year. Neither do I.
  Mr. CLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. You'll have your time.
  Mr. CLAY. I don't have time.
  Mr. ISSA. The fact is we have a problem, and the problem is everyone 
wants to call a total of about $1 billion of not increases as somehow 
draconian.
  The .4 percent, they're not leaving the workforce. That's the 
important thing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how much time we 
have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland.
  The distinguished chairman of this committee says that we're entitled 
to our opinions, but not our own facts while he calls upon our friend 
from Florida, a former member of our committee, who cherry-picks from 
the Simpson-Bowles committee, the same committee that said we need a $4 
trillion hit on the debt over the next 10 years and it has to be a 
balance between revenue and spending cuts. My friend from Florida and 
my friend from California fail to cite that fact. That's a fact.
  The chairman just put up a sign talking about the exit rate in the 
Federal workforce. What he doesn't tell you is that 47 percent of the 
existing Federal workforce is eligible for retirement over this next 
decade because of the baby boom demographic. How will we replace them, 
especially the higher-skilled set?
  My friend from California, like me, came from the private sector 
before he came here. He was more successful than I. Very successful. I 
applaud him for that. But I would hope that in that success we don't 
lose sight of that GS-3 making $27,000 a year serving our veterans at a 
veterans hospital.
  It's easy when we don't suffer low wages to perhaps lose perspective 
about the real need, even in our Federal workforce. And at the higher 
end, the more we disparage our Federal workforce, the more we make it 
less attractive. The more we treat them like a piggy bank, the less 
attractive that service will be.
  We are a far, far distance from when John Kennedy called Americans to 
public service because he saw it, as did so many of that generation, as 
a noble calling.
  We haven't just asked for a few hundred dollars from every Federal 
worker. We have attempted or succeeded in freezing their wages 3 years 
in a row. Another fact that my friend from California, the 
distinguished chairman of our committee, conveniently does not point 
out is that we have done more than that, and we've attempted to do more 
than that. We've funded the payroll tax cut with $15 billion of cuts 
for prospective Federal employees in the pension programs. We attempted 
for the first time ever--unheard of, no nexus--to fund transit in the 
transportation bill to the tune of $50 billion in cuts from existing 
pension programs, breaking an existing contract. That's a fact too. 
Maybe an inconvenient one.
  Federal workers deserve the dignity of the work they provide. Federal 
workers need to be respected for serving our constituents. The losers 
in this debate won't just be them; it will be the people they serve.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.
  It is the minority's job to find facts that, in fact, we may not have 
said. I appreciate them doing that rather than flinging opinions and 
statements about people's intent.
  Mr. Ross stood here, though, and he told us facts. And he has a bill, 
a Simpson-Bowles-type bill that is comprehensive. He isn't just here 
picking facts. He picked apart Simpson-Bowles and put together a 
comprehensive savings bill that, in fact, was modeled after Simpson-
Bowles. If he were here, I would have given him time to say just that, 
because he's a leader in our Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield just 1 minute to myself.
  I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our Members before they 
vote on this bill will take a moment and talk to their own employees 
and find out why they're in Federal Government and why they really work 
for the government. That's all I want them to do. And I guarantee you 
nine out of 10 of them will say, because we love what we do, because we 
want to make a contribution.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the bill.
  I saw the movie ``Zero Dark Thirty.'' In the movie, the woman, Maya, 
who is working for 10 years to find Osama bin Laden and the entire 
team, Maya's pay raise and pay has been frozen--and the team--for the 
last 10 years.
  There's a scene in the movie--I don't want to ruin it if you haven't 
seen it--but seven CIA employees were killed in Khost, Afghanistan. I 
went to the memorial service in my congressional district in Langley 
where I watched the young kids. One little kid had a blazer on and 
khakis. I watched him come in. The team that replaced the team that was 
killed in Khost had a pay freeze for 3 years. The FBI agent who stopped 
that young boy from being killed down in Alabama and just ran up a 
Taliban terrorist up in California, pay raise? No. A freeze for 3 
years.
  Over the last 5 years, one ICE agent killed, one Secret Service agent 
killed, three ATF agents killed, one DEA agent killed, two U.S. 
Marshals killed, air traffic controllers that put the safety for my 
family and your family and our constituents as they fly through the 
sky, the NIH.
  My family has been devastated by cancer. My father and mother died of 
cancer. Cancer has impacted my family. Dr. Collins mapped the human 
genome system that will save many of you and the lives of your sons and 
daughters because of basically following that system, working on liver 
cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, which my mom 
died of. You will drive people like that--Dr. Collins and his team will 
have been frozen for 3 years.
  With regard to NASA, we just went through the 10th anniversary of the 
Challenger explosion. Those astronauts that sit on that rocket, those 
now and in the future, if you have NASA facilities in your district and 
they sit on that Soyuz rocket that goes up, they froze their pay for 3 
years.

                              {time}  1020

  The firefighters out in the West who you'll call on and beg to come 
and fight when the storms come this summer--and they're coming--have 
been frozen. There's the Weather Service. For those of you from Florida 
and in the tornado area and in the hurricane area, the weathermen stay 
around the clock, working--frozen for 3 years. There was Border Patrol 
Agent Brian Terry and the people who worked with him, who

[[Page 1542]]

are on the border where violent gangs come across the border--frozen 
for 3 years. There is the DEA and others.
  There are the doctors out at Walter Reed. If you go out and visit 
Walter Reed or go visit your VA hospitals, the doctors and the nurses 
who are working with the wounded warriors, people who have lost their 
limbs in Afghanistan and Iraq--frozen for 3 years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. WOLF. I recognize the good intentions of the gentleman in what 
they're trying to do. It's not justice and it's not fair. I urge a 
``no'' vote for this bill.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself just 1 minute.
  I know the gentleman didn't mean to when he was talking about Maya, 
but he did say that her pay has been frozen for 10 years. I'm sure he 
meant 2 years and, if we enact this, a third year. Mr. Wolf is a 
dedicated servant of this country, but he did say a couple of things 
that I'd like to touch on.
  First of all, when we talk about the men and women of Congress and 
when they say they do it for the right reasons--they do it because they 
care--we're doing it with 11.5 percent less money in the House on both 
sides of the aisle. So, in fact, in many cases, we're paying the same 
or less than we were paying before. We've made those cuts. The Federal 
workforce has not seen an 11.5 percent reduction in actual dollars 
spent, but our offices have made those cuts under the Speaker's 
leadership.
  Lastly, I certainly believe when we talk about Walter Reed that we 
should include what the commander of Walter Reed told me on Monday of 
this week, and that was that he is now in the process of planning whom 
to let go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  He, in fact, is in a situation--a commander there, a two-star--of 
dealing with the possibility of furloughing for a 20 percent reduction. 
With the number he has been given, he cannot possibly maintain the same 
level of care for those men and women--those wounded warriors and those 
veterans. It will be devastating if we do not find ways to deal with 
alternatives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.
  I was at Walter Reed. Walter Reed has a problem, and this is a small 
part of the solution. Every man and woman at Walter Reed would rather 
have a pay freeze than, in fact, see people disappear from their rolls 
and not be able to service the needs of those people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. The gentleman talked about the employees on our 
committees taking a pay cut. That's true that they took a pay cut, and 
every single one of my employees who took a 5 percent pay cut--and 
sometimes a little bit more--said one thing to me: We don't mind 
sacrificing. We will. This was from every single one of them. But they 
said: Others have sacrificed, too.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Cummings, thank you very much.
  We all talk about our heroes in this country, and there are some real 
ones. There are 103 names at the CIA--we don't talk much about CIA 
officers, FBI officers, State Department officers--who gave their 
lives. Benghazi, still fresh in our minds, brought the country to its 
knees in horror, in agony, in mourning. There are State Department 
officers who lost their lives, and we have the audacity to tell them 
that we're going to deny them--I don't care if it's $1. At Camp 
Chapman, Afghanistan, six CIA officers and the chief of station were 
brutally murdered, and six were seriously injured.
  I have the honor of being on the House Intelligence Committee. I've 
been to Camp Chapman. I've been to these forward operating bases. I've 
been to Africa. I've talked to these CIA officers who are putting their 
lives on the line every single minute of every day. They don't know 
when an attack is coming on them, and they don't know from which 
direction. Yet we're going to tell them that they should not get even a 
single dollar?
  Shame. That's not what we should be about. That's never what we 
should be about.
  If we can't put those who are protecting this country at the top of 
the list and understand, then shame on us. If we didn't understand this 
was in the bill, shame on us. If we did understand it was in the bill 
and if we did it anyhow, then even more shame on us. This is wrong and 
we should not do it.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is right. He is right when he said that 
we, in fact, have to make these tough decisions. This isn't freezing 
the pay of our men and women in uniform, and perhaps we should 
scrutinize in detail as to the station chiefs and the others in harm's 
way their combat pay, their special hazard pay and so on. We held a 
hearing on Benghazi, and we were very aware that, in fact, they weren't 
paid enough to die for their country needlessly because we didn't do 
the right thing. I have no doubt about it.
  I represent Camp Pendleton. The marines of Camp Pendleton--the First 
Marine Expeditionary Force--have deployed more than anybody. They have 
been in Iraq, they have been in Afghanistan, and they have been on 
those FOBs. In fact, we need to make sure we support them. That's the 
reason we're looking for alternatives to sequestration every day, and 
we would love to have people on the other side of the aisle.
  So, when we talk about the men and women in harm's way, it's not, in 
fact, those in the towers helping to get our planes safely landed, and 
it's not the people inspecting our food. We have to make tough choices, 
and I join with anyone who wants to make tough choices on behalf of 
those in harm's way. Let's remember that we are talking here of the 
vast majority. These are Federal civil servants who, in fact, are paid 
pretty darned well, who are not leaving, and we are asking for a small 
sacrifice.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time both 
sides have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 6\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from California has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My good friend, the chairman of our committee, has several times 
talked about loyal opposition. I am not the loyal opposition. I am 
someone who believes in what I'm talking about, and I'm not standing 
here opposing legislation just to be opposing it because I'm a 
Democrat.
  We have to put a human face on all of this. I live in an area in 
Baltimore where a lot of these employees who are making $40,000, 
$45,000 or less take the early bus, and they are the ones who believe 
in what they do. The Social Security Administration is smack dab in the 
middle of my district.
  I think about the people who make $100,000 or more, but we have to 
remember who those employees are. Many of them we see every day. These 
are employees who are highly skilled professionals, and I think Mr. 
Wolf and Mr. LoBiondo talked about them. These are folks, such as 
doctors on staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs, who treat our 
wounded warriors. They're the lawyers at the Department of Justice and 
at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and we've heard their 
testimony before our committee. These are folks who deal with some 
very, very complex issues, and almost any law firm would be willing to 
pay them far more than what they are earning to work for the agencies 
for which they work. These are the folks who investigate and prosecute 
complex fraud and criminal cases. These are some of the most famous 
scientists in the world and air traffic controllers who help navigate 
our planes.

[[Page 1543]]

  Just a few months ago, the ranking member and the chairman of the 
committee and I went to an awards ceremony at which Federal employees, 
who contribute so much to our society and who could earn far more than 
what they're earning, were getting awards for doing some very 
magnificent and awesome things.

                              {time}  1030

  I want to just spend some time on this one issue. It's not so much 
again that Federal employees don't mind sacrificing. They don't mind 
sacrificing. The question is will others sacrifice, too, those who are 
making far more money than they're making. But yet and still they're 
asked over and over and over again to pay more and more and more.
  And so this is a very deep-felt situation with most of the people who 
have spoken--all of them. And as I listened to Mr. LoBiondo and I 
listened to Mr. Wolf, what they were basically doing was making a case 
and reminding us that Federal employees go into the business of being 
our Federal employees because they want to make a difference.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Earlier there was a statement made about a nurse making $27,000. 
After checking, we discovered that's a nurse's assistant. I think it is 
important to understand that a nurse at the Veterans Administration 
would make a lot more. A nursing assistant is paid a modest salary, 
$27,000, plus probably another 10 or $11,000 in direct benefits. It's 
still more than the national average for somebody with that skill 
level. It is still a steady job, and it still would have had a step 
increase.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, a 
fellow Marylander, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, there is not time to debate in 
the time I have available how we determine Federal pay. I was a sponsor 
of the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act which George Bush signed 
back in 1990. I know a little bit about this.
  America is confronting a sequestration that will have a devastating 
impact on our economy, on every individual in America, and on 
international confidence in America's ability to manage itself. And 
what have we spent 2 days on? A quarter percent cap on cost-of-living 
adjustment for Federal employees. A quarter of a percent. Some of us in 
this body earn that in about 10 minutes. Not all of us, but some of us. 
Uh-huh.
  Yet we fiddle while America faces a sequester burn. And sequester is 
Republican policy. July 19, 2011, Cut, Cap and Balance brought to this 
floor; 98 percent of Republicans, 229, voted for it. What was the 
fallback position? Sequester, an irrational policy that cuts across the 
board irrespective of the priority. And so what does the majority in 
this Congress do? It has now wasted 2 weeks on debate of nickel-diming 
the people we rely on to protect our domestic safety, our international 
security, our food and drugs, our health care, our borders.
  I join in the remarks of my good friend, Frank Wolf. He and I have 
been here 32 years. We have some understanding of what is proper and 
not proper in terms of managing the government.
  Now, the sponsor of this legislation has been here approximately 45 
days--45 days--and he introduces a bill to cap, by a quarter of a 
percent, Federal employees. The animosity directed at our Federal 
employees is so great that we have now taken 2 weeks to try to diminish 
their pay and benefits--how sad--while the sequester looms 14 days from 
today, putting at risk, as I've said, America's economy, creation of 
American jobs, the sense of confidence in our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  And the perception around the world that America is a serious 
situation. How sad. How shameful.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Rules Committee, a 
person very knowledgeable of how this law that the President signed 
came to be passed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform yielding me this time this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot being said about this deal that we're now 
engaged in, sequestration. But I believe, looking back, and I believed 
it at the time, that the people who engaged in the idea did this 
because they never really wanted to live up to it. They put forth an 
idea, the President of the United States, the White House, and our 
friends on the other side of the building, and some, I'm sure, on this 
side. They cut a deal to avoid the reality that the President of the 
United States was engaged in with us trying to resolve differences that 
we had about excessive spending.
  The facts of the case are a deal was cut. This came directly out of 
the White House, and it was to avoid having to make a tough decision at 
the time. And I don't know this--I wasn't in the meetings--but I'm sure 
it was something that they thought would never happen. That's not 
serious. When the President of the United States offers a compromise 
that was his idea and it's signed into law, that's law, and that's what 
we're counting on and that's what the American people count on.
  We in this body, Republicans, stood by a deal that was cut. Now, I 
don't like the deal, but this House twice, the House of Representatives 
has twice passed a plan that says we think there's a better way to do 
it. There's been nothing that's been countered by the White House or by 
the Senate. We've not been engaged. The President of the United States 
is engaged in spinning, by traveling on Air Force One around the 
country, the ideas that don't help us solve the problem but that make 
matters worse.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think what we did then was a tough decision, and I'm 
sorry to hear now that we're being blamed for accepting a compromise 
out of the White House. I know what's happening, and so do you, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas was right. The President signed 
sequestration; the President asked for sequestration; the President 
negotiated sequestration; and the President has had from this body 
alternatives to sequestration repeatedly. The minority in this body has 
not offered viable alternatives to sequestration. The Democratic 
majority in the Senate has done nothing to block sequestration.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Is the gentleman aware that 2 weeks ago and this week the 
majority has denied us the opportunity to offer an alternative?
  Mr. ISSA. I'm not aware of that, but this is not a new bill. You've 
had alternatives in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I noticed that I was closing, and I do believe the other 
side is completely out of time; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time of the gentleman from Maryland has 
expired.
  Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  As I close, I think it is important that we take Mr. Hoyer's very 
words.
  First of all, he said ``Mr. President'' before ``Mr. Speaker,'' which 
got me to remind myself that the President is responsible for 
sequestration, something we're trying to avoid. The President has 
offered no viable alternative to sequestration. The President avoided 
$5 trillion worth of new revenue because

[[Page 1544]]

he wanted to say he was only sticking it to the rich or, as Mr. Hoyer 
would say, those people who earn more money in 10 minutes than this 
amount.

                              {time}  1040

  The thing that I want everyone to understand that the gentleman from 
Maryland said that is so right, this is only a quarter of a percent. 
He's right, this is a very small amount. It's $1 billion total over the 
Federal workforce for the remainder of this fiscal year. And over the 
last 2 years, this is how much the increase has been: $3,328 or about 
$1,500, $1,600 a year is how much the Federal workforce has got in a 
pay increase while they were under a freeze.
  The reason it's only a quarter of a percent when you see about a 5 
percent increase in the last 2 years in actual compensation is the 
Federal workforce system, Mr. Speaker, includes basically automatic 
step increases for the vast majority of employees, meaning so many 
people who talked about how this was being devastating are forgetting 
the fact that while the American worker got little or no pay increase, 
the American family saw a reduction in their actual revenue, the 
Federal workforce enjoyed 2\1/2\ percent increases while under a 
freeze. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, they will get another 2\1/2\ percent 
increase this year even though we forego this one-quarter percent 
automatic pay increase.
  That's the amazing thing that can only happen here in Washington is 
people can come and talk about devastation, great sacrifice, a 
willingness to sacrifice, but not so much. Well, in fact, every year 
that dedicated employee, the GS-3 there as a nurse assistant, she got 
this kind of an increase year after year after year, even during a pay 
freeze.
  We're not here to talk today about the dedicated men and women both 
in and out of uniform, but we have. And I want to commend all of those 
men and women who serve our country. But I want to commend them while 
saying that this is a small sacrifice. As Mr. Hoyer said, as the whip, 
the Democratic whip, a representative of the party of the President, 
this third-year pay freeze called for initially by the President, in 
fact, is not an absence of increases--the increases are significant to 
anyone listening in America. These are real increases they're getting 
while we're foregoing in this bill a quarter of a percent.
  So I want to thank the Democratic whip. He made it very, very clear 
that, in fact, this is miniscule. To him, $1 billion, $11 billion over 
10 years, is not enough to even spend 2 days of the Congress on. And 
perhaps he's right; perhaps we should have done much more. Perhaps this 
small amount, this incredibly small amount, $274 on an average employee 
for the remainder of this fiscal year, is too little to pick up.
  But if it's too little to bother with, isn't it also too little to 
have so much opposition to? The fact is, and the facts are stubborn, 
this is a small reduction in what would otherwise be a significant 
increase that they're going to get anyway.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I urge my colleagues to vote for this, I remind 
them that we have asked for this time and time again, that the 
President has not seen fit to keep up his own request, the President 
has not, in fact, been aware or willing to deal with the rest of the 
increases. He takes credit for what you would call a small quarter 
percent reduction and calls it a freeze.
  Well, the Federal workforce received a good compensation. The fact is 
when you go from $69,000 for a typical or median income of Federal 
workers, to $72,000 during the period of a pay freeze, it reminds me of 
a can of soda--that when you freeze it, it doesn't change, but the can 
ruptures because it has swelled.
  We have increased the actual compensation, of payroll compensation, 
to the Federal workforce by an average of $3,300 during a time in which 
the American people are told there's a freeze. And we will increase 
their pay an average of about $1,600 during this freeze if it becomes 
law.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is small, as the whip said. It is so small that 
I call on the members of the loyal opposition to be the kind of 
Democratic Party that understands that this is so small that they 
certainly should vote for it. It is not a great sacrifice; it is a very 
small sacrifice. Every Federal worker eligible for step increases will 
see compensation increases, an average of $1,600 this year, when we're 
only foregoing $274.
  At a time like this the President and Congress must face reality.
  We cannot keep spending money that we do not have.
  H.R. 273 stops an $11 billion expense for non-merit based raises that 
has no business moving forward.
  The economy is struggling, hard-working taxpayers are suffering--it 
is fundamentally wrong to reward government workers while everyone else 
is trying to make ends meet.
  The idea of giving raises to government workers at a time like this 
highlights how out-of-touch Washington has become with the rest of the 
country.
  The truth is government pay and classification systems, many designed 
in the 1940s, lack the flexibility needed to keep pace with the current 
work environment and demands.
  That is why the President's top pay advisors continue to point to the 
need for reform.
  The numbers don't lie. Once people get a government job, they rarely 
leave it.
  The private sector quit rate is 4\1/2\ times higher than that of the 
federal sector.
  Moving fully to a merit-based pay system would give agencies needed 
flexibility to use appropriated funds to better compensate our hardest 
working federal employees and attract those with critical skills.
  The responsible conversation we should be having is about pay reform, 
not across-the-board raises with no measure of performance.
  Simpson Bowles recommended a three year pay freeze.
  Anyone who claims to be serious about reducing the debt and reigning 
in Washington's out-of-control spending could not in good conscience 
support this $11 billion spending measure.
  With that, I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this short-
sighted, unnecessary, and ill-conceived bill. H.R. 273 imposes yet 
another pay freeze on federal employees, many of whom have not seen a 
cost of living adjustment in over two years. The men and women who have 
dedicated their careers to public service--the majority of whom earn 
middle-class wages--have already made sacrifices in pay and benefits 
totaling more than $100 billion to help reduce our Nation's debt.
  Federal employees in several sectors already earn less than their 
private-sector counterparts. These are the men and women who care for 
our veterans, keep our airplanes flying and ensure our food is safe to 
eat. They work in every Congressional district, from the Centers for 
Disease Control in Atlanta to the Department of Veterans Affairs in 
Providence. In fact, 85 percent of federal employees live outside of 
the Washington, DC, area, with 18,000 located in my home state of Rhode 
Island.
  Not only does this bill prevent hard-working federal employees from 
receiving a modest pay adjustment in an attempt to keep pace with the 
rising cost of living, it sends the unfortunate message to bright young 
people that they will not be valued if they choose a career in public 
service. At this time of national crisis, when we are facing so many 
challenges, we should be encouraging the brightest minds in the country 
to help solve these problems.
  I support and have cosponsored the bill introduced by Mr. Cummings 
and Mr. Connolly to extend the pay freeze for members of Congress. But 
just because I do not believe this body deserves a pay raise does not 
mean we must also punish the talented men and women who have dedicated 
their careers to supporting the United States of America.
  It's time to get serious about moving this country forward. We only 
have five legislative days left until automatic budget cuts go into 
effect, costing us a projected 750,000 jobs this year alone and 
threatening to plunge our economy back into a recession. Instead of 
dealing with the looming sequester, House Republicans have us voting on 
a bill that has no chance of passing the Senate, and then sending us 
home for a week-long recess.
  I have already co-signed a letter urging Speaker Boehner to keep 
members in Washington until we have averted the impending across-the-
board spending cuts and put our budget on a fiscally sustainable path. 
I repeat that message again today: Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop with 
these phony messaging bills and get to work.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this unnecessary bill 
and bringing up legislation that will actually address our immediate 
fiscal problems. Our constituents are counting on us to act, and we 
must not let them down.

[[Page 1545]]


  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinarily frustrating for me 
that we have spent all week avoiding opportunities to make progress on 
areas on which we agree to avoid or minimize the effects of the 
sequester meat axe and instead singled out, again, our federal 
employees.
  Suffice it to say, making them a repeated target is unfair, 
unproductive, and avoids the hard decisions we should be tackling.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 273. This 
legislation is wrongheaded, unnecessarily antagonistic to federal 
workers, and it creates consequences which will be felt much longer 
than the 0.5 percent pay raise due to Federal employees starting in 
April.
  There are multiple problems with this legislation--here are a few 
that anyone can understand:
  First, federal employees have contributed their fair share to reduce 
our deficit and debt. Through the pay freeze and increased 
contributions to their pensions, they have cut $103 billion over ten 
years--that is roughly $50,000 per employee. The 0.5 percent increase 
in their pay that they have been given after two years of stagnant 
wages only costs $11 billion over ten years. That is not what is 
driving our nation's National debt.
  Second, federal employees have not only seen their wages stagnate, 
they have also seen their compensation--their wages and benefits--go 
down, even as the private sector has seen wage growth of 3.3 percent 
and compensation growth of 4.1 percent.
  Third, the proposed savings H.R. 273 promises are likely to never be 
realized. The best federal employees will leave for greener passages, 
and the most qualified candidates will seek opportunities elsewhere. 
The deficit reduction this bill promises will require increased 
training in the short term and may lead to a less efficient, and 
therefore more expensive Federal government for decades to come.
  I oppose this bill, H.R. 273, because our country simply cannot 
afford to drive our best federal employees out of our country's 
service.
  Instead, I have cosponsored and I urge the passage of a bill offered 
by Mr. Connolly of Virginia, which freezes Members of Congress' pay at 
current levels. I do not want a pay raise; I do not need a pay raise. 
However, our federal employees have paid far more than their fair share 
and do not deserve this additional unnecessary and punitive treatment 
from this Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 273, a bill that would extend the pay freeze on 
federal employees' salaries for the third consecutive year. By bringing 
H.R. 273 to the floor for a vote, House Republicans have once again 
singled out federal employees and their families as they look to place 
the burden of reducing the deficit squarely on the backs of middle 
class families.
  Like their private-sector counterparts, federal employees are subject 
to the same economic trends as any other worker in America. Federal 
employees have families just as their counterparts in the private 
sector, and have the same responsibilities to provide for them. With 
federal employees currently under a pay freeze for the past two years, 
it would be unfair to ask for continued sacrifice from only this select 
group of middle-income workers.
  Federal employees have already contributed $103 billion toward 
reducing our deficit through a series of pay freezes and reductions in 
benefits. The critical role of federal employees is often overlooked, 
and demanding further cuts to pay and benefits will diminish our 
ability to deliver on this government's promise to protect the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to reining in wasteful government 
spending. However, I am opposed to continually placing an undue burden 
on federal workers to make up for wasteful spending in other areas of 
the federal budget. If we are serious about addressing our budget 
deficits, this Congress should focus more on passing a comprehensive 
budget that reflects shared sacrifices by all Americans.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this latest 
attack on federal workers.
  H.R. 273 is not a responsible approach to deficit reduction.
  Federal employees have already been asked to make significant 
sacrifices to help reduce our debt. So far, they have contributed $103 
billion toward deficit reduction through pay freezes and changes to 
retirement benefits. And, we have yet to take into account the prospect 
of furloughs and layoffs should the ill-advised, across the board cuts 
mandated by the Budget Control Act take effect in March.
  H.R. 273 would freeze federal employees' salaries for the third 
consecutive year, forcing federal workers to forego an additional $15 
billion in pay over the next decade even though study after study has 
shown that federal employees actually earn less than their private 
sector counterparts when factors such as skill and education level are 
taken into account.
  H.R. 273 is not a serious attempt to address the budget deficit. The 
$15 billion it would raise represents barely a fraction of projected 
deficits over the next decade. True deficit reduction will need to be 
balanced and sacrifice will need to be shared.
  H.R. 273 is also shortsighted 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. H.R. 273 is yet another attempt by 
the Republican Majority to find a scapegoat for the deficit that 
shields the wealthiest individuals and corporations from making any 
kind of contribution. While this legislation would do virtually nothing 
to improve our budget outlook, it would force more economic harm on our 
dedicated federal workers and have a devastating long-term effect on 
the quality of government services and operations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 273, a bill 
that would prevent the President's pay hike for federal workers and 
Members of Congress.
  H.R. 273 is a good bill that deserves our support. In a time of 
historic budget difficulty, the bill rightly seeks to limit federal 
spending on the government workforce. The bill also recognizes what the 
American People know to be true: too many private sector employees 
remain without work during this protracted period of high unemployment. 
I will vote in support of H.R. 273 later today.
  While this legislation is a step in the right direction, we should go 
further to prevent excessive spending by also suspending the automatic 
step increases that federal employees will continue to receive even if 
H.R. 273 is enacted into law.
  I have been disappointed that over the past two years of the 
President's so-called ``freeze'' on federal pay, federal employees have 
continued to receive step increases. According to the Office of 
Personnel Management, these increases have resulted in a median pay 
increase of approximately $3,164 per federal employee--all during the 
so-called pay freeze.
  These step increases are not based on merit, and there are serious 
flaws with this system. For example, all employees in the Government 
Service pay plan who completed their ``waiting period'' received a 
three percent raise in pay during this period.
  Mr. Speaker, do private sector workers receive a three percent salary 
increase for simply completing a ``waiting period?''
  No, of course not.
  During this time, salaries in the private sector only increased by 
$1,404, less than half of what federal salaries gained on average, 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  If the President is going to say he is freezing pay, he must do 
exactly that--freeze pay. Anything less is a budget gimmick that 
creates only the illusion of savings.
  Last Congress I worked to stop budget loopholes like this in a bill I 
introduced, the Honest Budget Act. Working with the Senate, I aimed to 
enact changes that would bring more honesty and transparency to 
budgeting process. I authored an amendment to H.R. 273 based on the 
provisions of the Honest Budget Act, but unfortunately this chamber is 
not able to consider it today under the closed procedural rule for H.R. 
273. I intend to continue to pursue the issue later this year.
  Since I've been in Congress, we have fought to reduce excessive 
spending to get our nation's deficits under control. We've enjoyed 
successes, but we have also seen firsthand the tricks of trade--
gimmicks used to distort the truth and hide new spending. Soon I will 
be re-introducing the Honest Budget Act in the 113th Congress, and I 
ask my colleagues to join me in this fight for honesty and 
accountability in the budget.
  A budget is a plan for the future and a financial report to the 
stockholders of the company--in this case, the American people. I am 
convinced that we can do better in the future.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 273 because 
it once forces middle class workers to bear the burden of Congress's 
inability to come together and solve our fiscal woes.
   This bill would result in a freeze on federal civilian employee pay 
for a third consecutive year by repealing the modest 0.5 percent 
increase scheduled to take effect next month. This miniscule raise 
would be their first since 2010, despite the fact that inflation has 
increased by 5.3 percent in that same time period.

[[Page 1546]]

   These federal employees are hard-working people who deserve to be 
treated fairly for all they give in service to our constituents. They 
are the hotshot crews that fight our wildfires every summer. They are 
seismologists who will warn us about an approaching tsunami. They are 
the inspectors who ensure the safety of our food supply. They are the 
air traffic controllers who keep use safe when we fly. They are the VA 
doctors and nurses who treat our war veterans. And they are the 
officers who protect our borders, our airports, and our nuclear 
facilities.
   At the same time, this bill asks nothing of the companies whose 
government contracts may award hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
salary per employee. And despite the protests of the bill's supporters, 
it does nothing to freeze pay for Members of Congress--that pay freeze, 
which I support, is already in effect.
   This bill is just another political game that does nothing to 
meaningfully reduce spending or get our debt under control. I have said 
it before and I'll say it again: We've been governing by crisis for far 
too long. It's time to rally around common sense. It's time to take a 
seat at the bargaining table. This bill will not get us there, and it's 
time we all stop pretending that it will. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in opposing H.R. 273.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, today I had to make the difficult decision of 
voting for a pay raise for myself or against continuing a pay freeze 
for federal workers. I voted for H.R. 273 because although I believe it 
is unfair to balance the budget on the backs of hard working middle-
class families, I could not accept a pay raise for myself. I recognize 
the critical contributions federal employees make every day to the 
health and well-being of our country and I thank them for their 
service. I am honored to serve the people of California's 36th 
Congressional District and I will continue to work to do the right 
thing for my district and to ensure that the American dream is 
attainable for everyone.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nothing more than an 
attempt to penalize hardworking federal employees who are doing our 
nation's business. I support extending the freeze on Congressional pay, 
but there is no reason we should block federal civil servants from 
receiving a partial COLA of a \1/2\ of 1 percent.
  Federal workers have already contributed $103 billion toward lowering 
our deficit through pay freezes and increases in their retirement 
contributions. A full pay freeze for a third year in a row would take 
another $11 billion out of the pockets of these dedicated public 
servants.
  And let's be clear: this bill does not cut spending by one dime 
because it does not change the overall spending caps. As a result, 
these dollars will be spent elsewhere in the budget. So while this bill 
does nothing to reduce the deficit, it does punish people doing 
essential work for our country. It punishes: Nurses caring for our 
wounded warriors; the FBI agents who helped rescue the young boy in 
Alabama; air traffic controllers who keep our skies safe to fly; 
scientists doing lifesaving medical research; meat and food inspectors 
who keep our food safe; the individuals who helped get the intelligence 
to track down Osama bin Laden; and the individuals who keep our border 
safe, ensure Social Security payments arrive on time, and so many 
others who do the work of America.
  All that is bad enough. At the same time, this bill does nothing to 
avoid the hit to the economy and jobs that will begin on March 1, just 
over two weeks from today.
  I want everyone to remember two numbers. First, 750,000. That is the 
number of jobs that will be lost between March 1 and the end of the 
year if we don't stop the sequester. This number doesn't come from me; 
it comes from the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office, 
CBO.
  That job loss is equal to wiping out all the job gains from October 1 
of last year through last month--5 months--of job gains. Additionally, 
the sequester will cut economic growth this year one-third. So, we 
should prevent this needless action from taking place. And House 
Democrats have repeatedly offered a plan to do so.
  The second number to remember is 4. That is the number of times 
Democrats have tried to get a vote on our plan to replace the sequester 
with the same amount of long term deficit reduction without hurting 
jobs or the economy. Our Republicans colleagues have not lifted a 
finger in the 113th Congress to prevent these impending job losses.
  In fact, Tea Party Republicans like Senator Rand Paul are cheering 
for this job cleaver to come down.
  Our plan would replace the $120 billion sequester for the remainder 
of the year, with an equal amount of long-term deficit reduction 
without harming jobs and disrupting the economy.
  The key elements of our plan are as follows: cut direct payment 
subsidies to agribusiness by $29 billion; cut Big Oil tax subsidies by 
$38 billion; implement the Buffet Rule, which brings in $54 billion in 
revenue. That totals $121 billion of offsetting deficit reduction that 
won't hurt the economy or kill jobs.
  So instead of penalizing hard working federal employees, let's focus 
on preventing the loss of 750,000 American jobs and let's pass the Stop 
the Sequester Job Loss Act now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 66, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISSA. 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________