[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1289-H1295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                              {time}  0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 790, FEDERAL CIVILIAN WORKFORCE PAY 
RAISE FAIRNESS ACT OF 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS 
                          TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 87 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 87

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 790) to provide for a pay increase in 2019 for 
     certain civilian employees of the Federal Government, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Reform. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of February 8, 2019, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 87, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 790, the Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 
2019.
  The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a 
structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, which 
strikes section 3 of the bill and makes certain other technical 
corrections to it.
  The rule makes in order three amendments. The rule provides 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Finally, the rule 
provides suspension authority through the legislative day of February 
8, 2019.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 790 will provide for a 2.6 percent pay increase for 
Federal civilian workers in 2019, beginning with the date of passage, 
and this brings the civilian pay increase in parity with the automatic 
adjustment of pay for military servicemembers, which is also 2.6 
percent.
  The President's fiscal year 2019 budget requested a 2.6 percent 
increase in basic pay for military servicemembers equivalent to the 
statutory formula. This increase went into effect on January 1. But on 
August 30 of last year, President Trump announced that he would issue a 
downward adjustment of the pay increase for civilian employees because 
of a national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the 
general welfare. He proposed to set the civilian pay increase at zero, 
no raise.
  On December 28 of last year, he followed through on this announcement 
by signing an executive order overriding the automatic 2.1 percent pay 
increase civilian workers were set to receive and replacing it with 
zero. Congress can override and Congress should override this executive 
order with legislation providing for a pay increase for our hardworking 
Federal civilian workers. H.R. 790 does just that with a reasonable 2.6 
percent increase, matching the increase going into effect for military 
servicemembers.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is any redeeming feature to the sordid chaos of 
the 35-day government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, surely, it 
is that it reminded America that our Federal workforce is indispensable 
to our commerce, to our economy, to our society, and to our way of 
life.
  We have been reminded that if you take away the air traffic 
controllers, you take away air travel. If you take away the 
Transportation Security Administration agents, you take away 
transportation security.
  If you take away the Park Service rangers and the Park Service 
maintenance personnel, you take away our ability to enjoy the national 
parks free of liter, garbage, backed-up sewage, and criminal activity.
  If you take away the food safety inspectors from the FDA and other 
agencies, you threaten the food supply with E. coli, salmonella, and 
insect infestation.
  If you shut down the EPA, you empower the polluters to foul the air 
and dirty the waters.
  If you shut down the Department of Justice, you throw a monkey wrench 
into the ability of law enforcement to go after the Mafia, Medicare 
fraud, white-collar crime, human trafficking, and all of the criminal 
enterprises endangering public safety.
  If you shut down the National Weather Service, you threaten 
transportation, travel, and public safety.
  If you stop paying Customs and Border Protection officers, you weaken 
border security and you demoralize our Border Patrol.
  If you shut down NOAA, you disable America's first responders in the 
campaign to meet the challenges of climate change.
  All of it has an effect on the private sector, too. If you furlough 
the people writing checks for home mortgages, farm subsidies, State 
Department personnel, and private contractor payments, you threaten to 
ruin private contractors, home purchases, small farmers, and small 
businesses.
  If you were to cut off the VA, you would cut off the veterans.
  And if you were to pull the plug on the Social Security 
Administration, you would threaten tens of millions of Americans who 
depend on Social Security.
  The contribution that more than 2.1 million Federal employees make to 
our country is indispensable; it is incalculable; and it is 
irreplaceable.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the 35-day self-identified Donald Trump 
shutdown, the American people not only witnessed the surpassing 
dedication and patriotism of the Federal workforce, 30 percent of which 
is made up of veterans, but we were reminded of the critical nature of 
the work that they do for all of us. They deserve a raise, and we 
should override President Trump's insulting and embarrassing 2019 pay 
freeze for the Federal workforce.
  To be clear, Federal workers deserved a raise before the shutdown. 
The Federal Salary Council, an advisory body of the executive branch 
established to provide recommendations on locality pay, found at the 
end of last year that, ``Federal employee salaries on average lag 
behind those of the private sector by almost 31 percent,'' a finding 
based on U.S. Department of Labor data covering more than 250 different 
occupational categories.

[[Page H1290]]

  900,000 Federal workers earn less than $60,000 a year, and we have 
seen in the soup kitchens and in the pantries, and the desperate pleas 
of our constituents for their families, how many Federal workers are 
just one or two paychecks away from disaster.

  So Federal workers deserved a raise before the shutdown when 800,000 
of them were furloughed or compelled to go to work without any pay and 
they had to take out loans from family members or credit unions just to 
pay their monthly bills.
  They deserved a raise before President Trump imposed the Federal 
hiring freeze in 2017 and before he froze Federal worker pay in 2019.
  They deserved a raise before he tried to cut their health benefits 
and before he issued three executive orders that would have made it 
easier to fire Federal workers and destroy their collective bargaining 
rights, orders that were promptly struck down in Federal court.
  But if the Federal workers deserved a raise and needed one before 
President Trump declared war on the workforce for the American 
Government, before Steve Bannon defined the goal of the administration 
as ``deconstruction of the administrative state,'' before they were 
derided by the President as Democrats and vilified as the deep state, 
surely, the economic and moral debacle of the shutdown makes this 
modest 2.6 percent pay raise a powerful and inescapable imperative 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government simply must do much better as an 
employer of our own people. How many private employers would try to 
retain their best workers and attract great new workers by attacking 
and furloughing the workforce, by accusing the employees of disloyalty, 
by freezing their pay, and then by compelling them to work for 35 days 
with no salary at all? It would never work for the vast majority of 
private-sector employers.
  All over America, we read of workers demoralized and defeated, 
thinking of leaving their Federal jobs because of the sheer folly and 
cruelty of this most recent episode and because the President, I am 
sorry to report, is again threatening another shutdown with nothing but 
complicity from many of our friends across the aisle.
  On top of all the anxiety induced by the shutdown, we know that 
between 30 and 35 percent of the Federal workforce is eligible to 
retire within the next 5 years. How will we replace them and replenish 
the ranks of this embattled and besieged workforce?
  These are our people, Mr. Speaker. These are our workers. These are 
our constituents. These are the people who make America work.
  Federal workers do not live the lifestyles of the rich and famous. 
They don't jet down to Mar-a-Lago at personal or government expense. 
And they can't afford the $36 cheeseburger at the Trump Hotel.
  The Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, will never be able to figure 
out why they can't just call up a friendly banker for a loan, just as 
Lara Trump will not be able to see why the 35-day shutdown caused 
something more than an eentsy-weentsy ``little bit of pain'' for them 
as they are invited to suffer in service of the greater glory of the 
Trump administration agenda.
  Our public servants, civilian and military alike, deserve better from 
us, whether they work as a civilian officer or uniformed officer at the 
Pentagon; whether they are safeguarding air travel or the air or the 
water or the climate or our food supply; whether they are taking care 
of our treasured national parks; or treating breast cancer patients or 
finding the cure for cystic fibrosis or multiple sclerosis; or running 
our museums; or cutting Social Security checks; or preparing the 
President's meals at the White House; or guarding the coastline with 
the Coast Guard; or making the justice system work as judges, 
prosecutors, defenders, clerks, and marshals. They deserve better from 
us.
  They need a pay raise, not a pay freeze. They deserve our respect, 
not our contempt. They don't ask to be deified, but they don't deserve 
to be demonized.
  They have an important job to do. Let's pay them for it. Let's invest 
in our Federal workforce. I urge all of our colleagues to come together 
to pass H.R. 790, the Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act 
of 2019.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. I 
would like to pick up where my friend from Maryland left off. They 
don't deserve to be deified, but they don't deserve to be demonized 
either. That doesn't just apply to our Federal workforce. That applies 
to so many elements of our conversation today.
  I hope you have a chance, Mr. Speaker, to go watch the Rules 
Committee debate last night on this rule. You might have thought that, 
with a simple two-page resolution such as this one, we might have been 
up and out in about 10 minutes, making three amendments in order.
  But, no, we spent the better part of almost 3 hours there talking 
with the committee experts on the issue, Mr. Connolly from Virginia and 
Mr. Meadows from North Carolina. You would be affected by the amount of 
agreement that those two gentlemen had.

                              {time}  0930

  Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to say you would be surprised, because 
you might know those two gentlemen as I do, you might know this issue 
as I do, and you might know its bipartisan roots and its bipartisan 
future as I do.
  But if you don't watch that hearing, if you don't know the issue, if 
all you do is see a bill that was dropped in the hopper just a couple 
of days ago, has had no markup in committee, has had no hearings, has 
had no witnesses, and has had no dialogue whatsoever on it, but 
happened to be dropped in the middle of the week where some of the more 
cynical among us expected us to still be in a government shutdown 
before the President brought us out of it, this might just look like a 
messaging statement to folks who view it through that lens.
  It is so frustrating and disappointing to me because this is an issue 
on which we agree. My friend from Oklahoma, an appropriator, happens to 
be the ranking member up on the Rules Committee. In testimony last 
night, we are talking about not an insignificant amount of money in 
this bill; we are talking about not millions with an M, we are talking 
about billions with a B of dollars going out the door.
  The question is: Where do the dollars come from?
  The answer is: They are just going to come from other accounts these 
agencies already have.
  I don't know what other account that is, and I think that is worth 
having a conversation about.
  If you read through this language, Mr. Speaker, you will see no 
effort whatsoever to do what every single one of us knows needs to be 
done, and that is to find those Federal employees who make us proud at 
agencies every single day, reward that service, protect that service, 
encourage that service, and make sure retention plans are in place for 
those employees. There is not a line in here to target those high 
performers.
  Equally, look through this legislation, Mr. Speaker, to find those 
folks whom I know--because I hear it from my veterans in my district 
every day, and I hear it from the leadership in the VA every day--find 
those folks who just do not want to show up and serve. Somehow they got 
involved in Federal service. They are the exception, not the rule. They 
bring their colleagues in Federal service down instead of lifting them 
up. They bring the folks they are intended to serve down instead of 
lifting them up. There is no effort to identify those folks and no 
effort to reward the high performers while trying to train up the low 
performers. In true government fashion, it says that the definition of 
success is to treat absolutely everybody the same.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no one else doing this work other than us. The 
problem in the civil service system isn't that we protect employees. 
That is laud worthy. That is a laudable goal. What the problem is in 
civil service is we are the only ones who do the oversight. There is no 
other board of directors. It is us.
  Yet we bring a bill to the floor that we claim raises our Federal 
employees up and praises our Federal employees. We didn't even give it 
the dignity of a hearing or a markup. We can do better

[[Page H1291]]

than that, and candidly, I think we will.
  We will never know what would have happened had we not gotten started 
on the foot we got started on in January as we did. I particularly 
regret that for our freshmen who are trying to figure out what the tone 
and tenor is of this place. This isn't it. Apparently, Republicans got 
us in bad habits in the last session of just dropping bills in the 
hopper and bringing them to the floor the next day, no hearings, no 
markup. It was wrong then, and it is not wise now either.
  We have a lot of choices to make going forward, Mr. Speaker.
  Are we poisoning the well, or are we protecting it?
  Are we tilling the fields, or are we spreading salt in them?
  We don't need to deify our ideological opponents, but we don't need 
to demonize them either. There is more that unites this country than 
divides this country, Mr. Speaker. Our Federal employees do deserve our 
trust, our appreciation, and, yes, a paycheck at the end of the week 
for the work they have done on our behalf.
  They also deserve a way to be recognized when they go above and 
beyond. They also deserve to know that folks on their team who are not 
up to the task today are either going to be trained up or moved out.
  We can do those things together. For reasons that are not clear to 
me, we have not chosen to try. This could have been a bipartisan 
effort. This could have been part of a larger package, and it wasn't. I 
regret that.
  I will tell my friend from Maryland I did not bring any additional 
speakers with me who would have shared that very same message, so when 
he is prepared to close as am I.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend from Georgia for his 
thoughtful comments, especially for conceding that the Federal workers 
do deserve a paycheck at the end of the week, and I am glad that we can 
start off a new season here where we agree that Federal workers deserve 
and need to be paid. I suppose we still have this difference about 
whether or not they deserve a pay raise.
  Yes, the substance is clear. We are fighting for a 2.6 percent pay 
raise for the Federal civilian workforce to match the 2.6 percent pay 
raise that has gone into effect for the military servicemembers who are 
serving our country with their hard work and their sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, our message is clear. There is a message that is built 
into there, because when you are deciding whether or not to give your 
workers a raise or give them a pay freeze or you are deciding whether 
or not to praise them or to compel them to work for free for 35 days or 
to furlough them, there is a message built into that. So we are the 
employer of these 2 million people who have come to work for the 
Federal Government, and there is a message there.
  It is not just the money for their families, it is not just the money 
to pay the mortgage and to pay the rent and for the car bills and for 
the food bills and for health insurance and so on. There is a message 
there, and the message is simple: we stand with the Federal workers.
  That is the message. We embrace that message that is built into the 
pay raise here.
  But I have to disagree with my friend if he says that all we are 
doing is sending that message that we stand with the Federal workers. 
That is not all we are doing, we are giving them a pay raise they 
deserve. We have got tens of thousands of people who work at the 
Pentagon who go dressed as military servicemembers every day, and we 
have tens of thousands who go dressed as civilians, they work side by 
side, and they work together for the country.
  Shouldn't they all get a pay raise?
  Don't all of them deserve a pay raise?
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend invites us to believe that because we are 
giving the workforce a pay raise, we can't continue to implement civil 
service rules that are meant to get rid of the rare bad apple that you 
get in the Federal workforce.
  Why not?
  Why can't we use the other mechanisms that are in place to reward 
workers?
  If we want to improve those, then I am so happy to work with my 
friend on the Rules Committee to develop legislation to do that. But I 
am afraid that is an irrelevant distraction from the matter at hand. 
The matter at hand today is whether or not we are going to give the 
same pay raise to civilian workers that we have given to military 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
his astute analysis and his service on the Rules Committee, and I thank 
my good friend from Georgia for offering his recognition of the value 
of our Federal workers.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning, I started my day, first of all, with 
supporting H.R. 21, and gathering with the leadership of the House and 
Senate recognizing that Social Security must be strengthened. But truly 
I joined in my long-term commitment for not only the survival of Social 
Security, but the survival of our families and seniors--3 million 
senior women living in poverty, 2 million senior men. These individuals 
have worked. They may have been Federal employees.
  I then joined my colleagues, House and Senate, on supporting pay 
equity for women. And now I am on the floor dealing with a crucial 
component of survival in this Nation.
  I thank Mr. Connolly and the Oversight Committee for bringing this 
bill. It is important, as I speak about the needs, to emphasize that we 
can do nothing else but pass this bill, the Senate pass this bill, and 
the President signs this bill.
  For the idea of paycheck inequality, for example, that will be 
debated later today, it is important to know that women working full-
time still earn 80 percent on average for every dollar earned by men, 
and women of color face the brunt of inequality, African-American women 
61 cents on the dollar, Latinas earning 53 cents on the dollar, Native 
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women earning 62 percent with white non-
Hispanic men.
  So what are we doing today?
  We are saying that the executive order squeezing Federal workers in 
the middle of the shutdown by the President of the United States in an 
executive order is null and void.
  As I left for Washington talking to TSO officers who had worked and 
worked and worked with no pay as essential workers, one quietly said to 
me: Are we going to get our pay raise? Are you going to fight against 
the executive order?
  Mr. Speaker, I said to them: We sure will.
  We want Democrats and Republicans.
  But I said: We sure will.
  So I rise today to support this legislation that deals with the 
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019. Texas has 
over 270,000 Federal employees. I have 4,000 in my district. The cost 
of the pay raise would be approximately $25 billion. President Trump's 
tax reform bill costs over 10 times that amount.
  It is important to note that this is a 2.6 percent pay raise for 
Federal civilian workers and establishes pay parity between the 
military and service workers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous to say that Federal 
employees have been paid too much. They have been victims of attacks 
of, What do these people do? There have been charges of waste, fraud, 
and abuse. With the government shutdown we know what these workers do. 
They take care of our parks, they keep them safe. They keep the 
airways, the aviation industry, the aviation system in America and 
around the world alive with the best air traffic controllers in the 
world. They protect the airports with TSOs.
  Mr. Speaker, I support enthusiastically the 2.6 percent increase. 
Let's do it now. Let the President sign the bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am always affected by the words of the gentlewoman from Texas, but 
my answer is clear: No, everybody doesn't

[[Page H1292]]

deserve a pay raise all the time; it is true on my staff, it is true in 
my life, it is true in every private-sector company in the country, and 
it is true in the Federal Government too.
  Now we won't be able to have that conversation because there was no 
hearing on this bill. We won't be able to improve that circumstance 
because this bill doesn't try to expand itself to that scope.
  We are in a new age. I won't be able to close this debate, Mr. 
Speaker. My friend from Maryland will be able to close as is the 
privilege of the majority.

  The other privilege of the majority is titling the bills as they are 
coming to the floor. This is the Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise 
Fairness Act, and the definition of fairness in this case is that 
civilian workers be treated the same as military workers as it relates 
to a cost-of-living increase. That is worthy of debate.
  I know many of my friends who represent the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area that have so many civilian Federal workers believe in 
that equity issue deeply and passionately and have worked to protect it 
over a long number of years. In the State of Georgia, we have many DOD 
employees, folks whose tempo changes regularly, folks who are called on 
with increasing frequency, folks who ask: Where shall I go when you 
send me?
  That is qualitatively different service.
  Should it be treated differently? Again, this is not the right place 
for that conversation. This is a debate on a rule about whether or not 
we will bring up a bill that the folks on the other side of the aisle 
absolutely have the votes to pass if they want to pass it.
  In fact, it is language in the bill that we could absolutely move in 
a bipartisan way if we had it in the conversations. It is language that 
could have absolutely been part of the negotiations to end the 
government shutdown since this was a decision that the President made 
back in December of last year not to institute the 2.1. If folks had 
gone to the negotiating table, if folks had negotiated in good faith, 
if folks had said that this is what we need, and this is what we think 
is important, then we could have solved this long before now.
  But this bill was dropped just days ago, again, with no hearing and 
no markups, and here it is before us.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, as well as add any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
intend to bring up a very simple amendment that would address just one 
of the questions that we would have addressed if we considered this 
issue important enough to have the committee of jurisdiction actually 
gather and hold a hearing on it; and that is the question of those who 
are delinquent in their taxes: those folks who have an outstanding tax 
bill, who have not tried to enter into a negotiated settlement, those 
who are not in a payment plan, but those who simply are not paying 
their Federal taxes, that they not be a part of this pay increase.
  My constituents work hard every day of the week. They expect us to be 
doing the oversight. They expect us to be doing performance reviews. 
They expect us to be looking at who is showing up and who is going the 
extra mile, rewarding those folks who are going the extra mile, 
training those folks up who are not, and not rewarding those folks who 
are falling well below the standards that each and every one of us 
expect as taxpayers and, candidly, even more so, each and every Federal 
employee expects of his or her colleagues.
  I want good work to be recognized with good pay, Mr. Speaker, but 
what would be better than this bill is a comprehensive plan from the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform to reform the civil service system so 
that that is not an aspirational goal but an absolute certainty that 
the American people can count on.
  The best thing we can do to respect our fellow employees, Mr. 
Speaker, is not to have a messaging bill come to the House of 
Representatives. The best thing we can do for our Federal employees is 
to make sure that the reputation that travels across the land is not 
one of underperformance but is one of overperformance.
  We are the only ones who can deal with the issues of bad apples 
spoiling an entire barrel. We are the only ones who can do it. We owe 
it to every agency in this land to be their partner in getting that 
done. By defeating the previous question and including this amendment, 
we will take a small step in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, unless my friend is prepared to close, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Georgia has given me a lot to think about here.
  The very first thing that I need to clear up is that 85 percent of 
the Federal workforce does not live in the national capital region. It 
is true that the local delegations from Maryland and Virginia and the 
District of Columbia are sensitive to these continuing assaults on the 
Federal workforce because we have so many workers who live here, but, 
again, 85 percent of the workforce lives all over the country.
  I just learned that there are 100,000 civilian Federal workers in 
Georgia who also were affected by this government shutdown and lockout 
of the Federal workers, and I am sure the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia heard the same kinds of complaints from his constituents that I 
heard from mine about not being able to balance their checkbooks, not 
being able to pay the mortgage or pay the rent because of what took 
place with the shutdown.
  The President froze Federal worker pay without any hearings. The 
President froze Federal worker pay without any markups, and he did it 
without consulting any of us. That is something that he did.
  Now, of course, we know that the 115th Congress, the last Congress, 
became famous--or perhaps I should say infamous--for being the most 
closed Congress in U.S. history, bringing us the most number of closed 
rules on the floor, shutting down debate, bringing us so many bills 
without hearings or markup.
  We would have loved to have been able to have hearings and markup for 
this bill, but the Committee on Oversight and Reform wasn't organized 
until yesterday. We are all recovering from the shocks of the Federal 
Government shutdown. We are all trying to catch our breath from what 
has been imposed on the country. We have been consumed entirely with 
the question of the government shutdown.
  So when the new rules come into focus and are activated on March 1, 
which is when they are supposed to come in, we have every intention of 
being a dramatically more open Congress than what we saw in the last 
Congress.
  But we appreciate the push from our friends. They should give us the 
push. Certainly, they know what it is like to close down debate because 
they did it for so many years.
  Now I understand they are suggesting, as a substitute resolution, 
what they want instead is a prohibition on raises for Federal employees 
with delinquent tax debt.
  It is very clear that the Federal civilian workforce is graded on an 
annual basis, and you can get five different kinds of rankings. These 
are dealt with in the promotion process, in all kinds of personnel 
actions, including exclusion and separation in cases of delinquency 
where Federal workers are not performing. So the idea that the Federal 
civil service has existed all of this time without the ability to have 
incentives and disincentives and sanctions for nonperformance is, of 
course, quite apart from reality.
  I am amazed that my friends would be immodest enough to raise the 
question of taxes in their opposition to this legislation. The first 
problem, of course, is that they passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the 
wealthiest corporations and people in America--$1.5 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, a trillion dollars is a thousand billion dollars.
  So they piled what it is going to be a $1.9 trillion addition to our 
national debt over the next decade, at least. The

[[Page H1293]]

Congressional Budget Office estimates that it adds at least $1.9 
trillion to our debt, yet they come back and say that they don't want 
to give a 2.6 percent pay increase to our Federal workers, who were 
just furloughed or compelled to go to work with no pay for the last 35 
days.

  Prohibition on raises for Federal employees with delinquent tax debt, 
that is their attempt to distract everybody from the pay raise that 
America's Federal workforce needs.
  What about the President of the United States? What about his taxes? 
Are they finally going to support release of President Trump's taxes, 
which is what the last four decades of Presidents, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, have done?
  No. They maintain a demure and respectful silence towards the 
President on that one. They are not interested in the President 
releasing his taxes, but they want to use the fact that maybe there is 
a Federal worker who wasn't able to pay his or her taxes as 
justification for not giving America's Federal workforce a pay raise. 
That is quite remarkable to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you have the benefit of being there in the chair where I 
used to get to stand from time to time to preside over these 
proceedings, and you know that feeling. You may be a partisan on the 
weekends when you are at a Democratic rally, but when you stand in that 
chair, you don't stand there as a Democrat. I didn't stand there as a 
Republican. You stand there as the representative of the entire U.S. 
House of Representatives to make sure we have a full, fair, and free 
debate. In fact, you have got a wonderful team there in the 
Parliamentarian's and the Clerk's Office to make sure that all goes 
unaffected from one leadership to the next.
  In fact, we go back hundreds of years in terms of trying to honor the 
precedence and the practices that this Chamber has brought together. We 
do that because, when you govern this institution with that mantra of 
fair play, we get better results in the end: we spend less time arguing 
about the process; we spend more time working together on progress; and 
we get to where it is each and every one of our constituents wants us 
to go.
  My friend from Maryland and I, we are in a tough trap here in 
January. Of all the things I thought we would be talking about down 
here as it affects a Federal employee pay increase, the President's 
conversations about his tax forms in a campaign 3 years ago wasn't one 
of them.
  But somehow, because of the nature of discourse today, if you have a 
sharp stick with the President's name on it, you just kind of have to 
work that in whenever the debate gives you an opportunity. It never 
once brings us closer to solutions, but it apparently makes folks feel 
better from time to time, makes their constituents feel better from 
time to time.
  We are going to have to ask ourselves sometime soon: Did we get 
elected to make a point or did we get elected to make a difference? I 
know what that answer is for me, and I want this, Mr. Speaker, to go 
down as a missed opportunity.
  This could have been a bill that we spent our time on the floor 
talking through together, as Mr. Connolly and Mr. Meadows did just last 
night in the Rules Committee as representatives of the committee of 
jurisdiction on this issue, of all the things we have in common from 
coast to coast, from north to south, as it relates to honoring our 
Federal workforce and improving our Federal workforce.
  And, for whatever reason, the leadership decision was made that we 
wouldn't do this in a partnership way, we wouldn't do this in a 
bipartisan way, we wouldn't do this in a full-throated legislative 
process way, but we would just craft this bill, drop it on the floor, 
and force a vote.
  We can miss a couple of opportunities, Mr. Speaker, to come together. 
We have already missed a few in January. We can miss a few more. But I 
know my friend from Maryland shares my concern.
  There is going to come a time--and it happened to Republicans, too--
where you miss one too many opportunities to work together and you 
poison that partnership well for weeks or months or, in worst case 
scenarios, even years to come.
  America can't afford that, Mr. Speaker, and each and every one of us 
is better than that. We haven't found our stride yet. If we defeat this 
rule today, perhaps that will be a step in finding our stride. If we 
defeat the previous question and consider my amendment, that might be a 
step in finding our stride. Even in the absence of those eventualities, 
we still must commit ourselves to one another to find that stride 
moving forward.
  It is to the disadvantage of every Federal employee in the Nation to 
make this conversation about the importance of the work they do look 
like an ``us'' against ``them.'' When it comes to folks who wear a flag 
on their shoulder, when it comes to folks who show up in service of 
their fellow man, there is no ``us'' and ``them''; there is just an 
``us.'' Any opportunity we use to either distort that understanding or 
fail to recognize that understanding does violence to us all.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Georgia eloquently calls us back to bipartisanship, 
and I could not agree more. I would love nothing more than for him and 
for all of our colleagues across the aisle to join us in supporting the 
2.6 percent pay raise for America's Federal workforce.
  I almost feel as though, if we were to add the names of our 
distinguished colleagues on the other side to the bill, they might 
support it. So I would reopen that offer and restate that offer: We 
invite everybody to come on and to be cosponsors with us in giving 
America's Federal workforce a pay raise right now.

  But we do have to think about this in bipartisan-nonpartisan terms.
  It was the President of the United States who maligned the Federal 
workforce, apparently, from his perspective, by calling them Democrats, 
and there are two problems with that.
  One, it is not true. I have got lots of Republicans who work as 
Federal employees. I have got lots of Independents who work as Federal 
employees, as well as Democrats, as well as Greens, as well as people 
who are not affiliated with any party at all and are probably sick of a 
lot of the partisanship that goes on here in Washington.
  Think about what the real problem with the President deriding Federal 
workers as Democrats is. The real problem is that they are Americans. 
We are all Americans. We stand together as Americans. That is why we 
have got to stand behind our Federal workforce.
  I want to just clear up one other thing that has been bugging me, 
because the gentleman from Georgia is so persuasive in his tactics, and 
he kind of mixed apples and oranges.
  We are talking about a pay raise for the workforce, and he said: 
Well, maybe most of the workers deserve one, but there might be some 
who don't.
  I just want to state generally what the procedure is for evaluating 
Federal workers. Federal agencies use formal performance-rating 
programs for almost all of their career employees, typically with five 
different levels. The ratings are used in deciding on promotions, merit 
pay increases, cash awards, or discipline.

                              {time}  1000

  In the most severe cases, low-performing employees can be disciplined 
and removed from their jobs.
  Now, the gentleman, I am sure, has some ideas for how we can improve 
that system and make it better. By all means, let's discuss that, but 
let's not cloud the issue of the fact that our workers need a raise.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Woodall of Georgia or 
     a designee.

[[Page H1294]]

     That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON RAISE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WITH 
                   DELINQUENT TAX DEBT

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including any other provision of this Act, during 
     calendar year 2019 any Federal employee with delinquent tax 
     debt may not receive a salary increase.
       (b) Definition of Delinquent Tax Debt.--In this section, 
     the term ``delinquent tax debt''--
       (1) means a Federal tax liability that--
       (A) has been assessed by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (B) may be collected by the Secretary by levy or by a 
     proceeding in court; and
       (2) does not include a debt that is being paid in a timely 
     manner pursuant to an agreement under section 6159 or section 
     7122 of such Code.

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 190, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               YEAS--232

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bost
     Comer
     Davis, Rodney
     Jones
     LaHood
     Mullin
     Payne
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1030

  Messrs. CARTER of Texas, BUCSHON, and McCARTHY changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CARSON of Indiana and JEFFRIES changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 189, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 61]

                               YEAS--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore

[[Page H1295]]


     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--189

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Babin
     Bost
     Comer
     Davis, Rodney
     Jones
     LaHood
     Mullin
     Payne
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1039

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table

                          ____________________