Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ISSA. I reclaim my time to say the gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today we're doing the important thing, the critical thing. I wish today that this had been what we'd voted on in the previous session, to recharge the flood insurance that needs to be there so that men and women in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the like will not question whether or not their country can provide them with the resources that are expected to be there in the time of a natural disaster like that. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say that January 15 is critical; and as the previous speaker said, we do need to prenegotiate with the Senate. We need to get the pork out. None of that pork we're talking about is in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. In fact, it's as far away as Alaska. The pork that we will not vote on today is, in fact, the pork that was in this bill from the Senate. My hope is that we will see on January 15 a negotiated and clean bill that only deals with the men and women and families on the eastern seaboard that need to be taken care of. I think that it's the President's responsibility and our responsibility and the Senate's responsibility when we do emergency supplementals to make them only about the emergency. I believe today we are buying a little bit of time; but I think for people on the eastern seaboard who are suffering, that time is running out and all of our leaders need to make sure that the next vote, the vote on January 15, as the previous speaker said, will be a vote that will be prenegotiated, that will run through the Senate, and will deal only with the people suffering on the eastern seaboard.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for S. 3630, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 3630, introduced by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, to designate a facility of the United States Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office, is again another exception to the no-postal rule. Captain Schiller graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 2003 and was deployed to serve in Iraq in 2006. Tragically, on November 16, 2006, the captain was killed by enemy fire. At the time of the attack, Captain Schiller was leading a team of six paratroopers and six Iraqi Army soldiers. The captain leaves behind his parents, William and Karla. He was awarded several medals for his heroism, including the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. We are grateful for his service. We make an exception to the ``no postal naming'' rule established because we don't have postal reform, and we do so on behalf of the request of the Senate, and we do so for a good reason. This, in fact, was a gentleman who served his country, whom we want to remember, and we want to remember him here today and in Wisconsin for years to come. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3630) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office''.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I wish I could say that this was a proud moment, a moment in which we started the year off right, in which the 1st of January was the first of a great many good things. It isn't. We're kicking the can down the road. Worse than that, when faced with a mountain of debt that we were heading for, like an airplane, did we climb over it? No. What we're going to do in the present plan is put another nearly trillion dollars' worth of debt on the American people. Time is running out to change the direction because that trillion dollars isn't just a problem for the next generation. It's a problem for corporate America, and it's a problem for every American. The trillion dollars we spend and waste this year is $1 trillion that we will have to bear for the rest of our lives. Mr. Speaker, I may vote for what comes on the floor. I certainly will vote for a bill, which I'm going to manage in a few minutes, to hold down the growth of spending in the government; but I'll tell you, I won't do it thinking we've accomplished anything here today other than the smallest finger in a dike that, in fact, has hundreds of holes in it.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would trust that the gentleman was unaware that Mr. Fitzpatrick also does have a bill that only freezes our pay, and it does not bear the gentleman's name as a cosponsor. Perhaps he can correct that today. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. ISSA. Not at this time, so I would simply reserve the right to close.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I note, once again, that this is a half a percent that will not be increased by this action--half a percent--so on $100,000 it's $500 of a pay raise that will not occur for Federal workers, and, in fact, the sky is not falling if we choose not to have that happen this year. With that, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill is going to pass, and it's going to pass likely on a bipartisan basis because it would be the ultimate in inappropriate behavior by this body to allow our pay to be raised. This is something I think that both sides have said fairly straightforward that this is not a time in which Members of Congress should take their $174,000 salary and increase it. I don't believe we've earned it this year. By the way, I believe the President's salary will not go up and the Vice President's salary will not go up, and that is also appropriate. But as we look at the hardworking men and women of the Federal workforce and look at my colleagues from Virginia who spoke and my colleague from Maryland who spoke, the point that the Federal workforce should be listening to today is that, in fact, it's not how hard they work; it's what can the American people afford. We cannot afford to continue these deficits. It's not how hard they work. It is the inefficiency and waste not just in their office, but in the way government is organized. Mr. Speaker, everyone had a New Year's resolution, I trust, last night. For all of us, I'm sure it was to lose a little weight, do a few other things that we haven't been doing; but for me particularly, it's to go after the duplication in government, to go after the organizational flaws in government that would allow us to be less critical, perhaps, of what we can afford from our Federal workforce and more proud of the fact that it is organized for efficiency. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the President called for reorganization authority and then did nothing in his first term. It is my goal to give him reorganization and a reorganizational plan. It is my committee's obligation to do that. As I vote today to freeze our pay and to freeze all of the Federal workers' pay, I do so recognizing that the best way for Federal workers to get a pay raise without it being on the backs of the American people is for us to reorganize government, whether it's in information technology or any other goods and services that Federal Government delivers. We can do better. We can take waste out of Medicare, and we can take waste out of all aspects of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I know this bill will pass on a bipartisan basis because it's appropriate to do here today. I urge its support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The ranking member made a good point, and in this body you should always go along with that which is true and oppose that which is false. The gentleman made an excellent point: we do have hundreds of thousands of hardworking Federal employees. They deliver to the American people a good product. The vast majority of them, if you ask them, do not feel they're overcompensated. They've worked hard; they're highly educated; in fact, they're not overpaid in many ways. They do, in fact, have a very generous defined benefit plan, something the American people usually don't have, something that would guarantee them a pension over and above their 401(k). And automatically it increases with inflation; automatically it is funded. That's true whether you're a postal worker, a Member of this body, or the executive branch. We're not arguing whether or not the Federal worker is dedicated at all. We're arguing whether this is the right time to add $11 billion to a $10 trillion deficit that we're not dealing with. We have a $10 trillion deficit after today's action on ``ending the cliff'' that is still going to be projected. It hasn't been scored exactly, but it will still be over $1 trillion this year--and if history repeats itself, for every remaining year of the Obama administration. Now, the gentleman from Maryland did say one thing that perhaps was not accurate--and he didn't mean to. He said, well, if you ask people around here. Well, perhaps he forgot that here in the House of Representatives, this entire body--except for congressional salaries, which are stipulated under the Constitution--we have, in fact, had to deal with a 5 percent reduction year over year in actual money available to run the House, and in the next year, 6.4 percent; meaning, we have dropped more than 11 percent in the dollars spent--not in some hypothetical base plus, but in the dollars spent we have dropped more than 11 percent under Speaker Boehner. That kind of a cut has not been duplicated by the executive branch. Had it been duplicated by the postal workers, we wouldn't have a $12 billion loss there. Had it been duplicated by the executive branch, to be honest, Mr. Speaker, we would be talking today about how can we cut anymore and both sides would be agreeing. We haven't made an 11 percent drop in actual spending in 2 years. Had we done that, we wouldn't be looking at a hundred percent growth in the last 12 years in the cost of government. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6726) to prevent the 2013 pay adjustment for Members of Congress and persons holding other offices or positions in the Federal Government from being made.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Virginia means well, but, once again, he talks about a lack of accomplishment. Apparently, he hasn't looked at the work that the clerks have done here on the floor. He hasn't looked at the work that CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has done, or the Government Accountability Office. Those are all funded, and yet we had an 11 percent reduction in spending. So, in fact, when we're talking about the hardworking men and women of the government, this branch has found a way to reduce spending by over 11 percent in spite of the hardworking men, not just here on the floor and in our offices, but the Governmental Accountability Office, the CBO and others. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. 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.

Mr. ISSA. I might note for the gentleman, it was posted last night, which means it was actually posted before the cliff bill. The technical dropping is a different rule. But it was posted, so it was available to all Members last night. And, of course, as you know, it's very simple. We simply freeze, and that's not hard for people to understand. I hope the gentleman understands a half percent freeze is all this bill does.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 years, Oversight has worked diligently. Our professionals have worked, to a certain extent, against their own best interest. They've found excesses in pay and compensation within the Federal system and moved with careful detail to try to reduce those amounts, make them more commensurate with the private sector. Currently, Federal workers receive typically over $100,000 and are about 16 percent higher compensated than their private sector counterparts. Today we will consider something on the fiscal cliff, but before we do it, I felt it was important to deal first with this bill. And so I'm happy, in a few moments, to recognize Mr. Fitzpatrick, the author of this bill, which is very narrow, but simply says that the President cannot and should not add about $11 billion to the deficit by the stroke of a pen, by an executive order at a time in which he's negotiating to try to raise taxes to earn maybe another $60 billion or $70 billion, at most, for the Federal Treasury. So this will stop the Federal workers from receiving a pay increase. It will not stop their step increases. It will not stop their merit increases. It will not stop a great many other increases in their pay and compensation. But it will say that, at this time, when the American people are not getting automatic cost-of-living increases, neither should the Federal workforce. And oh, by the way, Mr. Speaker, neither should you, neither should the ranking member, neither should I. And this bill stops us from giving ourselves a pay increase that the President has asked for. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be speaking for this bill, but I can't. In the 12 years, almost to the day, that I've served in this body, I've voted for every tax cut, every tax cut. And I remember many of my colleagues, many of them friends to my right here, who, each time we voted for them said, where is the PAYGO? Where is the pay-for? Well, Mr. Speaker, there's $4 trillion of new debt and deficit and there's no pay-for, and there's no anticipation of a pay-for. In the last night, or the last 2 days, of a Congress, to say that 2 months from now a new Congress is going to do what we're not doing here today is not something I can bring myself to do. I would like to vote for this because I do vote for lower taxes. I want Americans to have lower taxes. But the other day, in conference, one of my colleagues pointed out that if, in fact, you're spending the money, you're taxing our future generation. We are taxing $1.2 trillion next year. We are taxing $1.2 trillion. We won't collect it, but we are taxing $1.2 trillion of deficit. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, rightfully so said we're also not simplifying the Tax Code. We're not making it better or fairer. We're not getting rid of the NASCAR loophole. We're not getting rid of the electric motor scooter low-speed loophole. We're not getting rid of a whole lot of tax things that are here. But most importantly, we're not taking things that the President himself said he would be for, like getting the calculation of chained CPI, of the consumer price index for Social Security and the Federal workforce and pensions right, which, would, in fact, reduce the deficit going forward. So because of what we're not doing, I cannot believe that this tax cut will, in fact, be followed with a spending cut to offset any part of the $4 trillion we're putting on the backs of future generations. So I thank all of you who will vote for it. I cannot bring myself to vote for it tonight.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. 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.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on this second-to-last day of this Congress, the Senate has sent us a naming. Although my committee has stopped doing namings, except in the case of Medal of Honor recipients, this one is coming over, and I believe it is meritorious. The Senate has asked us to pass it, and I will do so today. It was introduced by Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts and would designate a facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Nichols Street in Westminster, Massachusetts, as the Lieutenant Ryan Patrick Jones Post Office Building. Lieutenant Jones earned his engineering degree at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. When he earned his degree, he was also awarded an ROTC scholarship in the Reserve Officer Training Corps. Lieutenant Jones led his fellow soldiers as a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division while deployed in Iraq in 2007. And I guess as a member of the Big Red One, I would note that I also served with that unit many years ago. Tragically, on May 2, 2007, Lieutenant Jones was killed in action by an improvised explosive device set by our enemy. He leaves behind his parents, Kevin and Elaine Jones, of Westminster, Massachusetts. He was awarded several awards for his heroism, including the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Iraqi Freedom Medal, the Combat Action Badge, and the War on Terrorism Badge. I am grateful for Lieutenant Jones' service and for his bravery on the battlefield. And I regret that the naming of this post office is so appropriate because yet another one of our finest has paid such a high price by an enemy who uses hidden explosives rather than confront us in any direct way. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I also urge support and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3662) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Nichols Street in Westminster, Massachusetts, as the ``Lieutenant Ryan Patrick Jones Post Office Building''.