[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12762-12767]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 12763]]



     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.

[[Page 12764]]

  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 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.

[[Page 12765]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 12766]]

  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 
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.

[[Page 12767]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________