To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, providing Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011, sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell), actually mirroring language that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has had before our body for some period of time. Both gentlemen have worked on this together, it is my understanding.

Across the country, we know that there are serious issues plaguing Americans, mainly a deteriorating economy and very high unemployment rates. In my home State, the underemployment rate is over 20 percent. In my district, Sacramento County has an unemployment rate of 12.9 percent, which is actually lower than some of the cities in my district. The city of Galt, for example, has an unemployment rate of 15 percent. So it goes without saying that things are not well in our economy and people are suffering.

As Americans around the country are struggling and sacrificing to make ends meet, it appears that we in Congress should not be immune. Other institutions are doing likewise. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recently announced in his Year-End Report for the Judiciary that he would not be requesting the usual salary increase for Federal judges given that ``so many of our fellow citizens have been touched by hardship.'' The President has also announced a pay freeze for top White House officials and other appointees in the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, recently in this House we passed H. Res. 1257, supporting the goals and ideals of National Financial Literacy Month, 2010. This legislation sought to raise public awareness about financial education through highlighting the importance of maintaining and managing personal finances, increasing personal savings, and reducing indebtedness in the United States. Some would ask whether we in Congress ought to undertake that same examination with respect to our spending in this House and our spending overall on the Federal budget.

At a time when we are passing resolutions telling Americans to be more cognizant of their financial situation, their debt, their savings, we do need to do the same in the House.

Millions of Americans are not getting a pay raise this year. Many, unfortunately, are not even getting paychecks. Under these circumstances, Congress must forgo a pay raise to save the hardworking taxpayers and hard-looking job seekers in this country a little of their money. Relative to the overall Federal budget, this single act doesn't have that great an impact. But any dollar, any Federal dollar, is something that we should treat with utmost responsibility because it comes to us in a sense involuntarily from our constituents. It comes through taxes or future taxes to pay for current debts.

So under these circumstances I think most of my colleagues, if not all of my colleagues, would agree that this is the time for us to forgo a pay raise. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the indomitable distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who has worked on this issue for some time.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

After listening to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I am reminded of some freezes I would like to see. In addition to this freeze on our pay for a year, I would like to see us put a freeze on regulations on small business.

The previous speaker just mentioned that he believes we have somewhat of an arcane procedure for providing for pay raises to Members of Congress. That may be true. But there is certainly no more arcane activity that we engaged in than when we passed the health care bill in that having a new burden on business, particularly small business. And I speak of section 9006 of the health care bill, which has nothing to do with health, but has everything to do with regulation in that now, as opposed to the law which has existed for many years in which you had to file a 1099 on someone who provided a service for you, the purpose of which was to make sure that there was some paper trail to see if you were paying payroll taxes, we now have decided under this bill, the health care bill, section 9006, to require anybody involved in a trade or a service, that is any type of business who makes a purchase from some other corporate entity of any type that amounts to more than $600 cumulatively over a single year, that requires a 1099 to be filed with the person that you purchase the product from and the Federal Government.

What this means is that now if you purchase plane tickets and it amounts to more than $600 and you are engaged in a business, you will have to file a 1099 with United Airlines or American Airlines and the Federal Government. If you purchase food for your company and it amounts to more than $600, you will have to file a 1099. If you happen to be a rancher and you purchase bales of hay, you are going to have to keep a running tab all year long, and when you go over $600 you are going to have to file a 1099. If you in fact utilize FedEx or UPS, if during the course of the year it is more than $600, you will have to file a 1099 with FedEx or UPS and the Federal Government.

So this is a new burden that will require accounting procedures for anybody involved in business, particularly imposed on small business. But more than that, there is a double-edged sword to this. And that is this is a dagger at the heart of small business. Because if you have this obligation, it is easier to deal with one single big vendor than to have a number of them. Instead of going to your local hardware store if you are a small company and you need some hardware, you ought to go to one of the big guys because their universe of products is greater. And so if you have everything you purchased from them, knowing it is going to be over $600, you only have a single 1099 to file.

So what we have done in one fell swoop is make it more difficult to actually operate with this new regulatory scheme, and on the other hand, create disincentives for small business.

Now, when we contacted the Internal Revenue Service to see how they are going to interpret it, they said we haven't interpreted it yet because we are waiting for HHS to give us guidance. So now we have tax policy going to be determined by HHS.

All I'm saying is, if people think that we've had arcane procedures for means of pay raises for Members of Congress, it is nothing compared to what we've done in this health care bill with regulation on small business. I actually call that provision of the health care bill the ``universal snitch act'' because, when you file this 1099, it has nothing to do with your obligation to pay taxes. It has got to be premised on the idea that every vendor you deal with cheats and that the only way to catch cheaters is to have this new paper trail.

So I don't know. It just seems repugnant to me that we would do that, and I happen to have a bill that I introduced yesterday that would repeal that.

I just bring this up because the gentleman from Texas prompted this thought in my mind about freezes that would be appropriate. Then when the previous speaker mentioned arcane procedures, there was nothing more arcane than the health care bill we passed.

In fact, when we called the IRS, they weren't sure that this was in the bill. When we talked to the Congressional Research Service, they said, Oh, it couldn't be. Then when we pointed out that the new language in the bill is property and not just services--and that includes anything that you purchase--it has an unbelievable obligation on small business.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the pride of the Coast Guard, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

I would just urge my colleagues to support this resolution. This is appropriate at this particular time. I think all Members of Congress recognize the difficult economic straits we are in. It is a simple resolution. It forgoes the pay raise for the year 2011, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to compliment Mr. Mitchell from Arizona for getting this bill to the floor. We have worked on this for several years. I am pleased that this is going to be passed today.

Much has been said about the unemployment rate in this country. And I saw one other take on unemployment today, where it said that for low- income people below $20,000, the unemployment rate is actually 31 percent, which shows how devastating this recession is, and for some it is an actual depression.

I would like this bill to be passed, but not just as symbolism. It is good symbolism and important symbolism. As was mentioned by the gentleman from California, it is not a tremendous amount of money, but it is important for us to recognize that we have a serious problem in this country and that we shouldn't be careless about the way we think about this problem. It shouldn't make us feel necessarily good because we passed this. This is just necessary.

It does remind me of a piece of legislation I introduced many years ago, in the 1970s, when we had rampant inflation, which I anticipate will probably come back to this country. Back then we had a 15 percent inflation rate. My suggestion then in the form of legislation, to get the Members' attention to understand what inflation was all about, I said we should take a pay cut at the rate of inflation. Even today we might suggest that. There is a lot more inflation out there than we admit to. So maybe not only should we freeze our salaries, maybe we should be taking a pay cut so that we can do a better job, because we really can't brag about the job that we have done for the country because of the condition the country is in.

But I would like to extend this motivation to freeze the pay of Congressmen to freezing a few other things. I would like to see our budget at least frozen where it is. That would go a long way to solving some of our budgetary problems. And how about freezing the debt level. Let's not raise the debt level. Instead, this next year our national debt is going to go up about $2 trillion when you add up all that we borrow from our trust funds.

Also, I would like to see a freeze on regulations because regulations usually backfire. There are unintended consequences, they cost a lot of money, they act as a tax, and they don't improve the economy overall.

I would be in support of freezing the wealth transfer system, the system that most people think is going to help all the poor people. The trouble is the wealth transfer system helps the rich people, and they are the ones who get the bailouts and the poor people don't. So a freeze on wealth transfer would go a long way toward restoring a free society and a constitutional government.

Also, I think the consensus of the American people today is we ought to freeze the bailouts. Let's not bail out anybody anymore. But it looks like it will be a long time before that happens because we have a monetary system where we have somebody over there called the Federal Reserve that says we can print money at will, and our job is to be the lender of last resort. That means to bail anybody and everybody out that needs money. And it looks like that will be domestic as well as international.

I would like to freeze the ability of the Federal Reserve to print money out of thin air. That in moral terms is counterfeit, and yet that is the encouragement for us to run up our deficits because the Fed can come in and increase the money supply. A sound monetary system would have frozen anybody's ability to just create money out of thin air.

I would also like to freeze the income tax at the 1912 level. And that indeed would be a real boost to the people of this country. All of a sudden there would be great wealth in the hands of the consumer. Just think if all the money that we spent on the bailouts that just tided things over, if just a portion of that had been used to get rid of the income tax, I think the money would have been better spent because the people would have been spending the money instead of the bureaucrats and the politicians and the regulators that bailed out the people who were making all the money in the first place.

But I would also extend this freeze onto some other things, too. I would like to freeze some of our militarism. I think we have enough fighting going on. I don't think we should expand the war. I don't think we should be looking for another enemy. I would like to freeze the sanctions on countries. I would like to see a lot more free trade. I would like to see that the bombing is not extended, that we quit allowing our CIA to extend the bombing of countries that have not attacked us. I would also like to put a freeze on this concept of preventive war. This whole idea of the concept of preventive war means that we can literally start the war.

So, yes, it's good that we are freezing the salaries of us here in the Congress. But if we really want to restore the Republic, we will freeze a lot of these other issues as well.

Mr. Speaker, as so many people in this country continue to struggle to find work, let alone receive a pay raise, I am glad Congress has chosen to highlight this issue. Now, last year Congress recognized how inappropriate it would be to accept the stealth salary increase and passed a measure to block a congressional pay raise for the current fiscal year. This past week the Senate continued the freeze on congressional pay without a single dissenting vote. And now I urge my fellow House Members to follow suit and pass this commonsense measure.

The need for this bill also underlines another significant problem with the

congressional pay raise system because every year, unless both the House and the Senate actually vote against a pay raise, like we are talking about doing right now, we automatically receive a pay raise. In almost every profession, salary increases are dependent on performance, experience, tenure, or any number of factors other than really showing up to work every day.

This system which shrouds the congressional pay increase in arcane procedures deters a healthy, open debate of the issue. This legislation is a straightforward measure to stop the pay increase for fiscal year '11 and has been widely supported in a bipartisan manner.

I commend Congressman Mitchell and Congressman Paul for their work on this issue over the past 2 years. Now, beyond this one-time issue we are talking about today, I would be remiss if I didn't mention I have introduced a separate piece of legislation which would permanently repeal the provision of the law granting automatic pay raises and bring this issue to an open, up or down vote to let the public know where we stand on this issue every year. The Senate has also passed this legislation. I look forward to discussing this issue as we move forward to address our budgetary priorities.

As I have said for the past many years, spending priorities in a time of war and economic turmoil should not include an automatic salary increase for Members of Congress. I urge my fellow Members of the House to prevent a pay raise for 2011 and vote in favor of the legislation on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5146) to provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while there are positive signs of economic recovery around the country, the budget deficit is still an important issue. Therefore, it is appropriate that we continue to forego a cost-of- living adjustment at this time as we did for 2010. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the bill's sponsor, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the bill's cosponsor, the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Teague).

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment very briefly because my colleagues were asking for basically a freeze on a status quo of the health care that we know today.

They spoke of repugnant policies. I want to talk just for a minute about the repugnant policies that we know of today, which don't allow people to get insurance if they have preexisting conditions that have ratings which discriminate, particularly against women, and which make it almost impossible for small business to be able to take care of and to help their employees when it comes to health insurance. So, yes, we have some policies that we have been trying to change. Unfortunately, my colleagues are asking for a freeze.

Yet I do want to applaud the fact that we are here on a singular effort today, and that is to forgo the cost-of-living adjustment for Congress. I think that's a good idea. It is a very timely idea, and it is very important that we move forward with it today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, Kansans continue to suffer from the effects of the recession. Times remain tough for many. Small business owners are struggling to keep the doors of their businesses open. Families are struggling to pay their bills. When faced with difficult times, Kansans make sacrifices. They cut back where they can and stretch every dollar to make ends meet.

Times are also tough for the Federal Government. The national debt is more than $12 trillion and it continues to grow every day.

When times are tough, Kansans expect their government to act like they do--to make sacrifices and cut spending. Yet, the Federal Government is spending more than ever before.

One of the first places Congress should look to cut spending is the annual cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress. Representatives and Senators do not deserve a raise, especially when many Kansans will not receive a raise this year and the unemployment rate remains high.

I have long been opposed to the hidden process by which Members of Congress get an increase in their pay. The lack of transparency in the yearly raise only serves to increase skepticism, disillusion and distrust of government. Last year, I sponsored H.R. 1597, which eliminates the automatic pay increase for Members of Congress. If Members of Congress believe they have earned a raise, they should vote on it in full view of the public.

I am pleased today, that the House of Representatives is considering a bill in clear view of the public that would do away with the cost-of- living increase for next year. While this legislation, H.R. 5146, is only a one-year fix to the problem, it is an important first step and I am proud to be one of the sponsors of this legislation. I oppose the yearly automatic increase in pay and strongly support today's legislation to make sure Members of Congress do not get a raise next year.

Our employers, the voters, are right to be unhappy with Washington's spending spree. There should be no increase in congressional pay until Congress listens to the public and cuts spending.