Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 19 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019)

[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

[[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

____________________