[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.
____________________