| Welcome to Virtual America. We hope you enjoy your visit. If you're looking to join and sign up for the first time, register here! You'll want to familiarize yourself with the rules of Virtual America which you can find here. And you'll want to read up on how to sign in and create your character here. After all than you can sign in and get to playing! We're all friends here and we're certain you'll enjoy it here at Virtual America! |
| HR 51 Cleaning Up Washington Act | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 10 Jun 2013, 12:42 PM (117 Views) | |
| Heather Holson | 10 Jun 2013, 12:42 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
48 hours for debate
Edited by Heather Holson, 12 Jun 2013, 12:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 10 Jun 2013, 02:55 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, I request passage of this legislation by unanimous consent. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 10 Jun 2013, 02:59 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
Request for unanimous consent recognized 24 hours for objection. |
![]() |
|
| Landry | 10 Jun 2013, 03:22 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Winter is Coming to the Red States
|
Madam Speaker, Austerity begins at home; I have no objections to this legislation, and commend the gentleman from Texas on its introduction. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Terrus | 10 Jun 2013, 03:31 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Madame Speaker, I object, and rise in opposition to this bill. We should not be deterring those that seek to serve this nation by limiting their ability to afford service, which can be quite costly. We should also not be encouraging those in office to accept bribes and unethical contributions by limiting their pay. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| tal | 10 Jun 2013, 03:47 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Old Man In The Mountain
|
Madam Speaker, I echo the objection raised. There are far better places to save money in the budget than this. Already the private sector draws so much talent away from the public because of disparate pay grades. This will only heighten that issue and increase the likelihood that public servants or those considering public service take their talents elsewhere--or do a worse job in service by focusing on generating income in other ways, perhaps even illicitly as the gentleman has suggested. |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 10 Jun 2013, 04:49 PM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Objection noted. Debate continues. |
![]() |
|
| Marcus Tompkins | 10 Jun 2013, 10:13 PM Post #8 |
|
Mrs. Speaker, I want to say that I wholeheartedly support this bill. The people of Louisiana did not send me here to fatten my paycheck, they sent me here to do their work. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| tal | 10 Jun 2013, 11:14 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Old Man In The Mountain
|
Madam Speaker, This is not a vote to increase the pay of public servants. This is a vote to prevent drastic cuts to their pay when there are so many more serious things that could be addressed surrounding this country's spending problem. |
![]() |
|
| Marcus Tompkins | 10 Jun 2013, 11:19 PM Post #10 |
|
Mrs. Speaker, Why am I not surprised that the high falutin elite party would endorse paying politicians more than what their voters make? I deserve a pay cut, not because I'm not doing my job, but because I think we ought to get closer to the people we represent - and If you think making 174,000 a year is getting closer to your voters, then, maybe you should pluck your head out of the sand and try living in the real America.. |
![]() |
|
| peter | 11 Jun 2013, 09:19 AM Post #11 |
|
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
|
Madam Speaker I completely agree with the Gentlelady from Louisiana. We have a massive deficit of close to a trillion dollars at the moment. While the impact of this Bill will not be massive in reducing that, it does at least show the people we represent that we are willing to take out fair share of the inevitable cuts that must be made to federal spending. At the moment, Congress costs $2.5 billion a year to run. You ask me, that's bloated. You don't want to take my word for it, run that figure by some of your constituents. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Melissa Sanchez | 11 Jun 2013, 09:46 AM Post #12 |
|
Madam Chair, I am somewhat under the impression that my colleagues are not aware of just where this money goes. So one of my staff, who incidentally might well be added to the rolls of the unemployed if this bill should pass, did some research for me. The reimbursement for a Congressperson covers the cost of mailing to their district, which arguably tends to be used mostly at election time; one or more offices in their district, based on the number of non-business addresses; a maximum of 18 permanent personnel, including in Washington itself; and a round trip for the Congressperson and one staffer each year. One. I can assure my colleagues that none of that is ending up in my bank account. Incidentally, if anyone can suggest an inexpensive place to live in the Greater Washington Area, I would appreciate it. I'm still apartment hunting, as I can't afford what I'm finding so far. I yield. the balance of my time. Edited by Melissa Sanchez, 11 Jun 2013, 09:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| peter | 11 Jun 2013, 03:58 PM Post #13 |
|
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
|
Madam Speaker If I may pick up on just one figure used by the gentlelady from Florida. 18 permanent staff! 18. With a maximum salary each of $168,411! The average national wage is just $42,979.61, yet we as a supposedly responsible body get to employ as many as 18 people each on as much as four times the average national wage! We should be setting a good example! I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Terrus | 12 Jun 2013, 12:40 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
Madame Speaker, Congressman Lucas combines two correct figures in an incorrect manner. Each Congressman can employ eighteen staff -- and a staff member can make up to $168,411 -- but no Congressman possesses the capacity to hire eighteen staff members with a salary of $168,411. Most staff members are paid much less, and as for those paid the maximum amount, they'd be unlikely to accept a position in DC, a highly expensive city, if they weren't being compensated well. We return here to the age old debate. Do we pay public servants next to nothing and accept that only the rich and the incompetent will serve, or do we offer good compensation to attract competent, middle-class Americans to the public sector? I prefer the later. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Patrick Callaghan | 12 Jun 2013, 12:46 AM Post #15 |
|
New England Republican >:D
|
Madame Speaker, I rise in full support of this bill. While the actual savings are nowhere near the amount necessary to have a significant impact on our deficit the fact some see that as a reason to oppose even making a small cut simply makes no sense. Congress and the government as a whole has totally forgotten the idea a humility. I would ask any members of Congress considering opposing this bill to reconsider and think how the people of their district would want them to vote. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| The Doctor | 12 Jun 2013, 04:40 AM Post #16 |
|
#Luke2016 (The Hope of Democrats everywhere)
|
Madame Speaker I ask to be enrolled as a co-sponsor of this great bill by Unanimous Consent I yield |
![]() |
|
| Melissa Sanchez | 12 Jun 2013, 11:30 AM Post #17 |
|
Madam Speaker, I ask prrmission to revise and extend my remarks. I currently have four district offices to cover a district approximately 120 miles long and 30 miles wide. The people in these offices are not earning anything near six digits, but they are providing constituent service, much of it to retirees, the elderly, and others who do not have access to electronic means of communication. That you decry this as wasteful and close them ...I can only wonder what you do consider important. Clearly not our constituents. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 12 Jun 2013, 12:22 PM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Debate has now ended. Bill will be moved to a vote. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · House Debate Archives · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:19 PM Jul 11
|
Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ









4:19 PM Jul 11