[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5296-H5306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       STOP GOVERNMENT ABUSE ACT

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 322, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 2879) to provide limitations on bonuses for Federal 
employees during sequestration, to provide for investigative leave 
requirements for members of the Senior Executive Service, to establish 
certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions 
by Executive branch employees with individuals, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 
the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2879

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Stop 
     Government Abuse Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
     follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                 TITLE I--COMMON SENSE IN COMPENSATION

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Limitations.
Sec. 103. Regulations.

              TITLE II--GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 201. Suspension for 14 days or less for Senior Executive Service 
              employees.
Sec. 202. Investigative leave and termination authority for Senior 
              Executive Service employees.
Sec. 203. Suspension of Senior Executive Service employees.
Sec. 204. Misappropriation of funds amendments.

                     TITLE III--CITIZEN EMPOWERMENT

Sec. 301. Amendments.

                 TITLE I--COMMON SENSE IN COMPENSATION

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by 
     section 2105(a) of title 5, United States Code) holding a 
     position in or under an Executive agency;
       (2) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
       (3) the term ``discretionary monetary payment'' means--
       (A) any award or other monetary payment under chapter 45, 
     or section 5753 or 5754, of title 5, United States Code; and
       (B) any step-increase under section 5336 of title 5, United 
     States Code;
       (4) the term ``covered compensation'', as used with respect 
     to an employee in connection with any period, means the sum 
     of--
       (A) the basic pay, and
       (B) any discretionary monetary payments (excluding basic 
     pay),
     payable to such employee during such period;
       (5) the term ``basic pay'' means basic pay for service as 
     an employee; and
       (6) the term ``sequestration period'' means a period 
     beginning on the first day of a fiscal year in which a 
     sequestration order with respect to discretionary spending or 
     direct spending is issued under section 251A or section 254 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 and ending on the last day of the fiscal year to which 
     the sequestration order applies.

     SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) no discretionary monetary payment may be made to an 
     employee during any sequestration period to the extent that 
     such payment would cause in a fiscal year the total covered 
     compensation of such employee for such fiscal year to exceed 
     105 percent of the total amount of basic pay payable to such 
     individual (before the application of any step-increase in 
     such fiscal year under section 5336 of title 5, United States 
     Code) for such fiscal year; and
       (2) except as provided in subsection (b), during any 
     sequestration period, an agency may not pay a performance 
     award under section 5384 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     the extent that such payment would cause the number of 
     employees in the agency receiving such award during such 
     period to exceed 33 percent of the total number of employees 
     in the agency eligible to receive such award during such 
     period.
       (b) Waivers.--For the purposes of any sequestration 
     period--
       (1) the head of any agency may, subject to approval by the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management, waive the 
     requirements of subsection (a)(2); and
       (2) the head of any agency may waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a)(1) with respect to any employee if the 
     requirements of such subsection would violate the terms of a 
     collective bargaining agreement covering such employee, 
     except that this paragraph shall not apply to any employee 
     covered by a collective bargaining agreement that is renewed 
     on or after the date of enactment of this title.
       (c) Notification.--In the case of an agency for which the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management grants a 
     waiver under subsection (b)(1), the agency shall notify the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate of the percentage of 
     career appointees receiving performance awards under section 
     5384 of title 5, United States Code, and the dollar amount of 
     each performance award.
       (d) Application.--This section shall apply to any 
     discretionary monetary payment or performance award under 
     section 5384 of title 5, United States Code, made on or after 
     the date of enactment of this title.

     SEC. 103. REGULATIONS.

       The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe 
     regulations to carry out this title.

              TITLE II--GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 201. SUSPENSION FOR 14 DAYS OR LESS FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVE 
                   SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 7501 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) `employee' means--
       ``(A) an individual in the competitive service who is not 
     serving a probationary or trial period under an initial 
     appointment or who has completed 1 year of current continuous 
     employment in the same or similar positions under other than 
     a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less; or
       ``(B) a career appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
     who--
       ``(i) has completed the probationary period prescribed 
     under section 3393(d); or
       ``(ii) was covered by the provisions of subchapter II of 
     this chapter immediately before appointment to the Senior 
     Executive Service;''.

     SEC. 202. INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE AND TERMINATION AUTHORITY FOR 
                   SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H5297]]

   ``SUBCHAPTER VI--INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE 
                               EMPLOYEES

     ``Sec. 7551. Definitions

       ``For the purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(1) `employee' has the meaning given such term in section 
     7541; and
       ``(2) `investigative leave' means a temporary absence 
     without duty for disciplinary reasons, of a period not 
     greater than 90 days.

     ``Sec. 7552. Actions covered

       ``This subchapter applies to investigative leave.

     ``Sec. 7553. Cause and procedure

       ``(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management, an agency may place an employee on 
     investigative leave, without loss of pay and without charge 
     to annual or sick leave, only for misconduct, neglect of 
     duty, malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds.
       ``(2) If an agency determines, as prescribed in regulation 
     by the Office of Personnel Management, that such employee's 
     conduct is flagrant and that such employee intentionally 
     engaged in such conduct, the agency may place such employee 
     on investigative leave under this subchapter without pay.
       ``(b)(1) At the end of each 45-day period during a period 
     of investigative leave implemented under this section, the 
     relevant agency shall review the investigation into the 
     employee with respect to the misconduct, neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds.
       ``(2) Not later than 5 business days after the end of each 
     such 45-day period, the agency shall submit a report 
     describing such review to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate.
       ``(3) At the end of a period of investigative leave 
     implemented under this section, the agency shall--
       ``(A) remove an employee placed on investigative leave 
     under this section;
       ``(B) suspend such employee without pay; or
       ``(C) reinstate or restore such employee to duty.
       ``(4) The agency may extend the period of investigative 
     leave with respect to an action under this subchapter for an 
     additional period not to exceed 90 days.
       ``(c) An employee against whom an action covered by this 
     subchapter is proposed is entitled to, before being placed on 
     investigative leave under this section--
       ``(1) at least 30 days' advance written notice, stating 
     specific reasons for the proposed action, unless--
       ``(A) there is reasonable cause to believe that the 
     employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of 
     imprisonment can be imposed; or
       ``(B) the agency determines, as prescribed in regulation by 
     the Office of Personnel Management, that the employee's 
     conduct with respect to which an action covered by this 
     subchapter is proposed is flagrant and that such employee 
     intentionally engaged in such conduct;
       ``(2) a reasonable time, but not less than 7 days, to 
     answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and 
     other documentary evidence in support of the answer;
       ``(3) be represented by an attorney or other 
     representative; and
       ``(4) a written decision and specific reasons therefor at 
     the earliest practicable date.
       ``(d) An agency may provide, by regulation, for a hearing 
     which may be in lieu of or in addition to the opportunity to 
     answer provided under subsection (c)(2).
       ``(e) An employee against whom an action is taken under 
     this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board under section 7701.
       ``(f) Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer 
     of the employee when written, and a summary thereof when made 
     orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefor, and any 
     order effecting an action covered by this subchapter, 
     together with any supporting material, shall be maintained by 
     the agency and shall be furnished to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board upon its request and to the employee 
     affected upon the employee's request.

    ``SUBCHAPTER VII--REMOVAL OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES

     ``Sec. 7561. Definition

       ``For purposes of this subchapter, the term `employee' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 7541.

     ``Sec. 7562. Removal of Senior Executive Service employees

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     consistent with the requirements of subsection (b), the head 
     of an agency may remove an employee for serious neglect of 
     duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance if the head 
     of the agency--
       ``(1) determines that the employee knowingly acted in a 
     manner that endangers the interest of the agency mission;
       ``(2) considers the removal to be necessary or advisable in 
     the interests of the United States; and
       ``(3) determines that the procedures prescribed in other 
     provisions of law that authorize the removal of such employee 
     cannot be invoked in a manner that the head of an agency 
     considers consistent with the efficiency of the Government.
       ``(b) An employee may not be removed under this section--
       ``(1) on any basis that would be prohibited under--
       ``(A) any provision of law referred to in section 
     2302(b)(1); or
       ``(B) paragraphs (8) or (9) of section 2302(b); or
       ``(2) on any basis, described in paragraph (1), as to which 
     any administrative or judicial proceeding--
       ``(A) has been commenced by or on behalf of such employee; 
     and
       ``(B) is pending.
       ``(c) An employee removed under this section shall be 
     notified of the reasons for such removal. Within 30 days 
     after the notification, the employee is entitled to submit to 
     the official designated by the head of the agency statements 
     or affidavits to show why the employee should be restored to 
     duty. If such statements and affidavits are submitted, the 
     head of the agency shall provide a written response, and may 
     restore the employee's employment if the head of the agency 
     chooses.
       ``(d) Whenever the head of the agency removes an employee 
     under the authority of this section, the head of the agency 
     shall notify Congress of such termination, and the specific 
     reasons for the action.
       ``(e) An employee against whom an action is taken under 
     this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board under section 7701 of this title.
       ``(f) Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer 
     of the employee when written, and a summary thereof when made 
     orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefor, and any 
     order effecting an action covered by this subchapter, 
     together with any supporting material, shall be maintained by 
     the agency and shall be furnished to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board upon its request and to the employee 
     affected upon the employee's request.
       ``(g) A removal under this section does not affect the 
     right of the employee affected to seek or accept employment 
     with any other department or agency of the United States if 
     that employee is declared eligible for such employment by the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
       ``(h) The authority of the head of the agency under this 
     section may not be delegated.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 7543 the 
     following:

   ``subchapter vi--investigative leave for senior executive service 
                               employees

``7551. Definitions.
``7552. Actions covered.
``7553. Cause and procedure.

     ``subchapter vii--removal of senior executive service employees

``7561. Definition.
``7562. Removal of Senior Executive Service employees.''.

     SEC. 203. SUSPENSION OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

       Section 7543 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``misappropriation of 
     funds,'' after ``malfeasance,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) at least 30 days' advance written notice, stating 
     specific reasons for the proposed action, unless--
       ``(A) there is reasonable cause to believe that the 
     employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of 
     imprisonment can be imposed; or
       ``(B) the agency determines, as prescribed in regulation by 
     the Office of Personnel Management, that the employee's 
     conduct with respect to which an action covered by this 
     subchapter is proposed is flagrant and that such employee 
     intentionally engaged in such conduct;''.

     SEC. 204. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Reinstatement in the Senior Executive Service.--Section 
     3593 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``misappropriation 
     of funds,'' after ``malfeasance,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or malfeasance'' and 
     inserting ``malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds''.
       (b) Placement in Other Personnel Systems.--Section 3594(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 
     malfeasance'' and inserting ``malfeasance, or 
     misappropriation of funds''.

                     TITLE III--CITIZEN EMPOWERMENT

     SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Part III of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after chapter 79 the following:

            ``CHAPTER 79A--SERVICES TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

``Sec.
``7921. Procedure for in-person and telephonic interactions conducted 
              by Executive Branch employees.

     ``Sec. 7921. Procedure for in-person and telephonic 
       interactions conducted by Executive Branch employees

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure 
     that individuals have the right to record in-person and 
     telephonic interactions with Executive agency employees and 
     to ensure that individuals who are the target of enforcement 
     actions conducted by

[[Page H5298]]

     Executive agency employees are notified of such right.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `telephonic' means by telephone or other 
     similar electronic device; and
       ``(2) the term `employee' means an employee of an Executive 
     agency.
       ``(c) Consent of Executive Agency Employees.--Participation 
     by an employee, acting in an official capacity, in an in-
     person or telephonic interaction shall constitute consent by 
     the employee to a recording of that interaction by any 
     participant in the interaction.
       ``(d) Notice of Rights When Federal Employees Engaged in 
     Certain Actions.--A notice of an individual's right to record 
     conversations with employees shall be included in any written 
     material provided by an Executive agency to the individual 
     concerning an audit, investigation, inspection, or 
     enforcement action that could result in the imposition of a 
     fine, forfeiture of property, civil monetary penalty, or 
     criminal penalty against, or the collection of an unpaid tax, 
     fine, or penalty from, such individual or a business owned or 
     operated by such individual.
       ``(e) Official Representative.--Any person who is permitted 
     to represent before an Executive agency an individual under 
     this section shall receive the same notice as required under 
     subsection (d) with respect to such individual.
       ``(f) No Cause of Action.--This section does not create any 
     express or implied private right of action.
       ``(g) Disciplinary Action.--An employee who violates this 
     section shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action 
     in accordance with otherwise applicable provisions of law.
       ``(h) Public Information Concerning Right To Record.--
       ``(1) Posting on agency web sites.--Within 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, each Executive 
     agency shall post prominently on its Web site information 
     explaining the right of individuals to record interactions 
     with employees.
       ``(2) OMB guidance.--Within 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall issue guidance to Executive agencies concerning 
     implementation of paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for part III of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to chapter 79 the following:

``79A. Services to members of the public....................7921''.....

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 2879 and include extraneous materials thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act, combines 
three bills that were each voice voted out of my committee. They are 
H.R. 1541, the Common Sense in Compensation Act; H.R. 2579, the 
Government Employee Accountability Act; and H.R. 2711, the Citizen 
Empowerment Act.
  The Common Sense in Compensation title of this bill brings common 
sense to the policies of governing employee bonuses while still 
providing agencies flexibility to recognize outstanding performance.
  Madam Speaker, 75 percent of senior executives will receive bonuses 
of at least $6,000 while more than 650,000 defense employees are in the 
midst of 11 furlough days. This sends the wrong message to our Federal 
workforce. The men and women of the Federal workforce work hard--all of 
them.
  Some of them do exceptional work, and bonuses are not only an 
incentive but a recognition. But these bonuses come on top of annual 
salaries ranging from $119,554 to over $179,000. Going in the range of 
$30,000 or more sends a message to many of our Federal workforce--in 
fact, Madam Speaker, most of our Federal workforce--that people at the 
top get even more.
  Following the President's decision to impose a 2-year pay freeze, the 
administration issued a memo limiting the amount available to pay 
bonuses for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Moreover, this past February, 
the administration issued a memo limiting bonuses to those legally 
required. In June, the administration suspended rank awards for senior 
leaders. H.R. 1541 builds on the President's initiatives.
  The Government Employee Accountability title of the bill helps ensure 
Senior Executive Service employees are held accountable for their 
actions while maintaining due process rights. From Jeff Neely at GSA to 
Lois Lerner at the IRS, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
has uncovered numerous examples of high-ranking government officials 
engaging in behavior that certainly seems to be contrary to the 
principles of public service.
  When people come before Congress and cannot even answer questions as 
to what they have done in their official capacity by ``taking the 
Fifth'' and find themselves fully paid for not working, it sends the 
wrong message to the vast majority of Federal workers. In some cases, 
these employees could face civil or criminal penalties.
  In the private sector, these behaviors would be grounds for serious 
disciplinary action and, likely, termination. But in the Federal 
bureaucracy, that isn't what happened. Only in Washington could these 
employees be not terminated but, instead, placed on administrative 
leave with full pay, full benefits, and accruing additional retirement.
  This bill provides agencies with additional tools to use when senior 
managers behave badly. It does not require these tools be used, but it 
makes them available. A similar version of this bill was passed by the 
House by a vote of 402-2 in the last Congress.
  The final title of the bill before us today consists of the text of 
House Resolution 2711, the Citizen Empowerment Act, as reported from my 
committee. This legislation protects individual citizens from 
harassment, intimidation, and inappropriate behavior by a few Federal 
officials representing agencies such as the IRS, EPA, and the SEC.
  Unfortunately, these few bad actors at agencies have, from time to 
time, threatened, intimidated, coerced, lied, or violated the public 
trust. And yet, in 12 out of our 50 States, citizens are not empowered 
to unilaterally record these conversations for their own protection. In 
38 States, they may. We simply seek, in this bill, to harmonize across 
the government a predictability. When intimidation and wrong behavior 
happens, we need to make sure that there is a simple solution that 
every American can avail themselves of.
  This bill ensures individuals have a right to record in-person 
meetings and telephone calls with Federal employees, including 
regulatory officials engaged in enforcement activities that can lead to 
the imposition of fines and penalties. In essence, what this bill does 
is provide consistency on behalf of the Federal employees acting in 
their official capacity. I want to make that very clear, Madam Speaker.
  Federal employees today don't have an easy answer. In some States--38 
of them--they can be recorded; in one State, they may be recorded; and 
in 11 States, they are likely not to be recorded because, in fact, it 
requires their advance permission. Uniformity across the Federal 
workforce is a good thing. We believe that it also will tell every 
member to treat people the same, whether they live in a State where 
they may be recorded or not.
  I encourage all Members to support these three bills and remind all 
that these passed on a voice vote out of our committee and were not 
considered controversial in the previous Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2879 and to the 
failure of this House to address the issues of real concern to the 
American people and the people of my district.
  Congress has been in session now for more than 200 days, and yet we 
have not passed a single bill to create a single job. The government 
must be funded by October, yet House Republicans have refused to 
appoint conferees to resolve a budget resolution after repeatedly 
calling for regular order.
  After bringing to the floor a farm bill that gutted the SNAP program 
on which tens of millions of hungry Americans depend, including 17 
million children, the majority brought a T-HUD appropriations measure 
that would have gutted the Community Development Block Grant program, 
the HOME

[[Page H5299]]

program, Amtrak, and the effort to modernize our Nation's air traffic 
control system. It became clear this week, however, that the majority 
did not have the votes to pass it.
  We could be working today to end the damaging cuts imposed by the 
Ryan budget, which the Republican chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee called ``unrealistic and ill-conceived.'' That's the 
Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Instead of working 
on any of these issues, we're wasting the last days remaining before a 
5-week recess on a measure that threatens to impede our Nation's law 
enforcement efforts and continues senseless attacks on our Nation's 
civil servants.
  H.R. 2879, the bill before us now, was thrown together last night 
from the ruins of three bills the majority did not have the votes to 
pass yesterday. The Rules Committee had to call an emergency meeting 
last night to push this bill through, and no amendments are being 
allowed.
  So what would this legislation do? First and foremost, it would 
undermine our Nation's law enforcement activities. In fact, this bill 
should more appropriately be called the ``Ignoring the Concerns of Law 
Enforcement Act.'' It would allow individuals to record telephone calls 
and in-person conversations with Federal employees, including Federal 
law enforcement agents, without their knowledge. The Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Assistant 
United States Attorneys, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents 
Association have all written letters opposing these provisions.
  The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote:

       This legislation puts law enforcement activities at risk 
     and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are 
     asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from 
     terrorists and criminals.

  The Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association wrote:

       This proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by 
     reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate with law 
     enforcement, and would result in the creation of recordings 
     of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize 
     sensitive and important criminal and counterterrorism 
     investigations.

  This morning, after listening to the debate we had here on this floor 
yesterday, and after this bill was filed last night, the National 
Association of Assistant United States Attorneys sent a letter to every 
Member of the House, opposing the bill. Their letter states:

       Section 301 of H.R. 2879 will undermine Federal civil 
     enforcement activities and criminal prosecutions during the 
     investigative, pretrial, trial, and enforcement phases of 
     litigation involving the interests of the United States.

  The fact is that we have held no hearings on this legislation before 
we marked it up in committee last week. We had no testimony from law 
enforcement officials about their concerns with the bill. Instead, the 
House Republicans rushed it to the floor without adequate 
consideration. In fact, in their rush to bring this bill to the floor, 
committee Republicans apparently did not even contact key law 
enforcement agencies to make sure this bill would not harm ongoing 
investigations.
  This morning, I directed my staff to contact the Department of 
Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, including 
its operational components, the Secret Service and Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement. Officials from all of these entities have now 
reported that they have significant operational concerns with the bill.
  Does that matter to the supporters of this bill? Don't you think it 
makes sense to hear from key stakeholders before changing Federal law 
in this extreme way?
  The bill also would interfere with existing State laws prescribing 
the conditions under which conversations can be recorded. Thirty-six 
years ago, my home State of Maryland enacted a law that made it a 
felony to record a private conversation unless every party to the 
conversation consents to the recording or another exception applies. 
Maryland statute requires actual consent, not forced or assumed 
consent. The bill negates these protections--and the protections of 11 
other States--by deeming Federal employees, including all law 
enforcement personnel, to have consented to the recording of their 
official conversations just by coming to work.
  The bill has several other troubling provisions. It would remove due 
process protections from members of our Senior Executive Service by 
giving politically appointed agency heads broad discretion to fire 
these employees without providing advance notice, without conducting a 
proper investigation, and without giving employees an opportunity to 
respond to accusations against them.
  Under this bill, employees could be fired and then forced to prove 
their innocence to seek reinstatement. This turns on its head the most 
basic protection guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution: the 
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  I urge Members to reject this senseless, ill-considered legislation 
that will impede law enforcement activities and eliminate 
constitutional protections for civil servants. I urge Members to vote 
``no'' on H.R. 2879, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. This is probably Groundhog Day, because these were the same 
statements made yesterday by the ranking member from Maryland, who 
implied that somehow what happens in 38 States would be draconian if it 
happened in 12 more.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  We have seen too many examples of our Nation's bureaucracy making 
life harder for Americans and their families. Every weekend, when I 
return to Kansas, I hear story after story of Federal regulators 
abusing their power. But far too often, many of these people are afraid 
to tell their stories in public because they fear retribution. What 
country do we live in where Americans are afraid to tell the truth 
because they fear what their government might do to them?
  The recent revelations that IRS officials targeted conservative 
organizations has shown light on the immense power Federal bureaucrats 
from hundreds of different agencies have over matters both large and 
small. When these officials abuse their power and waste taxpayer 
dollars, liberty is eroded, the economy is slowed, trust is lost, and 
the rule of law is betrayed.
  The most troubling part is, when Americans are confronted by agency 
officials, they have few rights and insufficient resources to protect 
themselves. Not only do Federal agencies get to write rules, but they 
get to enforce them too. In fact, a citizen is 10 times more likely to 
be tried by a Federal agency than an actual court, and citizens have 
fewer rights during agency proceedings than in a courtroom.
  I introduced the Stop Government Abuse Act to allow citizens to 
protect themselves or their small businesses when a government official 
comes calling. Among other things, this bill gives Americans a new tool 
to fight back by allowing them to record any conversation with most 
Federal agencies and finally have proof of what happens in these 
interactions.
  Is it any wonder why Americans have lost faith and trust in our 
government when the Feds have allowed the IRS to target Americans based 
on their personal beliefs; allowed the Federal General Services 
Administration regional commissioner, Jeff Neely, to spend nearly 
$900,000 of taxpayer money on a conference in Las Vegas and then 
receive a bonus after being placed under investigation? And they have 
allowed high-ranking bureaucrats like Lois Lerner to still be on the 
government's payroll funded by taxpayers.
  This stunning lack of accountability and transparency in our current 
system is unacceptable. And the Stop Government Abuse Act is a good 
first step to help level the playing field between the average American 
and Federal regulators.
  The vast majority of Federal workers are good, patriotic people, but 
that doesn't mean that an additional check and balance can't help. This 
bill does not villainize Federal employees. And as long as they're 
doing their jobs properly, they have not a thing to worry about.
  Unfortunately, with all the recent scandals, we have heard about far 
too many Federal employees who have had the luxury of playing by 
different rules than the rest of the hardworking men

[[Page H5300]]

and women in this country. This must end, and the Stop Government Abuse 
Act helps do just that.
  Parts of this legislation already passed the House last year after 
news broke of the GSA scandal, but the Senate never acted on the 
legislation. It's time to do something about this, and today I demand 
action be taken.
  While Americans are toiling across this country in factories, on 
farms, and elsewhere, to make ends meet, Lois Lerner is collecting her 
full paycheck. This bill would allow agencies to fire reckless 
employees on the spot and stop those under investigation from receiving 
salaries paid for by the very taxpayers they abused.
  It's time to stand up against Big Government overreach and abuse. 
Americans deserve a government that expands their rights, not the 
rights of Big Government. Enacting the Stop Government Abuse Act will 
help restore trust in our government and get Big Government out of the 
way of our economy.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the wise words 
of his opening statement. I also thank him for retrieving the views of 
law enforcement officials--inasmuch as we had no hearing on this bill. 
They were very informative.
  Madam Speaker, with most of the business of the Nation languishing 
with no action in this House, Republicans have rushed to the floor with 
these so-called ``messaging'' bills. Let's make sure we get the 
message:
  Republicans--the party that champions states' rights--want to preempt 
the States, to require Federal employees acting for the government to 
record conversations with clients. Republicans--the party that wants 
the Federal Government to operate like the private sector and pay 
people on the basis of merit--wants to deny bonuses to Federal 
employees who deserve them, regardless of merit. Perhaps worst of all, 
Madam Speaker, Republicans--who spent most of this term accusing IRS 
employees of denying due process to Republican organizations--now 
propose to fire SES employees without due process.
  And get this: the Republican version of due process is to give the 
employee the right to apply for reinstatement to the political 
appointee who fired him. Then, after the fact, having never had a 
hearing, the dismissed employee can now appeal to the MSPB. This last 
one, of course, reverses the age-old principle of innocent until proven 
guilty, but it's much worse. Not only is there no due process, there's 
no process at all. You're fired. That one is embarrassingly 
unconstitutional.
  These are messaging bills all right, Madam Speaker, and we get the 
message. Republican principles apply--except when they don't.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, today I want to speak a little bit from 
the heart.
  We've heard a lot of debate going back and forth about how we haven't 
talked about this and how we haven't debated it, but there have been a 
number of amendments. As this bill comes to the floor today, what it's 
about is about fairness; it's about fairness to employees; it's about 
fairness to those who manage. And what we're seeing is that there is a 
trend where we're not being fair with bonuses.
  You know, I've had my colleagues opposite here talk about the fact 
that we need to continue to incentivize. But when 75 percent of senior 
executive employees receive bonuses at an average of $11,000, it's out 
of control. This little chart shows that the Veterans Administration, 
74 percent of those employees received bonuses of over $11,000 apiece. 
Now, why is this a problem? Because back in my district, the veterans 
are having to wait over 600 days, Madam Speaker, to get a determination 
on benefits, and yet we continue to give bonuses. I find that 
appalling.
  The other part of that is we talk about being for small businesses, 
and small businesses are hurting. So what do we do with the Small 
Business Administration? Ninety-two percent of those employees are 
getting over $13,000 a year in bonuses. It's appalling, Madam Speaker. 
We need to make sure that we bring it back.
  We've got Mr. Spock there that was part of the ``Star Trek'' parody 
that received a bonus of almost $31,000 the same year that he spent 
over $5 million on a conference. Where is the sanity?
  When we really talk about Federal employees, the rank and file, the 
blue collar Federal employees, are going with pay freezes while we pay 
out ridiculous bonuses. Madam Speaker, I think it's time that we really 
turn back the tide.
  You know, if the Democrats are going to vote against this particular 
bill, the headline tomorrow should read that the Democrats have 
embraced the 1 percenters, because that's what it is. It is 1 percent 
getting all the bonuses while the rest of the Federal workers are not 
receiving the benefits that they deserve.
  It is time that we bring some sanity to this situation. I strongly 
urge support of this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a member of our committee.
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2879, the so-called ``Stop 
Government Abuse Act.'' This legislation is simply a rehash of the 
three attacks on Federal workers that were incorporated in the bills 
that the Republican leadership abruptly pulled from the suspension 
calendar yesterday due to a lack of support from the required two-
thirds majority of this House.
  The fact that these anti-Federal worker suspension bills have now 
been reconstituted into a single anti-Federal worker bill does not make 
this legislation any less misguided or any less harmful to our Federal 
workers than it was yesterday. After all, H.R. 2879 is based on the 
same message that has been continually reflected in a series of 
Republican legislative attacks on our Federal workers throughout this 
Congress. That message from the Republican leadership has been that our 
hardworking Federal employees cannot be trusted, and they are the 
primary source of our deficit burden.
  On the heels of repeated attempts to freeze Federal employee pay 
beyond the current 3 years, efforts to increase Federal pension 
contributions and slash our Federal workforce across the board, we are 
now considering legislation that would only add insult to injure by 
depriving Federal employees of their constitutional rights to due 
process of law.
  In particular, I'm deeply concerned about the expedited termination 
provisions in H.R. 2879. These provisions would give agency heads broad 
discretion, without limitation, to immediately fire senior executives 
accused of misconduct without notifying the employees of the charges 
against them and without giving them a reasonable opportunity to defend 
themselves. Instead, it places the burden on the employee, after they 
fire them, to prove that their reinstatement is required. This ``ready, 
fire, aim'' approach by my Republican colleagues, where they fire the 
employee first and ask questions later, flies in the face of the rights 
guaranteed to all Americans under our Constitution.
  The ``guilty until proven innocent'' framework violates the due 
process protections envisioned by James Madison and guaranteed under 
the Constitution. In 1985, in Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of 
Education, the United States Supreme Court held that public employees, 
Federal employees, who are facing discipline are entitled to certain 
due process rights. The U.S. Supreme Court held that public servants 
had a property right in the jobs that they held and in continued 
employment, and that such employment could not be denied to employees 
unless they were given a meaningful opportunity to have notice of the 
allegations against them, to have a fair hearing and an opportunity to 
respond against the charges against them. Notably, that must occur 
prior to being deprived of their right to employment. The court stated:

       An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation 
     of life, liberty, or property be preceded by notice and 
     opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the 
     case.

  The court goes on further and it says:

       This principle requires some kind of a hearing prior to 
     discharge of an employee

[[Page H5301]]

     who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his 
     employment.

  Now, this is unconstitutional. This provision is flatly 
unconstitutional, and there's a long line of Federal cases under the 
Supreme Court that declares it so. The one saving grace, in my opinion, 
in this bill is that there's no severability clause, and that after 
this provision is struck down by the Supreme Court, these employees 
will all be reinstated with back pay. And the whole bill that they're 
offering will be struck down because of the lack of a severability 
clause in the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Look, this Nation was founded on the principle that every person, 
every man and woman is entitled to due process before he or she is 
deprived of life, liberty, or property. Our Supreme Court in the 
Loudermill case understood the injustice of depriving a person of their 
livelihood, and I hope that my colleagues understand that H.R. 2879 
unfortunately would do just that.
  Due process demands that we oppose H.R. 2879. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting ``no'' on this legislation.
  I thank the ranking member for his advocacy and his courtesy.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is entitled to his opinion, 
but not his facts.
  In the bill itself, which I read yesterday, it says:

       An employee removed under this section shall be notified of 
     the reasons for such removal within 30 days.

                              {time}  1645

  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to explain a 
little bit about what's going on.
  The other day we talked a little bit about the dizzying effects of 
being on this floor, and somehow things get twisted around, so when you 
see people bumping off the walls you know it's because of the spin.
  Let me tell you what I'm talking about here today. When I walked on 
the floor today--and some of my friends did also--we passed the Capitol 
Police, passed all these people on the dais, we passed so many people 
on the way, and you would think that we are talking about every single 
person that works for the government.
  Now, the truth of the matter is that there are over 2.1 million 
people working for the government. That doesn't include the Army. It 
doesn't include the post office. That includes people who are out 
there. So the people that we are talking about that we want to hold 
accountable--and, my goodness, what an unusual effort for Congress to 
try and hold people accountable. Why in the world would you do that? 
Half of us wouldn't be back here.
  So we are talking about four-tenths of 1 percent. And as the 
President is fond of saying: ``Just do the arithmetic. Just do the 
arithmetic.'' It isn't everybody that you talked about. It's not all 
these folks that are sitting here tonight. It's not the Capitol Police 
that we walk by. It's not the people that clean our offices every 
night. It's none of those folks. It's the senior executives.
  Now, these poor people are going to be under such great duress by 
this that they're probably going to get their resumes together and that 
loud ``whoosh'' you hear is them running away from $199,000 a year 
jobs. Are you kidding me? You can't say that with a straight face about 
how are we ever going to keep qualified people here.
  I got to tell you something. I've got a lot of unemployed people back 
in northwest Pennsylvania that will line up for these jobs. Now, the 
$199,000, of course, is the top of it. But the real kicker is they 
can't go over $230,000 with their bonuses. These are people that are 
going to walk away from these jobs because we have the unmitigated gall 
to hold them accountable to the people who pay those wages, and that's 
the American taxpayers. That's who we are talking about. My goodness, 
have we fallen that far away from what this country was supposed to be?
  Now, here's all we are saying to them--and we came about this because 
in a hearing on the GSA we asked about why is Mr. Neely on leave with 
pay. The people at the GSA say: ``Well, you see, you don't understand, 
Congress. We don't have any mechanism to put them on leave without 
pay.'' I said: ``I have never heard anything like that.'' Of course I 
haven't heard it because I come from the private sector. We don't do 
that in the private sector. But what I did find out was they would love 
to have that.
  The people we put in charge of these agencies would actually love to 
be able to hold those that work for them accountable and responsible. 
So what did we give them? We gave them the ability to do that. They can 
fire somebody on the spot. But we didn't do anything about their due 
process. That person is still entitled to come back and any protections 
under the law he or she still gets.
  We can create an investigation on a leave without pay, but we also 
require that the agencies report to Congress every 45 days to let us 
know where the investigation is. My goodness, there's nothing harder in 
this body than trying to get information when there's an investigation 
under way. I just think that we've seen that the last couple of months, 
of: ``You want to get the information? Well, we can't talk about it now 
because there's an investigation going on.'' It doesn't make sense to 
me. It doesn't make sense to the people I represent.
  Now, you know when we talk about protecting American workers and we 
talk about what our duty is here, we were elected by a group of people 
from districts all over this country to come and represent them. 
According to the IRS, there are 145 million Americans who pay taxes. 
They file their taxes every year. There's 300 million out there, but 
145 million pay taxes.
  That's who it is that we are trying to protect. They're the ones that 
pay for every single thing that happens here. Or they cosign the note 
on the loan to keep this place floating.
  So I want you to look at this now. There are ``total Federal 
employees''--2.1 million. Now, this little red sliver--and it's really 
hard to see--remember, this represents four-tenths of 1 percent. As the 
President would say: ``It's all about the arithmetic. It's all about 
the arithmetic.'' I would say to my colleagues on both sides, it's all 
about the people we represent.
  I appreciate the spin. I appreciate the fact that you like to make 
every Capitol policeman think that he's unappreciated or she's 
unappreciated, or that everyone that works in our office is 
unappreciated, or that everybody from the private sector that works for 
this great Nation is unappreciated, but you know it's not true and you 
know what you are saying is not true.
  What I would love to see is for you to stand up on this floor and 
look at people and say, this is what's going on, and you know it's not 
true. You absolutely know it's not true, but you say it anyway. And 
why? Because it wears well.
  Thank you for bringing this legislation up, and thank you for 
protecting the American taxpayer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that they are to 
address their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members in the 
second person.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time both 
sides have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Supreme Court Loudermill case, which Mr. Lynch cited, says that 
the employee must be given notice before they are fired and an 
opportunity to respond. This bill, basically you're fired and then you 
appeal trying to get your job back, so you don't really truly have 
notice.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Maryland.
  Madam Speaker, the distinguished manager on the other side of this 
bill says you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, 
in taking to task my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) in his 
reading of this bill. And I've got the bill in front of me. It says 
that ``at least 30 days' advance written notice stating specific 
reasons for the proposed action''--that is to

[[Page H5302]]

say, the removal or suspension of an employee--``unless there's a 
reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime or the 
agency determines, as prescribed in regulation, that the employee's 
conduct with respect to an action covered by the subchapters proposed 
is flagrant and such employee intends to engage in such contact,'' and 
then you can be removed without that notice.
  So Mr. Lynch was right: facts are stubborn things.
  If we really wanted to understand the motivation behind the 
legislation in front of us, it is a cynical political ploy before this 
Congress goes out on recess to allow one whole party and its Members to 
go home and avoid discussing the tough issues of the day and make the 
Federal employee the bogeyman. That Federal employee, whoever he or she 
is, vaguely abuses you, and you need to be protected against them.
  So we are going to pass a bunch of bills that had no hearings, that 
are flawed in their drafting, that had to be removed from the floor 
yesterday and redrafted in order to come back today to qualify for a 
vote, because they otherwise wouldn't have passed on a suspension rule, 
and it is all part of this consistent and flagrant and, in my opinion, 
reckless campaign to demonize the public servants who serve us. And the 
loser ultimately in this game, this political game, will be the 
constituents they serve and we are supposed to serve.
  It is not right to demonize Federal employees, and we've done that. 
We've cut their pay. We've frozen their pay for 3 years. We've raided 
their pensions to try to finance things that have no relationship 
whatsoever to Federal employment per se, and we've characterized them 
in disparaging and negative ways that are not worthy of this body.
  So it's all right. Go home, campaign against the Federal employee, 
and maybe you will make some headway. Maybe, in fact, it's a brilliant 
move short term, in terms of short-term political gain. But it's at 
long-term expense--expense at the truth and expense of the men and 
women who serve this country ably every day and who deserve better from 
their elected representatives.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from Virginia 
would have kept this person on for how long--weeks, months, more than a 
year? This individual received a bonus after more than a year.
  When this bill came through our committee, the amendment to say ``in 
all cases 30 days'' could have been offered; it wasn't. This came 
through in regular order of the committee. The language was published. 
There was every opportunity.
  When the gentleman from Virginia said ``redrafted,'' with all due 
respect, not a word was changed in any of these three bills from the 
time it left our committee until today when it's being considered.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).
  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Madam Speaker, Federal agencies not only get to write rules, they get 
to enforce them. It was recently noted that a citizen is ten times more 
likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In any given 
year, Federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, 
including trials, while Federal agencies complete more than 939,000--
939,000.
  In these agency proceedings, citizens have fewer rights than in a 
courtroom. And unfortunately, there are some bad actors who intimidate, 
coerce, or even lie, violating public trust and potentially breaking 
laws. Far too often, the public is left without evidence to help prove 
Federal employees mistreated them.
  For example, the SEC bowing to political pressure to scrutinize 
donations to tax-exempt groups; IRS employees targeting Tea Party 
groups applying for tax-exempt status; and other agencies that are 
writing and enforcing rules and regulations written in legalese to 
confuse and frustrate the public.
  Title III of this bill ensures that individuals have the right to 
record their meetings and telephone exchanges with Federal regulatory 
officials engaged in enforcement activities.
  The manager's amendment adopted in committee ensures that law 
enforcement would not be impacted adversely. Undercover investigations 
and wiretap surveillance would not be interfered with.
  This legislation does not supersede any State laws, and it has no 
impact on citizen interactions with non-Federal officials such as State 
and local police officers.
  Madam Speaker, it is the duty of Congress to protect rights, not take 
them away. This legislation is just another step in protecting the 
rights of our citizens.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend.
  Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of this committee throws a 
picture up on the floor and, of course, doesn't allow me to respond 
when he demands ``is this what the gentleman from Virginia is talking 
about.''
  It is wrong for the chairman of the distinguished committee to 
suggest or allow the inference to be drawn that somehow that picture 
represents all Federal employees. And the gentleman who just spoke, 
talking about rights, what about the rights of the employees who serve 
our country, what about their rights that are being trampled on in this 
legislation?
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak. I was constrained to speak, 
to come to the floor, when we had this chart about 2 million employees.
  But only adversely affecting just a small sliver. The premise seems 
to be you can undermine--as long as they're a small minority--the 
rights of people.
  And those Capitol policemen of which the gentleman spoke, and the 
people at the desk of whom the gentleman spoke, people who serve in our 
committees of whom the gentleman spoke, people who serve as nurses--not 
necessarily in VA hospitals because they're exempt--zero COLA 4 years 
in a row. All 2 million have been affected.

                              {time}  1700

  Every new employee has been affected--everyone--not just that small, 
little sliver that apparently the SES is. They don't get rights. If it 
were 1.98 million, well, then, that's a different story, but as long as 
it's only a small sliver, undermine their rights.
  I came to the floor to say that, if we undermine the rights of one, 
frankly, the rights of all are soon at risk. We have learned that 
throughout history. So I would hope that we would reject this bill, 
which was seven or eight bills to start out with, which were put up 
here in a way that you could not amend them--suspension--in this 
transparent, open, ``let the House work its will'' process, and we now 
come back with a closed rule, putting all the bills in one--a rule 
covering all seven bills--and the chairman shakes his head and shows 
pictures and believes those are facts.
  My friends, we ought to reject these bills because they are about all 
employees. They may affect only a small few at this juncture, but they 
are about all employees; and it's about undermining their rights and 
the respect we ought to accord to them for the service they give to the 
people of the United States of America.
  Mr. ISSA. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the gentleman from 
Maryland as he talks about its being about all employees. Indeed, it 
is, because, if we allow this continued behavior to go on, it will 
tarnish the good reputation of Federal workers who day in and day out 
serve this country and the citizens so well.
  What we are talking about is giving a tool, a management tool, to let 
managers manage. We are talking about not giving bonuses to those who 
are of the very highest--the 1 percent--while the rank and file goes so 
many times without being recognized or compensated for what it 
deserves. We are talking about employees who make an average salary of 
$168,000 a year, and yet we are talking about a privileged few whom we 
need to make sure we address. So, Mr. Speaker, it is about all

[[Page H5303]]

of the employees, and it is about being fair.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is so much I would like to say, 
particularly as to the extraordinary discrepancy between those folks 
who make far less than their counterparts in the private sector and 
those who work in the private sector, who, perhaps, have less 
responsibility on their shoulders. Look it up. See the statistics. 
That's the case.
  The other thing I want to say to my friend is that the law now 
provides for procedures to remove bad actors. Do we have some bad 
actors in the Federal service? We do. That's human life. That's the 
human experience.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I don't have anymore time, but if the gentleman from 
California will yield you some time, I will be glad to yield you some 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority whip presumes to tell me 
about the private sector and how much people make. The problem is that 
I came from the private sector. I know the difference between 
management and labor, and I know the difference between people who 
elect to be the top-paid management of entities and who typically serve 
at will in the private sector. Those of the Senior Executive Service 
are, in fact, people who choose to get additional pay for these special 
responsibilities, and they know what they're doing when they get into 
it. We are proud of most of them, the vast majority of them.
  The fact is that Mr. Hoyer has people who serve at will. He fires 
them without notice if he chooses to. Yet he cannot understand the fact 
by that picture I held up--I won't hold it up again; it's reprehensible 
even though it has been well seen--that that man continued to work and 
get a bonus during the 10 months in which the GSA Administrator knew 
wrongdoing had occurred on his watch. It wasn't until he decided to 
retire--to be honest, my understanding is with criminal allegations--
that he even left and stopped getting his pay, and, today, he enjoys a 
very comfortable retirement.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is truly astonishing. We have serious issues 
before us. We should be focused on job creation, on comprehensive 
immigration reform, on providing nutrition assistance to children and 
seniors, on postal reform or on funding the government; but we are 
again debating partisan bills that stand no chance of becoming law, 
including the 40th vote to defund or to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  Now, as kids, we are told that people in glass houses shouldn't throw 
stones, so I sure hope that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have not given one bonus to one of their senior staff members.
  I hope that that is the case, that you have not given one bonus to a 
senior staff member. I hope, furthermore, that each of you is recording 
all of your staff members when they answer the phones because you want 
to know how they are treating your constituents.
  This particular bill is the height of hypocrisy. It is a blatant 
attack on Federal employees that reinforces the fact that current 
leadership is only interested in political messaging, including through 
repeated attacks on hardworking Federal employees. It is simply 
shameful to say that we will belittle public service like that. I am a 
public servant, and I am proud to be a public servant. Every Federal 
employee who works in this building and virtually every Federal 
employee who is out there in our communities is doing so because he 
believes in public service. I think that a Federal employee today is 
pretty crazy to be doing this job. He basically is being told, You're 
not worth very much. His integrity is constantly being questioned. He 
has had 3 years of pay freezes and furloughs, and he is supposed to 
continue to do public service.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman.
  I want to address one section of this bill that would now allow 
individuals to record telephone and in-person conversations with 
Federal employees. This would preempt the law in my State of California 
and in the chairman's State of California and in 11 other States that 
require the consent of all parties to a conversation. It contains no 
exceptions for law enforcement, sensitive communications, the military 
or anything else.
  The FBI has already indicated to us that it strongly opposes this 
bill because, in its words, ``this proposal risks undermining criminal 
investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate 
with law enforcement and would result in the creation of recordings of 
law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and 
important criminal and counterterrorism investigations.''

  I think this is ill-founded.
  Even the ACLU, which strongly supports the principle of allowing 
citizens to record law enforcement interactions, does not support the 
provision in this bill because it ``threatens to impermissibly 
interfere with government workers' constitutional liberties.''
  So this is a bill in search of a problem that actually makes it 
harder to go after real criminals, and this bill does not apply to this 
body, to Members of Congress. Maybe it's time for this bill's authors 
to look a little closer to home.
  Mr. ISSA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny Davis), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, the 
Stop Government Abuse Act. I would feel much better about it if it were 
labeled the Promotion of Government Abuse Act, because it encourages 
government to roll back the clock and take away rights that workers 
have earned from working hard.
  Can you imagine being fired after you've worked up to the ranks of 
the SES, which is very difficult to get to, and being told that you've 
been let go on the basis of an IG report? Where is the equal protection 
under the law there? There is none. I think that it's unfortunate that 
we would treat our Federal workforce this way. They work hard, deserve 
better; and I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this is one more bill designed to punish the 
Federal workforce and to discourage the very people whom we need to 
join the Federal workforce. It's singling it out for harsher treatment 
than we would apply to ourselves or to our workforces, frankly. You 
need to be able to reward your best workers. If this were a private 
sector corporation, our revenue would have dried up; our stock value 
would have imploded; and our employees would have left.
  Federal employees stick with it because they believe in this 
government. They hope that, one day, the legislative branch will 
appreciate what they do. I worked for the Federal Government 40 years 
ago; and while I worked 10 or 12 hours a day, there were people working 
longer than that. They did that for about 40 years, and they worked 
very hard and in a dedicated way.
  This legislation isn't even properly thought through. No 
congressional hearing has been held on this measure that, in fact, 
jeopardizes law enforcement. It would intrude upon and disrupt 
sensitive phases of many Federal civil and criminal investigations and 
law enforcement efforts, as well as litigation involving the 
government. We

[[Page H5304]]

hear that from the National Association of Assistant United States 
Attorneys. We hear from the FBI employees that this proposal risks 
undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of 
individuals to cooperate with law enforcement. It would result in the 
creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could 
jeopardize sensitive and important criminal counterterrorism 
investigations. We hear from Federal law enforcement officers that it 
puts law enforcement activities at risk and does a disservice to the 
brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to 
protect us from terrorists and criminals.
  This is bad legislation. We know why it is being offered. We also 
trust that it's not going to become law. So you have to ask, Why are we 
doing it? We are doing it to send a message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. The message it's sending is that our Federal employees are 
not to be valued, that our managers are not to reward people for good 
work, that, in fact, we want the government to shrink, that we don't 
want it to be able to carry out its necessary activities. When we do 
that, we do a disservice to our constituents and to this country. This 
stuff has got to stop.

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2013.
     Hon. Darrell Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Elijah Cummings,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings: On behalf 
     of the membership of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association (FLEOA), I am writing to oppose H.R. 2711--the 
     ``Citizen Empowerment Act,'' as amended by the Committee and 
     urge you to further amend the bill to ensure that law 
     enforcement and other public safety activities are not 
     covered by its provisions.
       As originally written, the legislation contained general 
     exceptions for situations where classified information, 
     public safety or an on-going law enforcement investigation 
     would be at risk. This language was necessary to ensure that 
     federal law enforcement officers and the critical work they 
     perform are not adversely impacted by this bill. In fact, the 
     original language should have gone even farther to make clear 
     that law enforcement activities would not be jeopardized in 
     any way.
       For incomprehensible reasons the committee approved an 
     amended bill that removed even basic exceptions.
       When a federal law enforcement officer is conducting a 
     criminal investigation via telephone, i.e. on a suspect of 
     terrorism, the officer should not have to notify the suspect 
     of the right to record the conversation and whether the 
     officer is recording the conversation. Obviously, 
     conventional wisdom tells us that any thought of conducting a 
     successful investigation after disclosure of this type is 
     impossible. There is no logical reason why criminal 
     investigations shouldn't be exempted from the proposal.
       This legislation puts law enforcement activities at risk 
     and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are 
     asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from 
     terrorists and criminals. FLEOA opposes any actions by 
     Congress that lessens the ability of our Citizenship to 
     remain safe and secure and jeopardizes the ability of federal 
     law enforcement officers to continue to perform their sworn 
     duties to protect them.
       As the Chair and Ranking Member with jurisdiction over H.R. 
     2711, we urge you to ensure that the bill is not considered 
     on the Floor unless it is amended to exempt law enforcement 
     from its provisions. Until that time, FLEOA will continue to 
     strongly oppose this legislation.
           Respectfully,

                                                Frank Terreri,

                                       National Vice President for
     Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

         National Association of Assistant United States 
           Attorneys,
                                                   Lake Ridge, VA.

      Vote ``No'' on H.R. 2879, ``The Stop Government Abuse Act''


 the national association of assistant united states attorneys opposes 
 H.R. 2879, ``the stop government abuse act,'' and urges house members 
                     to vote no on this legislation

       Section 301 of H.R. 2879 will undermine federal civil 
     enforcement activities and criminal prosecutions during the 
     investigative, pretrial trial and enforcement phases of 
     litigation involving the interests of the United States.
       Section 301 is the former ``Citizen Empowerment Act'' (H.R. 
     2711), as amended by the House Oversight and Government 
     Reform Committee on July 24. The provision contains no 
     exemption for litigation involving the United States or the 
     activities of federal law enforcement personnel. No 
     Congressional hearing has been held on the measure.
       Section 301 requires the Government broadly to inform an 
     individual of the right to record in-person and telephonic 
     interactions with Government employees--including law 
     enforcement officers, investigative agents and Assistant 
     United States Attorneys and other federal prosecutors--
     whenever an Executive Agency provides ``any written material 
     . . . to the individual concerning an audit, investigation, 
     inspection, or enforcement action that could result in the 
     imposition of a fine, forfeiture of property, civil monetary 
     penalty, or criminal penalty against, or the collection of an 
     unpaid tax, fine, or penalty from, such individual or a 
     business owned or operated by such individual.''
       This notice requirement would reach to a myriad of legal 
     and law enforcement-related documents regularly issued by the 
     federal government, including subpoenas, search warrants, 
     arrest complaints and forfeiture notices. This mandate is far 
     more expansive than requiring the government to post notice 
     of the right to record on agency websites, as also included 
     in section 301.
       The notice mandate of H.R. 2879 would intrude upon and 
     disrupt sensitive phases of many federal civil and criminal 
     investigations and law enforcement efforts, as well as 
     litigation involving the government. The breadth of the 
     ``written material'' trigger could undermine undercover 
     investigations, given its potential to ``tip off'' witnesses, 
     suspects and targets of investigations. The bill also would 
     permit defense counsel to insist upon recording all 
     interactions with federal prosecutors and law enforcement 
     personnel in all phases of litigation with the government, 
     including sensitive settlement and plea-bargain discussions. 
     Even federal court proceedings, whose rules prohibit 
     recording by individuals, could be impacted by this bill.
       Citizens already may record their interactions with federal 
     government officers and employees in most states within a 
     carefully balanced set of legal and practical concerns. There 
     is no compelling need for a measure like H.R. 2879, 
     especially considering its incalculable damage on law 
     enforcement efforts. At the very least, an exception should 
     be included in the measure that exempts law enforcement-
     related activity involving government agents, investigators 
     and Assistant United States Attorneys.
                                  ____

                                   Federal Bureau of Investigation


                                           Agents Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 31, 2013.
     Hon. Darrell Issa,
     Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Government Reform, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Elijah Cummings,
     Ranking Member, Comm. on Oversight & Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re: H.R. 2711, the Citizen Empowerment Act

       Dear Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings: On behalf 
     of the FBI Agents Association (``FBIAA''), a voluntary 
     professional association currently representing approximately 
     13,000 active duty and retired FBI Special Agents, I write to 
     express the FBIAA's concerns about H.R. 2711, the Citizen 
     Empowerment Act.
       H.R. 2711 creates a broad right to record conversations 
     with federal employees, and requires that notices of the 
     right to record conversations be provided to individuals 
     engaged in discussions with federal employees--without any 
     exceptions related to criminal investigations. This proposal 
     risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the 
     willingness of individuals to cooperate with law enforcement, 
     and would result in the creation of recordings of law 
     enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and 
     important criminal and counterterrorism investigations.
       Also, by requiring written notices under the threat of 
     disciplinary action, H.R. 2711 would create new 
     administrative and bureaucratic requirements for Agents 
     conducting investigations. The time and resources available 
     to Agents are already stretched too thin, and new 
     administrative burdens make it more difficult for Agents to 
     protect the public.
       For these reasons, the FBIAA opposes H.R. 2711 as currently 
     written, and hopes that the House will make significant 
     changes to H.R. 2711 before considering the legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Rev Tariche,
                                                        President.

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I've heard so much about pay being frozen that I've got 
to tell you: the people that I represent in the Third Congressional 
District of western Pennsylvania wish their pay had been frozen. It has 
gone down steadily since 2010.
  We talk about the inability to get the economy going. I feel the same 
way--it's embarrassing--but at the end of the day, we are not 
benevolent monarchs. We are stewards of the taxpayers' moneys. All we 
are doing is talking about accountability. Only in Washington is 
``accountability'' a bad word. In the private sector, 
``accountability'' reigns. The market determines my accountability. 
That's what holds me accountable in coming from the private sector.

[[Page H5305]]

  Why is that so foreign here to, all of a sudden, have bills--to have 
things in front of us--that will help us to say to people in charge to 
hold people responsible and to hold people accountable?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I've listened to all of these arguments, I cannot 
help but think about the many employees whom we see every day--the 
hardworking employees who give their blood, sweat, and tears to keep 
our country together.
  When we talk about our senior executives, I will remind this body of 
something that Mr. Hoyer talked about and, that is, under current law, 
senior executives may be disciplined for misconduct, neglect of duty, 
malfeasance, or of the failure to accept reassignment or transfer. 
There is a current statutory list of reasons for which actions may be 
taken against senior executives that covers a broad variety of 
situations, and they are adequate to deal with the problems that we are 
addressing today.

                              {time}  1715

  Senior executives suspected of criminal activity may already be 
removed or placed on indefinite suspension without pay. We need to 
focus on improving agency implementation rather than passing 
legislation that would deprive employees of their due process.
  I know Mr. Moran is right. There has been a relentless attack on 
Federal employees. The fact is that they're in their third year of pay 
freezes. They've been asked to pay more for their pensions and get 
less. We constantly hear negative comments about them, still folks say, 
We love them; we appreciate them. They are often the ones that aren't 
seen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and unapplauded.
  We have a bill here that takes away something very fundamental, and 
that is their due process rights. A lot of people may think about due 
process and say, Oh, it's no big deal. Later, we'll take a little bit 
of due process here and take a little bit there. It is that due process 
that is the basic foundation of our Constitution and of our democracy. 
What we're talking about here is making sure that employees are 
afforded that due process.
  So you get somebody who says, Okay. Fine. Fire them, and then let 
them appeal to get their job back. That's not how it's supposed to 
work. They're to be given some type of notice and given an opportunity 
to simply address whatever the accusations are. A lot of times we may 
look at folks and say we don't like what they allegedly did, but the 
fact is that we still have that little document--which, to me, is a big 
document--that we must adhere to.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members of the Congress to vote against 
this bill and give us a chance to come back, perhaps, and make the 
appropriate amendments so that it will be one that is suitable for the 
Congress to vote on.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one thing.
  When we talk about a freeze, when is a freeze not a freeze? Only in 
Washington, D.C.
  Over the last 3 years, 99.4 percent of Federal employees got 
increases. Out of every 1,000 employees, only six were denied an 
increase. I think the record needed to be clarified.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Then I will close at this time and yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, controversy comes in all forms. Sometimes it's 
legitimate; sometimes there are differences that are unresolved; 
sometimes, though, you find yourself befuddled.
  These three bills passed on a voice vote. It didn't mean that they 
would have been authored by any of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle or that they loved them. It meant that they were given a full 
opportunity to evaluate these, to offer amendments, to have up-or-down 
votes on them. Many of the suggestions they made were taken into 
account on many of the bills marked up during that long day. Many of 
the things being brought up here today simply were not brought up, and 
it's not because they didn't know about this.
  When you have a version of this bill that's almost identical to that 
passed on December 19 of last year by a vote of 402-2, that means that 
you have people that today are vehemently opposed to provisions that 
they already voted for. I repeat, they're vehemently opposed to 
provisions they already voted for. I don't have the names of the two 
people that voted ``no.'' They certainly have a right to express why 
they voted ``no'' last December.
  I can tell you that when you have to only terminate 4/100 of 1 
percent of the workforce, if you do it at all, the head of the agency 
has to determine that the employee has done something seriously wrong 
in regards to negligence of duty or misappropriation of funds or 
malfeasance. They have to determine that the employee did it knowingly, 
and they have to consider it necessary and advisable to protect this 
enterprise.
  On top of that, the employee does have to be told why they're being 
terminated. I think that's important, because the ranking member and I 
heard from a woman in a hearing who left me feeling absolutely shocked. 
She's been on leave without pay, and to this day, an investigation that 
is ongoing, months into it, she's never been told why she's on leave 
without pay. To be honest, she's a member of the Senior Executive 
Service.
  Maybe she would fall under this bill. But in order to fall under this 
bill, some things would have to happen. First of all, the head of the 
agency would have to make a decision of wrongdoing, and it would be 
held by that decision being reasonable after the fact. They'd have to 
have told her why she's being removed, and she would already have had 
an opportunity in front of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the 
U.S. Court of Appeals, known as the Fed circuit. She already would have 
had all this due process, except months go by and she doesn't know and 
she's on administrative leave.
  The fact is this is a tool. They don't have to use it. If they use 
it, they have to make sure that it's only for serious violations: 
neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance. These are 
very serious. An extremely small part, highly compensated, respected 
people, and a few bad actors for neglect of duty, misappropriation of 
funds, or malfeasance can be removed. They still have their rights. We 
knew this was constitutional. To be honest, the complaint we seemed to 
have in committee for hours was something that I want to share with 
you, Mr. Speaker.
  Members of my committee, when talking about the idea that only one-
third without special exception of employees in any agency could 
receive bonuses rather than the 75 or 80 percent you heard about here 
today, they said, But this is their right. They've negotiated that. 
You're interfering with their contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government does not allow negotiation in 
collective bargaining or otherwise for wages. We have a standard scale. 
Bonuses were created for only one purpose, and that was, in fact, to 
reward good behavior as an incentive.
  These bills are well thought out and are only controversial today 
because the minority wants to make them controversial to create a 
controversy.
  I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H5306]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 176, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 436]

                               YEAS--239

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--176

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Campbell
     Cleaver
     Collins (GA)
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Horsford
     King (IA)
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Radel
     Richmond
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1749

  Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mr. PAYNE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. CHAFFETZ changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I attended a meeting at the 
White House with the President of the United States. As such, I was 
unfortunately not able to be present for the following vote:
  On final passage of H.R. 2879, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I regret that a meeting at the Whtie 
House caused me to miss the first vote series on August 1, 2013. Had I 
been present, my intention was to vote as follows on the amendments to 
H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act: ``no'' on the Waxman 
Amendment, ``no'' on the Connolly Amendment, and ``yes'' on the Murphy 
(PA) Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on the Motion to Recommit 
H.R. 1582 and ``yes'' on Passage on H.R. 1582. Further I would have 
voted ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on the combined rule 
for the REINS Act, Keep IRS Off Health Care Act, and the Stop 
Government Abuse Act. Finally, I would have voted ``yes'' on the 
passage of H.R. 1897, the Vietnam Human Rights Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 9 of House Resolution 
322, H.R. 1541, H.R. 2579, and H.R. 2711 are laid on the table.

                          ____________________