i came here to help with the selection. i have children with disabilities that are of puerto rican heritage. one of my biggest beefs when i was in school, i had disbilts as well, and they were telling me i should do just english-only immersion. we spend billions of dollars at the expense of cutting speech pathology out of the budget. we had millions of dollars go to oregon, but none of the money went to the kids. if you want a good workforce, why would it be ok to fail my children, first-generation puerto ricans that are legal citizens of this country at the expense of the cultures of kids coming into the country illegally sni -- illegally? some kits are getting no services at the expense of kids getting services in all subjects. they are getting all that time

where the child who needs the help isn't receiving it. i think we're leaving a lot of our community behind. . a so there is a genuine question of how we set

priorities. we have an enormous deficit, $1.2 trillion. we have enormous debt, overed sad trillion, and we have needs, cutting balances. >> let me tell you, she brings a valid point. i'll tell you how i'm doing it, and, again, all governors are executives, and they have to make choices. it's not always easy to make choices. special ed, in puerto rico, we have failed for 30 years, our children. actually, the decision under both parties was that we should litigate against the parents and the children and not grant them what actually they should have been been done. our team decided to do otherwise, so you cut elsewhere, and you devote resources to do this, and we have been actually -- the same time we're cutting our budget by 20%, reducing our payroll, i

have added about 1,500 additional employees just in special ed, and actually, there are strict ways in which we are following up with what they're doing. we are adding resources. for the first time in 20 years, you know, sports events are open to special ed kids and so on and so forth, so it's a matter of choice of where your priorities are. >> i want to emphasize something that i don't know if anyone cut, cutting the budget by 20%. if that was the federal government -- we're talking about over $700 billion a year, it's an enormous accomplishment. i think there's been a bias toward the front, so i'm blinded by the light, so let's go back there. >> this will be our last question. >> i'm from goya foods. my question is for secretary

chow. my grandfather came to this country from spain, left the depression at 17 years old to look for new horizons in this country. he built the largest hispanic food company in this nation, and he did it without one single entitlement or occupying wall street. he came too new york and built a business in 1936. my question is -- and i'm concerned about the health of our nation, and i see ourselves going in a similar way to what's happening in europe. how do we build jobs when we have a department of labor that works against businesses, makes it more difficult for us to create jobs and to be successful in this country? what is your suggestion to our candidates on how to improve

our system, how to make it better? >> i'm very -- >> you get all the easy ones. >> i love your story, and i love it because it is the isn't convertible american story. the governor talked about it. the panelists talk about it. this is the land of opportunity. and somehow there are people who believe that we can't get a fair shake in life if we look different or come from a different background, and there's nothing further from the truth. i have that story myself. i came as an 8-year-old immigrant. i didn't speak english. i learned. and we've been very, very blessed. i'm very concerned about what's happening, not only in the labor department, but in the administration. when we were in office, the department of labor represented 100% of the workforce, and we were trying to prepare the workforce to compete in a global economy. this labor department, unfortunately, seems to

represent the 12% of the workforce that's unionized, only 7% of the workforce that's unionized in the private sector. the amount of regulations that is coming out of this administration, not only in the labor department, is very anti-employer. they really believe that if you are making money, that if you are an employer, you're up to no good, you've done something bad, you've exploited your workers, you've done something -- you get up every morning and you exploit workers. and i think that's so wrong-headed. i think we need to let people know about these actions. you got to go on american action forum, the regulations. the regulations hit every single work place in america. big and small. when you go down that list, you will be amazed at what regulations touch upon your life. and you will find that regulations and the energy department conflict with regulations from the labor department, which conflict with e.p.a.f. you're just a good, honest person trying to raise

your family, take care of your children, you department meet all these regulations, because many times it's confusing and they conflict with one another. my last word, elections do have consequences. and i want to point out to a great american in the front row here, my former colleague, that's secretary gutierrez, now vice-chairman of citibank. >> with that, the door's open for final comments from the panelists, and we'll have to bring this to a close. >> again, i just want to echo what everyone has said. i think, like i said earlier, employers are on the sidelines just waiting to see what's going to happen. we need to help them and get someone elected that will deal with the issues that we talked about. >> i work in an exceptional sector that has -- that really

represents an exceptional country, and we have such great opportunities to keep building on this. whether you work on the internet, whether you do technology or not, this is a wonderful, wonderful country to really build a future, build the opportunity, and it's a great part to be here and joining you guys in delivering that message. thank you. >> i want to thank all of you for coming. this is an amazing event. he was i was so sad to have missed it last year. i want to thank senator norm coleman. they really believe in this, so they spent a great deal of time planning for this, to empower and to let your voices sing and soar during this particular time in our nation's history. you're going to hear from wonderful speakers, ed gillespie is going talk about know your power, there is power in this community. there is power in this room.

so i compliment you all, and i say let's do the right thing for our country. >> governor? >> doug, i want to thank the organizers of this conference again for allowing me to share with such a distinguished group of panelists and with you all, and i want to thank you for showing off here. most of us are hispanics here. this is a great country. you can achieve whatever you want if you work hard, and what the government needs to do is get out of our way, to allow us to enjoy freedom, allow us to enjoy freedom and actually the fruits of our labor. i only wish that we will get back on track as a nation. i am convinced we will. and i want to thank you all again for allowing me to share with you this morning. thank you.

>> please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we have a responsibility, ok? and for those of you who are discovering the creation of literature, of a responsibility, do you not? can you create anything you want in the world that you create in literature, reflecting history or not, and feel comfortable in that creation, or must you presensor yourself to decide i can't offend anybody? >> this weekend, professor william foster on the n word's place in american literature and culture, saturday night at 8:00 eastern. also on "american history tv,"

he changed the reading habits of americans, a look at the influence of the publisher of "time," "fortune," and "life" magazines, saturday morning and sunday, january 190, is the oil boom hits, and the lucas gusher quickly makes texas a leading oil-producing state. visit the boom town's wealthy homes and intimate streets of beaumont, texas, american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> in a few moments, u.s. house debate on a bill to extend the pay freeze for nonmilitary federal employees. and "washington journal's" live at 7:00 eastern with segments on the economy and federal spending and the role of religion in politics. >> a couple of live events coming up today -- president obama is at the 60th annual national prayer breakfast. that's on c-span2 at 8:00

eastern. later on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke testifies on the state of the economy. >> by 2016, according to the i.m.f., the world's leading economy will be a communist dictatorship. that's in five years' time. now think about that. if the i.m.f. is right, the guy you elect next november will be the last president of the united states to preside over the world's leading economy. >> columnist and author mark steyn has published nine books. his latest is a "new york times" bestseller. he also writes "the happy warrior" column, and he's a frequent guest show on rush limbaugh's radio show. and live sunday, your chance to call, email, and tweet with your questions, live at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. even though president obama has

said he'll propose a salary increase for civilian federal employees of half a percent, the house yesterday passed a bill to freeze the pay of nonmilitary federal workers through 2013. the debate was 45 minutes. ogniz. mr. ross: and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. mr. faleomavaega: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. ross: i rise in support of h.r. 3835, to extend the pay limitation for members of congress and federal employees. our federal employees provide an essential work function for the federal government. they're good people. they do good work and they do good work so long as the federal government functions. we appreciate their service and believe federal employees should be compensated fairly. yet, current federal salaries and benefits are not in line to the marketplace when compared to the work force. they receive generous benefits, pay and job security. there is a four time greater chance of losing your job in the private sector then there

is with the federal work force. they provide essential functions. we appreciate their service and believe federal employees should be compensated fully. on monday the cronl budget office released a study compensation was 15% greater for federal employees than private sector employees. when they looked up the work of hardworking taxpayers they take home 72% less in benefits it than their government counterparts. these hardworking private sector working taxpayers with some college degree or high school make 32% less than federal employees. those who work hardest to pay taxes are the ones bearing the burden of a bloated federal government. the contrast between federal government and private sector is troubling. with americans unemployed why would we allow automatic raises to occur for workers whose average compensation exceeds $100,000 and for members of congress whose compensation is

$174,000? the reality is that the federal government has no incentive or no obligation to reduce salaries in order to be competitive in order to stay in business. we simply raise taxes or we go into more debt and our government continues to borrow. just yesterday the c.b.o. released a report that our federal budget deficit will top another $1 trillion. for a fourth straight year in a row. this is unprecedented. it is unsustainable. the president's fiscal commission, a bipartisan commission, the simples-bowles commission, a commission which not -- the simpson had been bowles commission has recommended a three-year freeze on civilian payroll and member pay. in its report, the commissioners reminded us that in time of budget shortfalls all levels of government must trim back. following this advice, the president to his credit did recommend and this congress did freeze federal employee play through 2012. this measure alone saves the federal government $60 billion. as americans continue to

sacrifice, we must lead by example. h.r. 3835 continues a temporary freeze on across-the board--- across-the-board annual freezes. they'll continue to receive a step increase every three years. 99.9% federal employees eligible for step increase received it. where else can a pay freeze equal 3% increase a year but in washington, d.c.? office of personnel management director barry said there should be no place in the federal government for nonperformers to hide. this chart proves we continue to fund government at a rate well in excess of that given to the private sector. if we want to look for ways to cut, maybe we should look in some of the federal office businesses because six out of every 1,000 federal employees do not receive a 3% increase

despite a pay freeze. these step increases which continue under this bill if passed will result in 1,300 -- 1,303 dollars annual salary increase per federal employee. the bill before us today builds on the president's fiscal commission. it follows the president's request to freeze federal pay for federal employees. it is consistent with house resolution and mirrors the provisions of the middle has class tax relief and job creation act of 2011, passed by this house last december. opponents of this bill will argue we have -- employees have already done more with less for the last two years. they will claim that supporters of this bill view federal employees as a cost to cut and we want to cut the budget on the backs of federal employees. i disagree with that. we have been fortunate, very fortunate throughout the years to have a very good federal work force, to have talented and hardworking individuals who have chosen public service. however, our appreciation for their service does not bring a mandate to pay them above market rates with little regard

to their individual performance. in his march, 2011, report, the pay agent makes up the secretary of labor, the directors of office of management and budget, all appointed by the president, all approved by a democratic-controlled senate. this is what they say -- they express serious concern about a process that requires a single percentage adjustment and the pay of all white-collar civilian employees in each locality area, adding to their comments, we believe the underlying model and methodology of estimates pay gap should be re-examined to ensure that the private sector and federal sector pay comparisons are as accurate as possible. there is a reason why the federal pay law has never been implemented as originally enacted. it is based on an outdated, one-size-fits-all model. in testimony, director barry agreed that the federal pay system could use a re-examination and it does not reflect the complexity of the world we live in. study after study has shown

when compared to the private sector the federal government on average pays more than required to recruit and retain a skilled work force. paying across the board wages that are higher than market rates with no performance measure -- highly skilled workers such as scientists and professionals, as this graph accurately demonstrates. we need to bring these high level professionals to the federal government in comparative with the others. and this bill will allow us to do that. it shows we are out of whack from the private sector. madam speaker, i ask members of the federal employees to show in the sacrifice necessary to help millions suffering under the obama economy and support h.r. 3835. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i want to stand in strong opposition to the legislation, but i want to yield now to mr. hoyer of

maryland for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i listened to the gentleman's comments. the gentleman is new to the congress and probably doesn't have the background in terms of how this developed as to how we pay federal employees. as the sponsor of the federal pay comparblete signed by george bush who worked with president bush's o.m.b. and o.p.m. on this legislation, obviously one of the things we did was to say if the private sector doesn't get an increase the public sector won't get an increase. and we keyed increases to the economic cost index which is all to say that we need to tighten our belts when the private sector tightens their belts which is why i think i caught the gentleman's

reference that over the last two years federal employees have in fact received cuts to existing law which will result in a $60 billion savings. i think the gentleman said that. it bears repeating. it's not as if the federal employees have tighten their belts. they have. and a point of fact, the pay council to which he referred believes on average the federal employees are in fact behind, not ahead. i'm aware of the c.b.o. report that was just issued. mr. cummings has responded to that. clearly what they said is there is a disparity, and those on the lower end of the scale are doing better. those on the upper end of the scale aren't doing so well. none of them are getting paid as much as the gentleman is who made this speech or that i'm getting. none of them are making as much as we are. now, what we have here is a

very clever political effort to have members vote either for their pay or against their pay being adjusted by cost-of-living adjustment. i am going to vote against this bill. but i am for putting on and i would hope the unanimous consent request to do so would not be objected to on your side of the aisle. i am for bringing a bill to this bill which would freeze our salaries. i've been for that for the last two years and i have worked in a bipartisan way over the years not to demagogue members and have members get cost-of-living adjustments. the sponsor of this bill, as a matter of fact, is quoted saying how much difficulty he's having supporting his family on this salary. the fact of the matter is we ought to put a bill on this floor and freeze our salaries. federal employees are already contributed $60 billion of benefits to which they

otherwise would have been entitled because we for the last two years with my support frozen their salaries at the cost-of-living adjustment. now, ladies and gentlemen, i would hope that the bill that is sponsored by mr. van hollen that there would not be objection to an unanimous consent request to bring that bill to the floor so that members could express that, yes, we're prepared to mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. but what we should not do is pretend that we're going to balance the budget by undermining middle-class workers, middle-class workers who work for in my opinion the finest country on earth and who give excellent service, extraordinary service to the people of this country and who per capita are much -- are fewer than they were 20 years ago per capita. if the gentleman has time i'll be glad to answer on his time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: we ought to have a bill, we ought to pass mr. van hollen's bill, we ought to take this out of the politics and then if i could get another 10 seconds -- mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman another 10 seconds. mr. hoyer: then i tell my friends what we ought to do is pass the big deal. we ought to pass a $4 trillion to $6 trillion big deal to get the fiscal house in order of the united states of america. and it ought to include all things on the table, including federal employee pay and benefits, including the military pay and benefits and expenditures and domestic expenditures as well as entitlements. i've said that. we ought not to piecemeal it as this bill reflects. i hope we will support mr. van hollen's bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. ross: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to recognize my colleague from the great state of north carolina, ms. foxx, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam

speaker. and i thank my friend from florida for yielding and thank mr. duffy for introducing this bill. as a consistent opponent of automatic pay increases for members of congress, i am pleased to support the bill before us today which would extend the pay freeze for federal employees and members of congress for another year through december 31, 2013. with the record shattering budget deficits racked up under the obama administration, immediate action is needed to restrain runaway government increases and do no more harm to hardworking american taxpayers. president obama's liberal democrat enablers in congress attempt to ignore the true solution by suggesting endless tax increases which never have and never will represent the long-term solution to our budget problem. excessive pay is part and par sofle a federal government that's too large and over budget. while the federal government will never be subject to market

forces the way the private sector is, fundamental reform of the federal compensation system is needed. the simple truth also is that federal employees are more able to unionize than those in the private sector. according to a report last month, the federal government and the private sector differ in the extent to which their workers are influenced by unions which influence employee compensation. about 21% of federal workers are members of unions, compared to only 8% of private workers. as a result, the federal government pays more and has more benefits. it's offensive to unemployed americans struggling to find a job to see unionized federal employees continue to enjoy comparatively high compensation used to pay dues to government unions which spend heavily to elect politicians who promise them concessions. according to the heritage

foundation, quote, government unions were the top political spenders outside the two major parties in the 2010 election cycle, end quote. that's why i'm pleased mr. duffy is offering h.r. 3835, which is a modest bill designed to save taxpayers 26.5 million dollars. it also freezes the pay of members of the congress which many americans believe is important. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. -- mr. cummings: our federal employees safeguard our food supply, ensure that seniors receive social security checks and hunt down terrorists like

osama bin laden. they carry out each and every federal program. service and nashe -- program, service, and initialtive congress has created. despite the critical nature of the services federal workers provide, the majority believes their pay should be frozen for yet another year, that their benefits should be slashed an the size of the federal work force should be slashed even though it is smaller now than it was under presidents reagan and george h.w. bush. federal workers have already made tremendous sacrifices to address the nation's budget deficits. the two-year pay freeze to which they are currently subject will save taxpayers $60 billion. further, federal workers face the possibility of layoffs and furloughs in coming years as automatic spending reductions mandated by the budget control act of 2011 reduce agency budgets for salaries. the only workable solution to

our country's budget deficit is a balanced one that includes shared sacrifice, including from the wealthiest among us. to date, however, the republican majority has yet to bring before the house a single bill that will require millionaires and billionaires to contribute more toward deficit reduction. instead, they are preoccupied with taking money out of the pockets of middle class public servants. for these reasons, last week, i led 17 members in sending a letter to conferees working on extending the payroll tax cut, urging them to reject any and all measures that would disproportionately harm federal workers. i will continue to oppose any measure that would further cut federal employee pay and benefits. madam speaker, i'm disappointed but not surprised given the way the majority has run the house that we are now considering this bill under regular order.

instead, the majority introduced the bill on friday in a pro forma session and is now rushing it to the house floor before any action by appropriate committees can be taken. i'm also dispointed that -- disappointed that this measure was placed on the suspension calendar, thereby blocking any amendments to the underlying legislation. finally, i'm disappointed that this bill unfairly links the pay of federal employees to the pay of members of congress. i strongly support mr. van hollen's bill. the merits of pay increases for federal workers should be debated separately from our consideration of pay for member of congress this bill appears to be disingenuous and a disrespectful attack against federal workers and the regularred orer of the house. for these reasons, i strongly urge members to oppose the bill and i call on the house leadership to allow us to consider legislation through regular order that does not

punish federal workers in order to score political points. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield five minutes to the sponsor of this bill and my distinguished colleague from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman from florida yielding. i think it's porn that we review the history of federal employee pay freezes. in the last congress, this came up under a democrat controlled house, democrat controlled senate and a democrat president. they voted for a two-year payroll freeze for federal employees. they rightly excluded our military. i think everyone in this house agrees our military should get a pay increase. but they wrong -- who they wrongly failed to include in the pay freeze was member of tonk. -- of congress. they didn't include members of congress but every other federal

worker they did include. today i brought a bill@floor to extend the pay freeze one more year. in my -- my bill is the exact same bill as the democrats' bill from two years aing -- years ago. the only difference is i carved in members of congress. every member of this house will have their pay freeze just just like every other federal worker. that's the right thing to do. that's what should have been done two years ago but was not done. i was here to listen to the gentleman from maryland, the former majority leader, who is outraged he doesn't have an opportunity to singly vote for a pay freeze for members of congress but as majority leader, he had the opportunity to include members of congress in his bill. republicans didn't have a say, it was a democrat house, democrat senate, democrat president. and members of congress were not included. and now to come here today and be outraged and say that the republicans are disingenuous because we have carved in

members of congress doesn't hold water. i think it's important to also look at the facts behind federal employees as they are compared to the private sector. the congressional budget office came out an they said that federal employees make 16% more on average than the private sector. and at this point, what the democrats are saying is in a very difficult economy, when the private sector, who is really the american taxpayer, the ones who have been forced to take concessions with regard to pay, the ones who have been asked to work less hours to keep their jobs, my friends across the aisle, come to the house floor and say, what we want these american tax payers to do is to not get a pay raise themselves but to pay for a pay increase for federal workers who already make 16% more than they do. that doesn't make sense. that doesn't make sense.

i hear a lot of consideration from my friends across the aisle about fairness and parity. i think you should start to use the term fairness today. there should be parity between the preist sector and public sector. i come from central and northern wisconsin. we have a large manufacturing sector in my community. in my district. time and time again, there's rules, there's regulations, there's red tape, there's taxes, that attack our way of life that come from washington. attack the way of life of wisconsin. and we bring it up, we talk about it, we complain about it and guess what. my friends across the aisle, they turn a deaf ear to our complaints. but today, tell you we're going to do a one-year extension of a federal employee pay freeze, they are outraged by that, they are listening, they are advocating, they are arguing for more federal pay. come on. use fairness today. use the argument of parity today. this was your bill. this is a one-year extension.

the final point, the president's debt commission, the debt commission, simpson-bowles, they said we should have a three-year freeze on federal pay. that's what my bill does. i don't want the argument to be that my friends across the aisle, they don't really care about the federal employee pay freeze. that they only care about their own pay freeze. because that is the only difference. the only difference in my bill is that i've included members of congress. this makes sense. let's come together. i think the american people are sick of the partisan bickering. and they would expect that those issues on the left and the issues on the right, that this house could and should fight about. but i think they're sick of common sense issues that come down in thed my that will we should agree on. let's get together, let's pass this bill, let's freeze federal employee salaries for one more year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland.

mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: inc. the record should be clear that every year that the congress has frozen federal employee pay, we have also frozen congressional pay. what we have not done is tried to hold federal employee pay hostage to what we do on congressional pay. we should be very clear that we all on the democratic side support freezing congressional pay in the year 2013. indeed, mr. cummings and i, mr. hoyer and others, have introduced legislation to do just that. it's h.r. 3858. the democratic leadership asked that we bring that up on the suspension calendar today. we were denied that opportunity. and so i now ask unanimous consent that after we complete debate on this bill, we add to today's suspension calendar h.r.

3858 so that we can vote as a body on freezing congressional pay. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the gentleman's unanimous consent agreement? >> i do object to the unanimous consent agreement. mr. van hollen: this illustrates the point exactly. we just heard mr. duffy -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanny suspend. under the guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers of the house rules manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the gentleman's request unless it is clearedy the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. mr. van hollen: as i said, we have been denied that opportunity by the republican leadership. i want to be clear, we were denied the opportunity today to have an up or down vote on freezing congressional pay. that's what we should do. and the refusal to allow us to do that demonstrates that what we're really seeing is an effort to use congressional pay as a political weapon to punish all federal employees torque prevent nikolas, cost of living

adjustments, for federal employees, otherwise we'd be able to bring up that bill separately. now what we're seeing again is an effort to single out federal employees as scapegoats for the economic problems that they had nothing to do with. they had nothing to do with the meltdown on wall street, they had nothing to do with the policies of the previous administration that helped bring our economy to this position. yet what we're seeing today is what we're seing in states where we have governors in wisconsin, we have governors in ohio, we have other mostly republican governors scapegoating public servants in their states and singling them out for -- mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: thank you. singling them out as if they're a problem. federal employees have seen a two-year freeze, that saves $60 billion, federal employees are

willing to do their share. the president has asked for a .5% cost of living adjustment, that's still short of the 1.7% cost of living they'll face, so it's time we stop saying to those folks throughout their -- who are out there every day, helping keep our food safe, helping track down osama bin laden, other people who have helped protect our borders and do other things that we're going to single them out for unfair treatment as part of the budget. let's take it up as part of the full budget, not single them out the way we're doing here. i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you, i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin for bringing forward this bill. i want to refer to some facts. we do have good, hardworking federal employees, they're just as patriotic, if not more, as everybody else in our country they work hard and deserve a just compensation but the compensation trajectory we're

going forward in this country, madam speaker, is not sustainable, nor is it fair. i was hoping that when the majority leader was addressing us, he would yield to the question. one of the stat he is threw out is that none of these people are earning as much as members of congress. i would point out that, for instance, in the department of transportation, from the end of 2009, there was one person in the department of transportation earning a salary of $170,000. yet 18 months later, there were 1,690 employees in the department of transportation earning at least $170,000 in compensation. i would also point out that since president barack obama took office until now, there are an additional 144,700 civilian federal employees. these are new people, added to the payroll, more than 144,000 new people on the payroll. .

in 2010, more than 50% of all general schedule employees received a step increase or a promotion. hardly a pay freeze that president obama would have let us to believe happened. also for 2010, 62.9% of all general schedule employees received an award or bones -- bonus. in these dire economic times as people try to tighten their belts in the private sector, i think it's stunning close to 63% of our general schedule employees, federal employees, got an award or a bonus. now, this new c.b.o. study that came out this week, right here, the average federal benefits that exceeded the private sector level by 48%, the benefits being given to the federal employees exceed the private sector by 48%, according to the c.b.o. and the total average federal compensation is 16%, when you weigh that in with the other base pay, 16% above the private sector.

now, you can find a case where maybe somebody is being undercompensated, but you can find more of people being overcompensated. now, most people -- if you're asking how many federal employees out there are earning at least $100,000 in their base pay? madam speaker, that number is in excess of 450,000 people on our federal payroll are earning in excess of $100,000. in fact, if you go back and look at the payroll, the total federal payroll for the federal government, 2008 it was roughly $400 billion, 2011 it's projected to be $452 billion. you should also look at one of the more stunning numbers that i saw, madam speaker, and that is from 2010 to 2011 there were 16,000 federal employees that moved up to having at least a base pay of $100,000. so to suggest there's been some sort of pay freeze in place i

would argue is wholeheartedly incorrect. it is a matter of fairness and balance. i appreciate mr. duffy for his fine work in bringing this bill forward because we should limit the pay of members of congress, we should also do so for the federal civilian work force. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- mr. cummings: i find it interesting the other side brings up the c.b.o. report. the much better report is the bureau of labor statistics report. they are more experienced at this. they show that federal employees were paid 26% less than private sector employees. with that i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, washington is the headquarters of the congress. it is not the headquarters of federal employees. 85% of them live in our cities and towns and suburbs.

let's all agree that deficit reduction is a priority. and it is appropriate to lead at the top. nor should federal employees be exempt from this leadership by example. but it does stop at the top not at the bottom of the federal work force. these employees live under often greatly differing standards of living depending on where they live in the country. it is up to us to lead by example not federal employees, although they should not be exempt from this leadership role. it is an unfair ruse to pair the most favored federal employees, members of congress, with the least favored, federal employees across the board. some come from -- some are paid

a great deal, some are paid very little, some come from high cost areas of the country, some come from low cost areas of the country. look, most of our constituents will understand who we were voting for and who we were voting against. democrats have a long history of respecting civil servants. republicans have spent years deriding them in good times and bad. they know full well also that congress would not dare take a raise now and they know that federal employees should not become as they apparently have the proverbial piggy bank to pull down for all purpose deficit reduction. when we had freezes that were almost automatic on federal employees, that's the very reason why this bill should be sent to committee to determine what is fair now in the third year after 60 -- $60 billion --

may i have 30 seconds? mr. cummings: additional 30 seconds. ms. norton: pricely because there have been two almost automatic freezes with no hearings means it is the time to send this bill to committee to determine what is fair for federal employees, have they contributed enough or using my standard, leadership by example, have they tribbed -- thud they contribute more? you want to -- should they contribute more? you want to lead by example, members of congress should stand up and ask for a freeze for themselves by themselves like men and women. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. cummings: how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i grant two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts,

mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the -- madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3835, which would extend the current two-year pay freeze of federal workers for an additional year through 2013. this will be the third year of a pay freeze. similar to most of my colleagues who have spoken here today, i do support a freeze for congress. i do. i have voted six times to freeze congress' pay. but -- and while my good friend from utah does point out that there are some high-end -- high salaried federal employees, you have to remember that we have surgeons at the v.a., very competent doctors at the v.a. that serve our veterans, we have scientists at n.i.h., we have very, very good attorneys at the s.e.c. prrkting very complex fraud -- prosecuting very

complex fraud cases. to attract those people we need to attract very competent and highly skilled individuals. that's where those higher salaries are aggregated. but we should be reminded that the vast majority of our federal employees are middle income earners. and oddly enough we could have addressed this if this bill had gone through committee, through regular order. this bill has come to the floor without going through committee. it has not been subject to amendment. we could have come up with a bill that said, ok, we are going to freeze the pay of high income federal employees. we didn't do that. so you got people out there making $30,000, $40,000 a year, as secretarieses and other staff, that their pay has been frozen, it will be -- if this goes through it will be three years. so we could have done a better job if this bill had gone through the regular order and gone through committee. i'm also concerned about the rational behind this legislation. similar to many of my colleagues today, while i support the

freeze on congressional pay, we see a lot of legislation coming up in this congress that attacks federal employees, and i think this is one more example of that. i totally oppose it. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman an additional minute. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman. this is another in a series of legislative attack that is have targeted our federal workers throughout the 112th congress. it will further erode employee morale and diminish the federal government's ability to attract the best and brightest to perform the important jobs that we need to perform. our dedicated civil servants play a vital role in such critical areas as law enforcement, national defense, public health, and delivery of servicings to america's veterans, elderly, and disable. they should not bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to addressing our nation's budget problems. i urge my colleagues to join me to oppose any further efforts to balance the budget on the back of our hardworking federal employees by voting no on h.r.

3835. thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah, one minute. mr. chaffetz: earlier it was referenced there was another study showing that 26%, the compensation was 26% lower than the private sector. i would point out that that did not include compensation for benefits. certainly when you look at some of these total compensation, you look at the benefits. i would also point out the c.b.o. study on page 10 and 11, the total compensation is actually more off -- more askew for the lower educated people. people that are earning high school diplomas or less are getting a 36% more than they would in the private sector. it's actually the entire, what people with professional degrees, are probably being undercompensated according to

this study. they only account for about 7% of our work force. if you look at the bulk of our work force, 93%, you are going to see double-digit percentage increase versus the private sector. this is not an attack on our federal work force. be grateful you have a job. which we have to understand it's the taxpayers' money and we have to be frugal with it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam chairman. i thank my very good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the committee for yielding me the time. to rise in strong opposition to an extension of the current pay freeze for federal employees. this legislation is a cynical attempt to tap into misguided resentment fostered by the far right against the federal government and the two million men and women who serve our nation as civil servants. of those two million let me

point out to my colleagues nearly two out of three civil servants work for the department of defense, department of homeland security, the department of veterans affairs, and department of justice. in other words, two out of three federal employees work in jobs related to our national security, at home and abroad, or caring for our veterans. every one of those employees now seems to be the target of this body's misguided anger. that's wrong. most of our federal employees work for the defense department to enhance our security. works to ensure nuclear materials aren't smuggled into our country by those who want to do us catastrophic harm. the federal bureau of investigation works to investigate and prrkt -- prosecute cybercriminals. this body claims to care about preventing nuclear terrorism and cybercrime, yet we want to punish those charged with carrying out that mission.

last year a constituent of mine was awarded what's called a sammy from the partnership for public service for his work at the v.a. helping to address veterans struggling with the human toll of warfare. my constituent has devoted 40 years of a career building a national network of small community based centers where veterans traumatized by combat obtain counseling, job assistance, medical referrals, and other services, the partnership awarded him last year. today the house wants to forfeit his pay raise for a third consecutive year. this bill is the product of a ideologically icks treatment group of people who got elected by insisting our government is broken. now they are elected they want to try to prove that be the case. it is not the case. we ought to be proud of our government and reject this. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: madam speaker, as i listen to the debate and

listen to the other side, and then -- do i want to associate myself with the words of my colleague, mr. moran, and the others that have spoken, over and over again we seem to -- we hear on one side of the mouth coming from our republican colleagues that they love our federal employees so much, and that they do such a great job, but on the other hand they say they want to freeze their pay. one of the things that i found so interesting and we have heard the argument over and over, is when it came to the -- that is the taxes with regard to the upper -- millionaires and billionaires, they didn't want to tax them one penny more. not one dime. but yet the person who works here in this building, the ones that work social security and other places, the one that is mr. moran just talked about, the

ones who are protecting the homeland, say to them we want to make sure we freeze your pay. there's something awfully wrong with that picture. i believe very strongly in -- that we all should share in benefits, but we should all share in sacrifice, too. didn't ask for one dime, not a dime more from the millionaires and the folks making all the money, but yet and still you've got people in the federal system, according to the c.b.o. report, and that c.b.o. report says that those people with a master's degree or above they are making 23% less. what about them? .

what about the people who sacrifice every day and could be making more money, what about them? some of them, by the way, on our staffs. i would just urge the, again, there's been -- it's been implied that we on this side have a problem with a pay freeze for members of congress. we don't have a problem with that. we'll go on the record saying that. and these issues should be divided. and so, with that, madam speaker, i urge the members of the congress to vote against this very bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has tyke pired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i'm new here. i'm a freshman, i'm one of those freshmen who have been told you don't know how washington works.

successive four years of trillion-dollar deficits is the way washington works, i don't want it working that way. i wasn't sent here to learn how washington works, i was sent here to change the way washington works. when we have a president -- mr. ross: when we have a president cutting our military budget while private sector payrolls go down, there's something wrong with the way washington works. washington is broken. i submit we need to lead by example. we have done so by reducing our accounts by 11%, by reducing our committee budgets. we need to go further. if we're going to lead by example. leadership is not a title, leadership is an act. i submit to you that today we lead by example and i urge my >> the house went on to pass the bill, freezing the pay of nonmilitary federal workers through 2013 on a vote of 309-117.

>> c-span's road to the white house political coverage takes you to the candidate events. >> i laid out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last, that has a firm foundation, where we're making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around and u.p.s. drivers are dropping things off everywhere. that's the economy we want. >> if i'm president of the united states, i will stop all the obama-era regulations, i will make sure that any of those that kill jobs, we eliminate, and i'll get america back to work again. >> i think you're going see the economy recover election night. the minute people realize obama's gone, that's how decisive the change is going to be and how rapid the change is going to be. >> and follow the candidates as they meet with voters. >> i thought i saw you. we're working for you.

>> we're working hard for you. >> and use our website to view recent video from the campaign trail and read the latest postings from candidates, political reporters, and other viewers from social media sites at c-span.org/campaign2012. president obama is at the 60th annual national prayer breakfast this morning live on c-span2 in an hour at 8:00 eastern. on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke testifies before the house budget committee on the state of the economy. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls live on "washington journal." the house of representatives is in session at 10:00 session with general speeches are legislative business beginning at noon. today's includes the federal aviation conference report. the congressional budget office this week projected a continuing deficit of more than $1 trillion. we'll talk about that report with two members of the budget committee, republican rob committee, republican rob woodall