Yes, but what I heard was that THIS particular bill, that the House just passed, while it contains language involving congressional pay increases, it does not actually meet the criteria needed to be effective as was the bill that was the subject of the last news article that you posted. The way I heard it is that this latest bill contains a 'recommendation', that is not binding and therefore does not have the effect of law, that when it's time to consider whether to vote to suspend their pay raises that they do just that. But what's to say that when that time comes that they actually follow-through.
The reason given for why this is being done this way is that when the actual bill which suspends Congressional pay raises is voted on, it's done in such a manner that if it does NOT pass that it will not create any backlash for those who voted against it. This bill is always very explicit in that it's the only thing in it and it's done using procedures which hides the details as to who voted for or against the bill. In fact it might use a procedure that doesn't actually require a public vote so as to insulate the members of Congress completely from it.
| 