New House bill would block pay for members of Congress if the U.S. defaults
Source: NBC News
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan bill set to be unveiled Thursday by Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., would block members of Congress from getting paid if the U.S. enters debt default or if the government shuts down.
The No Pay for Congress During Default or Shutdown Act, shared in advance with NBC News, would withhold lawmakers' pay for the duration of a debt limit breach or lapse in federal funding, an attempt to motivate legislators to prevent either situation.
The bill comes amid growing fears that the divided Congress may not meet the June 1 deadline set by the Treasury Department to raise the debt limit or risk a catastrophic default on U.S. obligations. And the proposal, from two politically vulnerable members in competitive districts, represents a populist move to channel voter anger toward Congress, which is strong among both parties’ bases.
"If Congress can’t fulfill basic obligations tied to the strength and security of our country, lawmakers should not be rewarded with our salaries until we do our jobs," Spanberger said.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-bill-block-pay-congress-us-hits-debt-ceiling-rcna84973
= new reply since forum marked as read
But I do know that, though HC is not free, the coverage is pretty damned good and within their means to cover premiums.
Either way, they are paid handsomely, with plenty of perks, to do their jobs and they have shown time and again in many cases that they cannot be trusted. In these times, turns out it's perhaps .01% of the Democratic party members are untrustworthy while 100% of the Republican party has shown they are not only untrustworthy, they have proven they want to destroy the country and at least two thirds of the population.
Their pay should be measured against their performance in the doing the peoples' work which they are hired to do.
Anything more and it starts looking too much like an aristocratic corps which they now appear to think they are.
really worried about those millionaires too. 
has "stopped the clock" over weekends when they are finishing up appropriations that have gone beyond the previous appropriations expiration date?
By Niels Lesniewski
Posted October 11, 2011 at 5:37pm
In the 19th century, whenever the Senate ran dangerously short on time to pass critical legislation, Isaac Bassett would extend a pole to the official chamber clock and perform a feat most mortals only dream of. As the assistant doorkeeper from 1861 until his death in 1895, he would push back the hands of the clock at the request of the vice president to forestall adjournment.
The task stirred a mixture of awe and consternation in him. “I wish it distinctly understood that I never did so until I received the order from the vice president or president pro tem of the Senate,” Bassett wrote in personal notes, now recorded on a Senate Historical Office website.
“A number of the most important appropriations bills have been saved and an extra session avoided,” Bassett wrote. “I have nothing to say whether it was constitutional or not, but never in my life while in the service of the Senate (have I) disobeyed an order from the vice president.”
Both chambers of Congress have procedural tricks that allow the majority to circumvent dead ends and strengthen its position. But while the Speaker can pluck his out of thin air, the Senate is beholden to its own restrictive rules and precedents, all of which have been recorded in the 1,608-page tome Riddick’s Senate Procedure.
(snip)
https://rollcall.com/2011/10/11/riddicks-tome-unlocks-quirky-senate-powers/
IOW, they can reference a manufactured trick when needed, and the Senate has actually codified theirs.
Riddick's (Rules for) Senate Procedure
Do it!
