tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN January 30, 2019 9:00am-3:01pm EST
morning. guest: good to be here. host: a couple of events you can tune in on at www.c-span.org, including the first meeting of the homeland security group for border security. for now we take you to the house of representatives. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 30, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable tony cardenas to act a as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day.
bless the members of this assembly as they consider all the options and compromises they might face in the weeks to come. may the desire to act speedily to implement promises made while campaigning not prevent the careful consideration of all possible outcomes in the governing process. send your spirit of wisdom and discernment upon them in their work. may their blessing, o god, be with all our leaders this day and every day to come. and may all we do be done for your greater honor and glory. men. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his aprofit thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the
gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. cunningham: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this uestion are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from mr. van drew.
mr. van drew: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? -- to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. van drew: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak about the future of our congress. i stand here today at a crossroads. a crossroads of cooperation. a crossroads of bipartisanship. a crossroads of accomplishment. this is the chance to begin to
make americans proud of our congress once again. certainly more proud than the 13% approval rating that we currently have. republicans and democrats can have different opinions. they should have different opinions. but they should never push these opinions to such extremes that we end up hurting our good american people. in the next 2 and a half weeks both sides of the aisle can can truly achieve greatness. we came here not to be great democrats, nor to be great republicans, we came here to become to be great americans. i pray to god that we will be. god bless our great country of america. and i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek
recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this past sunday the world joined together in honoring the memory of those who were murdered during the holocaust. in 2005, the united nations designated january 27 as the international holocaust remembrance day. the systematic government-sponsored persecution and murder of six million jews by the nazi regime and collaborators will always be a scar on humanity. we promise always to remember those who loves their lives, those who survived, and those who saved them. those who stood in the face of such evil and refused to turn a blind eye. we will make this promise to ensure such blight on humanity will never happen again. by remembering the events of the holocaust we can understand how important it is to defend those who are defenseless. we must eradicate hatred and
never become indiffer to the sufferings of others. on the international day of remembrance, the most important thing is to reflect upon is the humanity that exists in all of us. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to say i'm embarrassed by the past month. this is my first week in congress without our government being shut down. i came to washington to help my community. it's a shame that the benchmark so far has been whether or not the government has been even open. hard to lower the bar from there. we can't let this happen again. alongside some of my freshmen
colleagues, i have he co-sponsored legislation that says even if the government shuts down, congress will still have funding to pay our federal workers. and it goes further than that. if government fails to make a deal, we should withhold pay from members of congress. we should stop using taxpayer dollars for travel. we should end bonuses for the executive branch. in other words, if the government shuts down, the people at fault should be held accountable not the workers. if families in my district can't get their paychecks, if farmers can't get their usda grants, then elected officials need to feel the consequences. governing from one crisis to the next is an embarrassment. i came here to do better. we have a chance to turn it around right now. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south dakota speak recognition?
>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, thank you. as my new governor just mentioned in her first budget address in south dakota we don't spend money we don't have. south dakota has never incurred any general obligation debt. and that doesn't happen by accident. it takes decades of prud of pru sometimes unpopular decisions. i'm proud to be a part of that history. in washington the story is a little different. we haven't always had that same kind intestinal fortitude so our debt is $22 trillion. i know there is plenty of blame to go around, but i'm more interested in solutions.
taking our medicine, and we do need to take our medicine. will not be easy, and we can't do it all at once but i'm ready you to take tough votes. i'm hopeful that some of my colleagues are as well. after all, fiscal responsibility is possible. just ask south dakota. hank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. when it comes to gun violence, we talk about park lapd, we talk about trayvon, and we talk about jordan davis. but i want to take a moment today for the victims that we don't always talk about. i want to talk about the nearly
100 americans who lose their lives to gun violence in this country every single day. i want to talk about the mothers and the fathers who have suffered tragic losses, the voice that is we don't always hear. just last week four lost their lives in a shooting just a few miles outside of my district in georgia. those four families are torn apart forever. each day nearly 100 families are torn apart forever, for those loved ones, thoughts and prayers are simply not enough. we need policy and we need change. it is on us here in congress to do something. i pray that my colleagues here and in the senate will support me in acting to pass meaningful gun safety legislation. mr. chair, i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is
recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. lamalfa: i rise today to highlight a bipartisan bill i have been working on with my colleague from california, mr. garamendi. we introduced h.r. 830, the flood insurance for farmers act. currently fema's requirements for flood hazard areas prohibit farmers from expanding andpring they deeasloodplain fering reqre barn d silos being ised 10 ft which ca be st prohibit r farmer a prevenneed ildings. thisegistion wld remove thisnnecessary red tapehie so allowing farmerto pay more reaonable flood iurance rates tt align with tir rue leve of isk. levees in e ea have -year lel o prottion fema wh charge res on that year insad of lack of 10yeafloodrotecti, whicssentially mea zero aa ilabity forlood insurance. from the noh state d the sacramen vley and bend is is godor ricultur
pduction in cafornia. i ur passag mr. speak, i yield ck. the spear pr tempore for whatpurpose es the geneman fr south colina seek cognion? >> m saker, i as unamous consent to addresshe house foone nute. revise anextend my rarks. the spear pro teore: withoutbjtion, the geleman is rognized foon ite. mr. nningham: today irize to sharstory of a remarkab grouof childn, thjames alan owe shugs activis, betty, lewis, mckenna, and liam, all between the ages of 6 and 8 who made it their mission to protect our oceans and marine life. recently, they successfully lobbied charleston and james allen city councils to ban plastics bags, strauss, and foam containers. collecting over 300 signatures in support of the ban. town council meetings these young activists had the courage to speak up for the marine life
who can cannot speak for themselves. it is our job to preserve the low country's vibrant natural resources for generations to come and i'm proud of the james allen ocean activists to lead the way. thank you to betty, louis, mckenna, and liam. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's an honor to stand here today as a representative of new york's 22nd district. when i talk to upstate new yorkers, there is one thing i hear time and time again, that washington is broken. we're all tired of washington's partisanship and i am here today to reiterate my promise to work with anyone who is willing to solve problems. i i will work with members of both parties to address
skyrocketing health care costs, and make sure everyone has access to high quality, affordable care. i will work to bring good jobs to upstate new york, strengthen our schools, and improve job training programs. i'll fight to make sure our local farmers have the support they need to get a fair price for their goods, succeed financially, and make an a honest living. i stand with service members and veterans to ensure they have the support and resources they need when wearing our country's uniform and when they return home. i will fight for everyday people and take on companies who use power through monopolies to abuse consumers. above all else, my top priority will be to listen to my constituents, to be a voice for swrup state new yorkers. i know that by working together we can deliver real results for hardworking people. thank you, mr. speaker. yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition?
mr. rass conditions: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 87 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 5. house resolution 87. resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, 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. section 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 15. 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 one hour. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without 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 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 technical corrections to it. the rule makes in order three amendments. it provides one hour of debate equally controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee of oversight and government reform. it provides suspension authority through the legislative day of february 8, 2019. mr. speaker, h.r. 790 will provide for a 2.6% 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 pay for military service
members which is also 2.6%. the president's f.y. 2019 budget requested a 2.6% increase for basic military members, equivalent to the statutory formula. this went into effect january 1. on august 30 last year, president trump issued he would have a downward adjustment 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 2.6% pay increase civilian workers were set to receive and replacing it with zero. congress with override and congress should override this executive order with legislation providing for a pay increase for our hardworking federal civilian workers, and
h.r. 790 does just that with a reasonable 2.6% increase, matching the increase going into effect for military service members. mr. speaker, if there's any redeeming feature to the oareded chaos of the -- sorted chaos of the 35-day shutdown, the longest in american history, sure it's reminded america that our federal workforce is indess pencible to our commerce, to our economy, to our society, and to our way of life. we have been reminded if you take away the air traffic controllers, you take away air travel. you take away the transportation security agents, you take away transportation security. 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 litter and garbage and backed up sewage and criminal activity. if you take away the food
safety inspectors from the f.d.a. and other agencies, you threaten the food supply with e. coli and salmonella and insect infestation. if you shut down the e.p.a., you empower the polluters to foul the air and dirty the waters. if you shut down the d.o.j. donell, you throw a monkey wrench in law enforcement for them to go after the mafia, white-collar crime, human trafficking, and all of the criminal enterprises endangers public safety. if you shut down the national weather service, you threaten transportation, travel, public safety. if you stop paying customs and border protection, you weaken border security and you demoralize our border patrol. and if you shut down noaa, you disable america's first responders in the campaign to meet the defeat of climate change. 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 v.a., 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 security. the contribution that more than 2.1 million federal employees ke to our country is indispensible, it's irreplaceable. mr. speaker, throughout the 35-day self-identified donald trump shutdown, the american people not only witnessed the dedication, patriotism of the federal workforce, 30% of which is made up of veterans, but we're 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 federal employee's salaries lagged behind those of the private sector by almost 31%, a finding based on u.s. department of labor data, pulled from over 250 different occupational categories. most earn less than $60,000 a year, and we've seen in the soup kitchens and food pantries and in 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 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 of america, 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% 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, and 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 complicitity from many of our friends across the aisle. and on top of all the anxiety induced by the shutdown, we know that between 30% and 35% of the federal workforce is eligible to retire within the
next five 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 mar a lago at government or personal expense and they can't afford the $36 cheeseburger at the trump hotel. secretary of commerce wilbur ross will never be able to figure out why they can't call p a friendly banker for a loan while laura trump will not know y this called an insy-wicy little bit of pain. 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 r finding the cure for sithsic fibrosis or -- cystic fibrosis running museums or making meals for the president at the white house, making the justice system work as judges, prosecutors, defenders, clerks or marshals, they deserve better than us and they need a pay raise, not a pay freeze. they deserve our respect, not our contempt. they don't ask to be deiified 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. we 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time.
the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i'd like to pick up where my friend from maryland left off. they don't deserve to be deified but they don't deserved to be demonized either. that don't applies just to our federal workforce. it applies to so many of our conversation today. i hope you have a chance, mr. speaker, to go and watch the rules committee debate last night on this rule. you might have thought that 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 three hours there talking with the committee experts on the issue. mr. connolly from virginia, mr. meadows from north carolina,
and you would be affected by the amount of agreement that those two gentlemen had. now, i don't want to say you'd be surprised, because you might know those two gentlemen as i do. you might know this issue as i do, and you might know it's bipartisan in its roots like i do but if you don't watch that hearing, if all you do is see a bill that's dropped in the hopper just a couple days ago, has had no markup in committees, has had no hearings, has had no witnesses, has had no dialogue whatsoever on it, happened to be dropped in the middle of the week where the most cynical among of us thought to be in a government shutdown before the president brought us out of it, this might just look like a messaging statement for those folks who view it through that lens and it's 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, and in testimony last night we're talking about not an insignificant amount of money in this bill. we're talking about not millions with an m. we're talking about billions of b of dollars going out the door and the question is, where do the dollars come from? the answer is, they will come from other accounts these agencies already have. well, i don't know what other account that is, and i think that's worth having a conversation about. . if you read through this language, mr. speaker, you'll see no effort whatsoever to do what every single one of us knows needs to be done. and that's to find those federal employees who make us proud at agencies every single day, reward that service, protect that service, encourage that service, make sure retention plans are in place for those employees. not a line in here to target those high performers.
equally, look through this legislation, mr. speaker. to find those folks who i know because i hear it from my veterans in my district every day, i hear it from the leadership every day, find those folks that just do not look 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 there intended to serve down instead of lifting them up. there is no effort to identify those folks. no effort to reward the high performers while trying to train up the low performers in true government fashion. it says 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 with the civil
versus system isn't that we protect employees -- civil service system isn't that we protect employees. the problem in civil service is we're the only ones who do the oversight. there is no other board of directors. it's us. and yet we bring a bill to the floor that we claim raises our federal employees up, praises our federal employees. we didn't even give it the dignity of a hearing or a markup. we can do better than that. and candidly i think we will. i think we will. we'll never know what would have happened had we not gotten started on the foot we got started on in january. i particularly regret that for our freshmen who are trying to figure out what the tenor is of this place. this isn't it. this isn't it. candidly republicans got in some bad habits at the end of 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's 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. federal employees do deserve our trust, our aa preeshation, and, yes, a paycheck at the end of the week for -- 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 in their team who are not up to the task are either going to be trained up or moved out. we can can do those things together. -- 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 tell my friend from maryland i did not bring any additional speakers with me who would have shared that very same message. when he's prepared to dose, as am i. i -- close, as many i. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you very much, 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'm glad that we can can start off the new season here where -- we can start off a new season here where federal workers deserve and need to be paid. we still have a difference about whether they deserve a pay raise. yes, the substance is clear. we're fighting for a 2.6% pay
raise for the federal civilian work force to match the 2.6% pay raise that has gone into effect for the military service members who are serving our country with their hard work and their sacrifice. and our message is clear. there is a message that's built in 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 furlough them, there is a message built into that. so we're the employer of these two million people who come to work for the federal government, and there is a message there. it's not just the money for their families. it's 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 said that all we're doing is sending that message that we stand with the federal workers, that's not all we're doing. we're giving them a pay raise they deserve. we've got tens of thousands of people who work at the pentagon who go, and we have tens of thousands dressed as civilians and military, and they work side by side and work for the country. shouldn't they all get a pay raise? don't all of them deserve a pay raise? my friend invites us to believe that because we're giving the work force the pay raise, we can't continue to implement simple service rules this a are meant to get rid of the rare bad apple you get in the federal work force. why not? why can't we use the other mechanisms in place to reward workers? if we want to improve those, i am so happy to work with, my
friend on the rules committee to develop legislation to do that. i'm afraid that's an a irrelevant distraction from the matter at hand. the matter at hand today is whether or not we're going to give the same pay raise to civilian workers that we have given to military workers. i now will yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, miss jeel. the speaker pro tempore: -- ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much. i thank the gentleman from maryland for his astute analysis and his service on the rules committee. i thank my good friend from georgia for offering his recognition of the value of our federal workers. mr. speaker, this morning i start immediate day first of all with supporting h.r. 21, gathering with the leadership of the house and senate recognizing that social security must be strengthened. but truly i join in my
long-term commitment for the survival of social security, the survive a.f.l. our families, and seniors -- survival of our families and seniors. three million senior women living in poverty. two million senior men. these individuals have worked. they may have been federal employees. joining my ed colleagues, house and senate, on supporting pay equity for women. now i'm 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 passed 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% on average for every dollar earned by men. and women of collar face the brunt of inequality, african-american women, 61 cents on the dollar. latinas earning 53 cents on the dollar. native and pacific islander earning 62% p, with white nonhispanic men. so what are we doing today? we're saying that the executive order squeezing federal workers in the middle of a shutdown by the president of the united states in an executive order is null and void. as i left for washington talking to t.s.o. officers who had worked and worked and worked with no pay as essential workers, one quietly said to he me, are we going to get a pay raise? you are you going to fight against the executive order? -- are you going to fight against executive order? and, mr. raskin, 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 work force 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. trumps' tax reform bill cost over 10 times that amount. it's important to note this is a 2.6% pay raise for federal civilian workers. it establishes pay parity between the military and service workers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: it is ridiculous to say that federal employees have been paid too much. they have been victims of
attacks, 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 airwaves, 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, the t.s.o.'s. mr. speaker, i support enthusiastically -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: let's do it now. let the president sign the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would always affected by the workers, the gentlelady from texas, but my answer is clear.
no. everybody doesn't deserve a pay raise all the time. it's true of my staff. it's true in my life. it's true in every private sector company in the country. it's true in the federal government, too. 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're in a new age i won't be able to close this debate, mr. speaker. my friend from maryland will be able to close. it's 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 pay raise fairness act. the definition of fairness in this case is that civilian workers be treated the same as military workers as it relates o a cost of living increase.
that's worthy of debate. i know many of my friends who represent the washington, d.c., metropolitan area, 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 more d.o.d. employees. folks whose tempo changes regularly. folks who are called on with increasing frequent arecy -- frequency. folks who are asked where should i go when you send me? that is qualitatively different service. should it be treated differently? this is not the right place to that -- to have that conversation. the other side of the aisle have the votes to pass if they want to pass. in fact, it's language in the bill that we could absolutely move in a a bipartisan way if we had it in the conversation.
it's language that could have been absolutely part of the negotiations to end the government shutdown since this was a decision the president made back in december of last -- not to institute the .1 2.1. if folks had negotiated in good faith, if folks had said this is what we need, this is what we think is important, we could have solved this long before now, but this bill was dropped just days ago. again with no hearing and markup. here it is before us. mr. speaker, aid like to ask unanimous consent -- i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record as if we defeat the previous question i intend to bring up a very simple amendment. i'd also like to ask unanimous consent to add any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if we defeat the
previous question i intend to bring up an 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. that's the question of those who are delinquent in their taxes. . for those folks that have not entered 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's showing up and who's going the extra mile. rewarding those folks who are going the extra mile, training
those folks up who are not -- and not rewarding those 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 oversight committee 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 federal employees, mr. speaker, is not have a messaging bill come to the house of representatives. 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. and the only ones who can deal with the issues of bad apples spoiling an entire barrel are us. we're 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'll take a small step in that direction. with that i reserve the balance of my time unless my friend is prepared to close. . raskin: a -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, thank you very much. the gentleman from georgia has given me a lot to think about here. the very first thing i need to clear up is that 85% of the federal workforce does not live in the national capital region. it's true local delegations from virginia and maryland and the district of columbia are very sensitive to these continuing assaults on the federal workforce because we have so many workers who live
here but, again, 85% of the federal workforce lives all over the country. i just learned there are 100,000 federal workers, civilian federal workers in georgia who also were affected by this government shutdown and lockout of the federal workers and i'm 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. you know, 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's 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 oversight committee wasn't organized until yesterday and we're all recovering from the shocks of the federal government shutdown. we're all trying to catch our breath from what has been imposed on the country. we've 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're 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 and certainly they know what it's like to close down debate because they did it for so many years. but now i understand they're suggesting as a substitute resolution what they want instead is a prohibition of raise on federal employees with
delinquent tax debt, but it's very clear that the federal civilian workforce is graded on an annual basis and you can get five different kinds of rankings and these are dealt th in the promotion process, in all kinds of personnel actions, including exclusion and separation in cases of delinquency where federal workers are not performing. 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 of course quite apart from reality. i'm amazed my friends would be modest enough to raise the question of taxes in their opposition to this legislation. the first problem, of course, is they passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest corporations and people in
america, $1.5 trillion. .1 trillion is $1,000,000,000 the congressional budget office estimates that it adds at least $1.9 trillion to our debt, and yet they come back and say they pay want to give a 2.6% increase to our federal workers who are just furloughed or compelled to go to work with no pay for the last 35 days. prohibition on raise for federal employees with delinquent tax debt, that's their attempt to distract everybody from the pay raise that america's federal workforce needs. well, 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 main a demuir and respectful silence -- demure and respectful silence on that one. they're not interested on the president releasing his taxes, but they want to use the fact that maybe there's 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's quite remarkable to me, mr. speaker. so i reserve the remainder of my time and i'll prepared to close if my friend from georgia is too. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. 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're 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 that we have a full, fair, and free debate. in fact, you got a wonderful team there in the parliamentarians and the clerk's office to make sure all that goes unaffected from one leadership to the next. in fact, we go back hundreds of years in terms of trying to nor the precedence and practices this chamber has brought together. we do that because when you govern this institution with that mantra of fair play, we get better results at the end. we spend less time arguing about the process. we smend more time working together -- we spend more time working together on progress,
and we get to where each one of our constituents wants us to go. our friend from maryland, we're in a tough trap here in january. of all the things i thought we would be talking about down here as it affects federal employees' pay increase, the president's conversations about his tax forms in a campaign three years ago wasn't any 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 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. may make their constituents feel better from time to time. we 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 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. we would just craft this bill, drop it on the floor, and force a vote. we can miss a couple opportunities, mr. speaker, to come together. we've already missed a few in january. we can miss a few more, but i know my friend from maryland shares my concern, there's
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 ll 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, but even in the absence of those eventuallyities, we must still commit ourselves to one another to find that stride moving forward -- eventualities, we must still commit ourselves to one another to find that stride moving forward. it's the disadvantage to every employee in this country to
make this 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, it's no us and them. there's just an us. and any opportunity we use to either distort that understanding or fail to recognize that understanding does violence to us all. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a no vote on this rule, no vote on the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, thank you so much. and 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% pay raise for america's federal workforce. i almost feel as if we were to
add the names of our distinguish colleagues on the other side of 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 co-sponsors 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. there's two problems with that. one, it's not true. i got lots of republicans who work as federal employees. i 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. probably sick of a lot of the partisanship that goes on here in washington. but think about what the real problem with the president deriding federal workers as democrats is. the real problem is that they're americans. we are all americans.
we stand together as americans. that's why we got to stand behind our federal workforce. now, i wanted to just clear up one other thing that's been bugging me because the gentleman from georgia is so persuasive in his tactics and he kind of mixed apples and oranges. we're talking about a pay raise for the workforce and he said, well, maybe most of the workers deserve one but there might be some that don't. i just want to state generally what the procedure is for evaluating federal workers. they use formal rating performance 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. in the most severe cases, low performing employees can be disciplined and removed from their jobs. now, the gentleman, i'm 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 and i call the previous question. i move the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. woodall: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of the
resolution, if ordered. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232. he nays are 190. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution is -- >> a mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. e speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the
yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. cummings: i move the house consider h.r. 790. pursuant to h.res. 87 and agree to the bill h.r. 790. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request general leave? mr. cummings: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order.
he house will be in order. mr. cummings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 790. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 87, and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 790. the chair appoints the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, to preside over the committee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 790 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a a bill to provide for a pay increase in 2019 for certain civilian employees of the federal government, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. couple cannings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. -- mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of h.r. 790, the federal civilian work force pay raise fairness act of
2019. along with my fellow colleagues of the local delegation, i want to say special thanks to chairman connolly and majority leader hoyer for their leadership on this very mportant piece of legislation. h.r. 790, as amended, will authorize a 2.6% pay raise for federal civilian workers for 2019, the same raise that our military service members are receiving this year. historically congress has tried to ensure parity in pay increases between federal civilian employees and military service members. this bill would continue this long-standing tradition. the bill would provide the pay raise to federal employees in
the competitive and accept services, blue collar workers, members of the career senior executive service, and employees in the scientific and senior level positions. . the men and women of our civil service deserve the same increase in pay because they endured so much during the last several years. they were subjected, mr. speaker, to repeated and unrelenting attacks on their pay and on their benefits. they suffered through pay higher hiring freezes, pension costs, and furloughs due to sequestration and government shutdowns. since 2011, federal workers have contributed nearly $200
billion to help reduce our country's deficit and to fund our government programs. these hardworking, dedicated federal workers include the 800,000 employees who were furloughed or forced to work without pay for 35 days during the longest shutdown in our great nation's history. the men and women of our civil service were held hostage to political dispute over funding for a border wall that the president stated over and over again would be paid for by mexico. there's something wrong with this picture. these include the members of the coast guard, t.s.a. screeners, department of agriculture workers who help farmers and ranchers, f.a.a.
air traffic controllers and safety inspectors, f.d.a. food spectors, the f.b.i., e.p.a. pollution inspectors, border patrol agents and secret service agents. given all the hardship the federal employees experience, they deserve a modest pay increase to help make up for , e years of freezes negligible increases and to help offset the cost of inflation. the pay increase will help the federal government to compete against the private sector to recruit and retain highly qualified candidates who serve the american people. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from
orth carolina is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman and i thank the chairman for his words on the importance of making sure our federal workforce are properly compensated and indeed this is an important subject and i guess, mr. chairman, i guess my question here today is fundamentally, if it's so important, then why haven't we had a hearing, why haven't we had a markup, why the rush to put this bill on the floor and not too long ago, my good friend from maryland, the chairman of the committee, would be on this same floor arguing the same thing. mr. meadows: why aren't we having a markup, why aren't we going through regular order? mr. chairman, i would remind this body, less than 30 days ago, there was a vote on the
house floor that said we're going to return to regular order. we're going to make sure that every bill goes through the committee and has a markup and actually has fair debate and, yet, here we are less than 30 days in to this new congress and we are putting forth a messaging bill that quite frankly has not been vetted. the amendment process is -- has not come out of oversight and government reform -- excuse me -- oversight and reform. the chairman acknowledges that i am correcting my title here, but i would also say this, and this is no laughing matter. i've been one of the few members on our side of the aisle on this committee that has actively engaged in trying to make sure that our federal workforce is not only properly
compensated but properly recognized. mr. chairman, here's my problem. according to federal workers, over 25% of them believe that raises do not happen based on merit, that everyone gets a raise. indeed, this pill does that. says just regardless how you perform, we're going to give everybody the same increase. now, that same federal workforce went even further to say 1/3 of them said we don't do enough to get rid of the poor performers. so what message are we sending to the federal workforce here today? we're rushing a bill that has not gone through committee. we have not provided meaningful amendments that are actually appropriate, and indeed, we have a federal workforce that says they don't get a raise based on merit -- on the merits of their work, on the hard work
they put forth. nd indeed, they're saying -- 1/3 of the employees are getting compensated regardless of their performance. when we look at that, what message does this body send to the federal workforce? it says it doesn't matter what kind of job you do. and i think that's a terrible message to send. i can tell you, mr. chairman, as we looked at this bill -- and i'm sure we'll debate the merits of this particular piece of legislation. we have the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly here, the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, both members that i respect greatly. and yet, this rush to put this messaging bill on the floor does nothing but damage the underlying support that many of us on both sides of the aisle have for the federal workforce. and so i would strongly object to this particular measure. let's slow it down.
let's go through the appropriate time to make sure that indeed we have a markup, that we have a bill. the chairman knows full well that federal workers, not only in and around washington, d.c., but across the nation, deserve our full attention and this deserves a full debate and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. let me be clear that there are many federal workers who are suffering and who have suffered. and the message that we send to them is we care about them and we know they give their blood, their sweat, and their tears over and over again. and so that's one of the messages we send. but with that, mr. speaker, i would yield to my distinguished colleague, the chairman of our
subcommittee on government operations, distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank my friend, the distinguished new chairman of the committee on oversight and reform. so proud to call him that. and let me just say, i heard the arguments from my friend from north carolina and i know he does care about the federal employees. but his arguments ring hallow when you support a 35-day shutdown of the federal government. if you believe in regular order, then you never shut down the federal government, nor do you advise the president of the united states to shut down the federal government, nor do you use shutdowns as a tools to get some policy goal achieved. that is never acceptable. it shouldn't be acceptable to
washington. it is not seble to the american people. it certainly is not acceptable to the 800,000 federal employees and equal number of federal contract numbers and small business owners who were affected negatively by this shutdown. it's hard to listen to lecture about regular order in the midst of that wreckage. and that's what we're trying to do here. it's not a messaging bill to embarrass anybody. it is a bill to try to begin to restore the integrity of respect and dignity to the men and women who serve this country. they're called federal employees, and they were innocent victims of political games as if they were pawns, mr. chairman, for a wall. we're just trying to begin the process of making them whole again. i want to thank the majority leader, mr. hoyer, for bringing this bill to the floor. the bill would end the current
freeze to federal employees, recommended by president trump, and provide hardworking civil servants with a 2.6% pay increase, matching that for military employees. on the heels of this largest government shutdown in u.s. history and the longest, i believe it's appropriate for the house of representatives to take up this legislation to make a statement in the people's body that we do respect, we do respect the work of our civil servants and our federal employees, and that we are prepared to provide concrete measures to do that. during the shutdown, some of these individuals reported to work without knowing when or if they would receive their next paycheck while others were willing to work but told they couldn't. even though the federal government has reopened, most federal employees are still waiting to receive that first
paycheck. under statute, federal civil employees should have received a 2.1% pay increase for 2019. instead, the recommendation from the white house was zero. this bill represents a pay increase of federal employees above that statutory level equal to an additional .5% over and above the statutory level that would have otherwise been provided. when the house of representatives passed appropriation bills, the senate included a 1.9% increase to federal employees. the continuing resolution agreed to by the house and senate did not reverse the president's pay freeze. this bill would. historically, congress has tried to insert parity in pay between federal civil employees and military service members. this bill will continue the tradition of pay parity for which i advocated since i came to congress 10 years ago. a federal employee pay increase of 2.6% is in my sense further
justified as the distinguished chairman of the committee pointed out by the hardships just suffered and those that suffered over the last 10 years. three pay freezes, hiring freezes, compensation cuts, benefit cuts. federal employees are the only group on the planet that have actually contributed to deficit reduction $200 billion. in nine of the last 10 years, congress has failed to enact an increase in basic pay, consistent with the statute. not true on the military side. that's why we're trying to have pay parity. in eight of the last 10 years, basic pay increases trailed increases in the cost living itself. i want to point out that the legislation in front of us has been endorsed by the american federation of government employees, national treasury employees union, national federation of federal employees, the american federation of state, county, and municipal employees, the international federation of professional and technical
engineers, the national federation of federal employees, senior executive association, federal manager association, national act of and retired federal employees, and i ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these organizations be entered into the record. the chair: that will be covered by general leave. mr. connolly: the bottom line, mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. connolly: mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman has an additional minute. mr. connolly: the bottom line, mr. chairman, is our federal civil servants are like any other workforce. more than 900,000 of those federal employees earn less than $60,000 a year. they're not rich. they're not living high in the hog. and they deserve and need this adjustment. especially after the longest, most reckless shutdown of the government in american history. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized.
mehdi khalaji -- mr. meadows: does the gentleman reserve? mr. cummings: i reserve. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize the ranking member of the committee, a champion for the american people, my good friend, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, for as much time as he may consume. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman from north carolina for his hard work in the committee. here are a couple things to keep in mind. i'm against this bill. the average yearly pay for a government worker is $85,000. c.b.o. did a study. those with college degrees who work in the federal government make 21% more than people with college degrees in the private sector. those without a college degree, 53% more than those in the private sector. so think about what this bill
says. think about what it's saying. all those hardworking taxpayers in the private sector, hey, you are already making less, but now you're going to have more of your tax dollars go to pay people who are already making more money than you to get a raise. how's that fair? how's that -- even worse. even worse. think about what the democrats are doing on h.r. 1, their signature legislation. h.r. 1, they're saying to those same people who are already making more money than folks in the private sector, they're saying to those private sector taxpayers, hey, guess what, we're not only going to give them a raise even though they're already making more than you, we're giving them six paid days to work on campaigns. six vacation days where they get paid to work on campaigns. oh, by the way, they may be helping the very candidate you're against. such a deal. . such a deal for the taxpayers. that's why i'm a no on this. i think about the taxpayers in the 11th district of north
carolina, the fourth district of ohio, and all across this country tell me how -- oh, i forgot. there is one more thing the democrats want to do. h.r. 1, they want to make election day a holiday. a paid holiday. for federal employees. this is not where we need to be. this is not respect taxpayers deserve. i urge a no vote. i appreciate the good work congressman meadows is doing on this legislation. frankly, he's right. we probably should have had a hearing. probably should have had a hearing and talk about this. maybe the democrats didn't want to talk about the fact that people in the private sector are making less with the same kind of education. than those work for the federal government w that -- i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield the distinguished
gentleman from maryland, our majority leader, mr. hoyer, one minute. the chair: the gentleman, the majority leader, is recognized. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. hoyer: i am, of course, not shocked that those who wanted to shut down the government and keep it shut are not and have federal employees making nothing. i'm not shocked that they don't want to give the federal employees a cost of living djustment. a a cost of living adjustment. -- a cost of living adjustment. now, i could spend a lot of time responding to my friend from ohio about the qualifications necessary to run and work at nasa or the f.b.i. or c.d.c. or the very other agencies that require high
level of skills to work. and i'm sure my friend from ohio has read the government reports from the council that's charged with the responsibility of determining whether we're paying comparable wages who say, no, we're not. we're substantially under, if you compare apples to apples, educational requirements, skills requirements to the private sector, similar requirement. he doesn't mention that because the averages sound much better. of course the average salary on the washington nationals team is a a little higher than that. why? because their skill levels are higher than almost anybody else n the country. madam speaker, -- mr. speaker, apologize, i want to thank
representative connolly and representative wexton for their hard work. i want to thank my friend, the chairman of the committee. representative connolly has been a a long time advocate of the pay and benefits and retaining a and being able to recruit people who have those kind of skill levels. better be careful. some 30% to 40% of our people are getting pretty close or at retirement age. they are going to say you keep shutting them down and you keep ot keeping their salary level, unlike our salary which has deteriorated for 10 years. in terms of its purchasing value. but averages are averages. i want to thank my colleagues,
mr. connolly in particular has been an outstanding advocate for many federal civilian employees living and working in northern virginia. the national capital region and around the country. let me disclose, i represent 6 ,000 federal employees. -- 62,000 federal employees. you're not shocked that i'm for federal employees. but when i was in the state senate i represented a minuscule amount of state employees. and i was paying them comparable wages so that we could hire competent, capable, committed people to serve my constituents. this shutdown just showed what kind of pain is caused. do you think those high-price people were in food lines because they want to say i'm in a food line? no, sir. they were there because they were not making enough in the washington metropolitan area,
and in other areas around the country, because only less than 20% of the federal employees live in this washington metropolitan area. the pay freeze president trump imposed on federal workers have been detrimental to our ability as a nation to recruit and retain the best and brightest citizens to serve in government. very frankly, abe pollen, a good friend of mine, he owned the washington wizards. he never asked me to play center. because i have a disability. i'm six feet not seven feet tall. and the people he asked he had to pay a lot of money to because he didn't get them if he didn't. the people running our space program, running n.i.h., they are just not run of the mill people, frankly. like me. they get extraordinary skills. we keep shutting them down. we keep not paying them. you are going to have a second
rate government. that's where you're going. you are going to have another opportunity to say shut down is stupid, i hope you join us. it is stupid and cost us $11 billion, according to c.b.o. after five weeks, unnecessary and costly painful shutdown, the american people have been reminded how critical the work our federal employees perform is to our national security and economic security. americans were horrified to learn many civilian federal employees live paycheck to paycheck. as they do. even a single month's delay of income sent many of them to food pantries and in search of emergency loans. hat isn't right. we have for a long time an agreement, we do parity for our military personnel. as we pay our military
should be. but our agreement was, look, we're going to make sure that everybody keeps their pay at pretty much a stable level of purchasing power. that's the key. very frankly some people in this house are not for raising the minimum wage. the minimum wage has eroded 40% n purchasing power since 1968. federal employee pay will erode in purchasing power if we don't pass this legislation. let's not forget that 85% of federal employees live outside the washington area. some of your districts. even in north carolina. those who work hard to keep our country and its people safe deserve to be paid competitively. this does not bring them to competitive pay. with the private sector, i tell my friends.
i'm proud to represent them as i said 6 ,000 of them. -- 62,000 of them. i met many of them over the years. they are wonderful people dedicated to servicing the nation and people of our country. they deserve better than to be treated like pawns in political games with shutdowns and pay freezes. the senate included 1.9%. we included zero over here. not surprising. when you don't respect people. you don't necessarily have to treat them as you would treat an employee in your own firm. federal civilian employees unlike their counterparts in the military have been asked to contribute $182 billion over the last 10 years in reduced benefits. and pay. $18 billion they contributed to try to bring down our debt. sort of a drop in the bucket
when you give yourself $1.5 trillion for some of the wealthiest people in america. you give yourself head room to create $2 trillion additional debt to give some of the wealthiest people in america huge tax cuts. but not 2.6% for federal employees. no, that scientist at nasa or the f.b.i. agent who has a college degree, maybe a law degree, has to figure out what some of the most dangerous people in america and around a the world are doing. no, not 6% for them. -- 2.6% for them. ladies and gentlemen, we need to make sure pay is keeping pace with the rising cost of living for those who serve this country in civilian roles as well as those in military roles. they are no less deserving of our gratitude and fair compensation. this bill would ensure that
civilian federal employees receive the same, the same 2.% that all of you voted for on that side of the aisle. for our military personnel. and i honor our military personnel. we should give them that. we should make sure their purchasing power doesn't erode. by the way, you can can talk to military families who also, from time to time, are in food lines. is that the right way to treat our people who work for our country and our constituents? i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting this bill. in doing so we can can show the hardworking men and women, unlike we showed for 35 days, that we do have respect for them. that we do care about their morale. that we do care about their ability to support themselves and their families. we can show them that we value their contributions and thank them for their important service.
i urge my colleagues at a time of extraordinary trauma among our federal employees that we should show them the gratitude and respect that they have earned and that they deserve. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields his time back. mr. cummings: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: mr. chairman, i'm glad that you made this admonishment because some of the comments that were just offered actually seemed to be directed at me from a standpoint of respect and i would remind the gentleman from maryland, both gentlemen from maryland, that this is one of the individuals who has actually worked in a bipartisan fashion on t.p.s. and a number of things. andle majority leader knows that well. i would also -- and the
majority leader knows that well. i would also say if he we make broad sweeping statements that impugn the motives of individuals, it needs to start with the previous president of the united states, bram. because when he -- barack obama. because when he froze the federal work force, three different times, i didn't hear the outrage on this house floor, mr. chairman. i'm hearing today. it somehow always one side of the aisle's fault unless it happens to be their party's president that invokes the freeze. i would say, mr. chairman, we need to make sure that those broad brush characterizations are not conveyed here on the house floor. with that i would -- respectfully i would. mr. hoyer: i thank you very much. you make a a good point. -- you make a good point. when president obama became president. we were in a deef trough as the gentleman remembers.
it was january of 2009. we sat around the cabinet table. i was the majority leader then as well. and i said, federal employees ought to get no cost of living adjustment, mr. president. the country is in a deep trough. many people are hurting in this country. and we should not have a cola adjustment this year. and i supported it the second year of not having a cola adjustment because we were still -- you will not find any record of me standing on this floor saying that we ought to give federal employees a cola while so many people in the country were struggling without a a job, losing their jobs. i just wanted to tell the gentleman when the democrat was president of the united states, i told the federal unions, all of whom supported me, look, the country is in trouble. but we're not in trouble now. the president talks about what a great economy we have. what low unemployment.
we have. mr. meadows: reclaiming my time. mr. hoyer: now i think is the time to give them that raise. thank you. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. mr. meadows: i want to make sure, mr. chairman, we correct the record. because the gentleman is correct in 2009 and 2010, but we gave them raises in 2010. federal pay freezes were 2011, 2012, and 2013 when the same president was saying everything was going fine. and so i want to remind the gentleman that if we're going to look at history, i think to use your words, let's not use revisionist history --. mr. chairman, i'm going to direct it to you. the gentleman making the argument today was not on the house floor talking about how evil the president was and how he should not be doing. that i want to correct the record here today and with that i'll recognize the gentleman from ohio for as much time as he
may consume. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i thank the chair. i have the utmost respect for the majority leader. in his comments he said the shutdown is painful and stupid. no one wants a shutdown. but i'll tell you what's stupid. mr. jordan: what's stupid is a southern border that's not secure. what's painful -- look. i feel for the federal employees who missed a paycheck. we don't want any family to have to go through. that i understand that. but i also -- through that. i understand that. but i also understand the pain that some families across this country have suffered. particularly when they lose a loved one because an illegal immigrant is here and did -- took the life of someone they care deeply about. and this shutdown would have never happened if the democrats would have voted for what they were for before, what they had already supported. but, no, no, no. they're so focused on stopping the president, they can't get focused on helping the country. everyone knows we need -- everybody knows we need a border
security wall. all you have to do is watch the caravan phenomena over the last several months. there's another one forming. until we get -- until we understand this, excuse me, and are willing to deal with the problem, we can keep having thee debates, but -- having these debates, but i wish democrats would support what they did previously. support money for the border security wall that everybody knows needs to happen. that's the real problem here. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. meadows: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may um. let me make it clear, mr. speaker -- consume. let me make it clear, mr. speaker, this is not about a border wall. this is about building people and allowing them to sustain themselves. i now grant three minutes to the very distinguished leader of our caucus from new york,
congressman jeffries. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on behalf of the hardworking federal employees who serve this nation in such a tremendous fashion. i rise today in strong support of this legislation which will provide a modest and well deserved cost of living increase for the federal work force. for 35 days this administration recklessly shut down the government so it could try to fund a campaign applause line. for 35 years, this this stration, 35 days, administration shut down the government and held hardworking employees hostage. using them like bargaining chips. from a bankrupt casino. r 35 days, hundreds of
thousands of federal employees were furloughed, putting their well-being in jeopardy. of the ays, members coast guard, air traffic controllers, t.s.a. agents, f.b.i. agents, border patrol agents, secret service agents and so many others were forced to work without pay in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. for 35 days these hardworking federal employees across the country, in the north, the south, the east and the west, stepped up for us. now it's time for this congress to step up for them. over last two years, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent their time working on behalf of the wealthy, the well-off and the
well-connected. that's the only way that you can explain jamming a reckless tax scam down the throats of the american people where 83% of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1%. house democrats will spend our time fighting for working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick and the afflicted, veterans from all across this country, many of whom, by the way, are part of the federal work force. we're going to continue to stand up for them. we promised the american people that we would increase pay for everyday americans, keeping that promise begins today. day after day, week after week, month after month, we will continue to do everything possible as we fight hard for the people. i strongly support this legislation and urge my
colleagues to do the same. i thank the distinguished chair and this wonderful committee for their great work. mr. cummings: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: may i inquire as to how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland has 15 minutes. -- 15 1/2 minutes. mr. meadows: mr. chairman, i would just -- before i make some statements, i would notify the gentleman from maryland, my good friend, mr. cummings, that we have no additional speakers on this particular topic. so i'm prepared to close at any time. -- he at any time he would like to do. so but i'll continue to reserve the balance of my time based on the speakers you might have. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. let me say this, mr. speaker.
yesterday, mr. speaker, we had our organizational meeting and i de it clear that the distinguished gentleman from a th carolina has been truly person who has worked very hard in a bipartisan way, trying to come up with commonsense resolutions. and so i in no way want him to feel that he's being -- that that's not being recognized. and we appreciate it. it's just that we have a lot of mployees who aren't making those very high salaries. they're the ones that are living from paycheck to paycheck. but, mr. speaker, one of the saddest parts is when they go that paycheck to paycheck, it's almost like no check. because when they look at their bills, the bills are so much higher than their pay.
and all we're trying to do is make sure that they keep up with the costs of living. and so with that, mr. speaker, i want to yield to the distinguished chairman of our committee on national security, mr. lynch, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do agree that the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, has tried mightily to work with us on various issues. he's not a bad man. he's just wrong on this one issue. in my opinion. first of all, i rise in support of this very, very modest cost of living increase for federal workers. you know, my wife has a habit of reminding me from time to time. she says, you know, when we first met, you were an iron worker. then you went to law school, became a lawyer.
she says, then you ran for office and became a politician. she says, you know, it's been one disappointment after another. but i want to say, as an iron worker, i was in a much better position than our federal workers. when i was an iron worker, and i eventualy -- eventually became president of the union, if my the as unsafe, or if employer refused to pay my workers, as a union president, i would pull my men and women off the job. we changed that law for federal workers. everybody in the federal government. we said, ironically, these jobs are so important that we can't have the government shut down. we can't have the government shut down. so, even though we have a president now in the white house who not only shut the job down, forced the workers to work
without pay, and then, that was on the 22nd of december, on the 28th of december, he signs an executive order that says, no pay for all of 2019 for our federal workers. i want to point out that the t.s.a. workers that we walk by at least twice a week as we come and go from washington, their base starting salary is $28,000 a year. $28,000 a year. i made more money than that when i was an apprentice boy for the iron workers back in 1972. $28,000 a year. this would represent a $27 a week cost of living adjustment for those workers. may i have another 30 seconds? mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman another minute. mr. lynch: i thank the chairman. look, in taft hartley we said, as the government we were taking away the right of workers to strike. you know, as an iron worker, i
could put my tools down if i thought it was unsafe or if somebody cut my pay. we don't allow federal workers to do that. i'm saying that this president has broken that covenant of treating our workers with respect. and i think it is only fair that we consider giving back the right to strike to our federal workers. let them stand up for themselves and protest like we give every other human being in our society. give them the right to protest, give them the right to strike, if we're not going to treat them right. i think unfortunately we've come to this point. and i certainly want to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very modest cost of living adjustment on behalf of our federal workers. and i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cummings: i now yield two minutes -- unless the gentleman -- mr. meadows: i'll -- go ahead, i
reserve. mr. cummings: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished gentlelady from the district of columbia, congresswoman eleanor mahomes norton, two minutes -- holmes norton, two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is ecognized. ms. norton: i thank my good friend, the chairman, the new chairman of our committee, for yielding to me. mr. chairman, this tiny -- i'll call it modest -- 2.6% pay raise authorized by h.r. 790 does not egin to make up for the long overdupay rolls -- pay raise of federal workers -- overdue pay raise of federal workers. it does not begin to make up for the puney raises, sometimes as low as 1%, sometimes no raise at federal workers
have had to bear. and it certainly does not make no pay for theof longest shutdown in american history. it is particularly unconscionable to follow the trump shutdown with a trump pay freeze. every member in this house represents federal workers. every member should be on this floor speaking for them. for years congress recognized pay increase equity between civilian and military personnel. but perhaps with the disparagement of federal workers
by republicans and republican presidents, and perhaps to save oney, we no longer even try to bring together these two parts of our work force. . 's hard to justify manyxample, what about the who work side by side, such as the civil servants who guard our borders, who are hardly -- could i have another minute? mr. cummings: one minute. ms. norton: who are hardly different from the soldiers who do the same thing around the country. the 2.6% pay raise proposed here does not begin to make up for difference ge
between federal and private sector employees who do the same work, according to the council that measures this work every year. but for now, after 35 days of no y, now is the time to try to insinuate some fairness into pay for federal workers, with this modest 2% pay raise. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: we her a a lot of discussion today on what is reasonable -- we hear a lot of discussion today on what is reasonable and small amounts. the pay raise they are talking about is about $5.5 billion a year, or $55 billion over 10. actually c.b.o. would probably score higher than that, robably $60 billion over 10.
this could have been solved with a compromise between 035e7b $5.7 billion for a wall. it is an extreme amount of money when we're talking about securing families, securing our borders, it was a price too high to pay now all of a sudden it's not too high a price to pay because it's a small amount f money? i fail to see the logic f we're really talking about compromise, where was the compromise over the last 35 days? there was zero money for a wall on day one. zero money for a wall on day 35. yet here today we're talking about $5 billion, $6 billion as if it were pocket change. i find that interesting, mr. chairman, because as we look at this particular issue, the american people -- my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would have the american people think that it is only the republicans that are
totally responsible for everything. yet we know that history shows when there was a democrat in the white house, that indeed there was a pay freeze. three different years. we also know that there was two votes during the economic and and ial meltdown in 2008 2009 where they gave federal workers a 3% increase while everybody else was out looking for a job. where's the parity in that? the last question i would have for you, mr. chairman, is this, where is the parity when we look at our military men and women's faces when we start talking about 2.6 and they are getting the same amount. they are not getting the same amount. talking to chief master sergeant who has been on the job for 15 years. he's getting far less pay than the federal worker that is getting the same increase. when you have over 25% of the
federal work force making over $100,000 a year, we hear all of these statistics that are low statistics. but let's be honest in our debate when we look at what we have. if this is the small amount of money, i guess i would challenge my colleague to the opposite side, let's find compromise onboarder security measures. what amount of money is proper to save families from losing loved ones? i have looked in the faces of angel moms. and angel dads where they have lost their kids. are we going to just turn our back on them as well? perhaps there is a spirit of compromise here where we can work together and find a compromise where there are no more shutdowns. let's look at passing a bill that freezes congressional pay. if there is a shutdown. i'm all in. are all the democrats in? let's look at it, mr. chairman, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from
north carolina reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. oday we're zeroing in on federal workers. average pay $60,000. e're zeroing in on folks who in many instances barely making it. and i don't want us to get it twisted. we have a situation where -- a lot of times we discuss a whole lot of other things, but don't necessarily concentrate on the subject matter at hand. yesterday, mr. speaker, in our committee, we had a lady who came in and told us that her daughter died. she died because she couldn't o $333 worth of insulin month.
that's happening in america. what is my point? these dollars mean a lot to these federal employees. i'm not going to pit our military against our civilian employees. they are all very important. i want them all to be well paid. right now we need to concentrate on, again, building people and making a difference in their lives. and speaking of building people, mr. speaker, i now yield to the distinguished lady, co-sponsor of this bill from virginia, ms. wexton. two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wexton: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to my colleague, gerry connolly, for your strong leadership on this important issue. i rise in strong support of house resolution 790 and in strong support of a long overdue cost of living increase for federal civil servants.
many will remember the president's callus executive order of december 30, right in the middle of the shutdown, freezing federal worker salaries while hundreds of thousands of them were furloughed or worse, working without pay. federal employees are not the swamp, as some would have you believe. federal employees are people who make sure that social security checks are mailed on time each month. they are the scientists researching cures for cancer. they are tour guides in our national parks. f.b.i. agents investigating criminal activity. and they are the air traffic controllers and t.s.a. agents keeping us safe when we fly. we saw during the shutdown how important every dollar of every paycheck is for federal employees to pay their bills, to pay their rent, mortgage, to afford childcare. to pay off their student loans, and, yes, even to feed their families.
it's time to give federal employees the pay raise and the respect they deserve. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. thank you. i yield back. the chair: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: is the gentleman from maryland prepared to close? mr. cummings: yes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. i will go ahead and close if the gentleman is prepared to close and has no further witnesses. he's shaking his head no. mr. cummings: we're prepared to close. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. let me close by saying a sincere word of compliment to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly.
we have great differences on this piece of legislation, and indeed we represent very different districts. but it has been said many times that you can disagree without being disagreeable. i want to compliment the two gentlemen for their vigorous debate today, but where they didn't make personal attacks. i hope that, mr. chairman, they have seen the same from me and i have high respect for both of them. i also believe that at times where perhaps we dehe can can late the emotions, and i know this is a highly charged emotional debate, as it should be, when we de-escalate that, we can can find common ground. mr. chairman, i commit to the two gentlemen that i have had the privilege of working with for the last six years i will continue to work hard and with great resolve to find ways that
we cannot only recognize and compensate our federal workers, but we can do so in a man aer that is fair and equitable and certainly make sure that the servants they are is recognized. mr. chairman, i would also say that this particular piece of will tion hopefully provide fodder for us going back to the committee and going through a a markup process to look at how we actually address this. where we actually have hearings and bring in experts. because, mr. chairman, we have had the majority leader of the congress on this house floor, citing one particular survey. we have had me here citing the c.b.o. those two statistics are at odds. i think it is important that we hear from real experts and figure out how we do this.
the time is now for us to find a way to work in a bipartisan manner, to truly move this country forward. the federal work force is an important part of that. i believe this particular piece of legislation sends a bad message to those federal workers who believe that pay raises are not based on merit. that they don't identify the poor performers we have to address that as well, mr. chairman. and so i urge rejection of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: may i ask, mr. speaker, how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i would like to insert into the record an article from the wall street post that -- "washington post" reports that the federal salary
council, the official monitor of federal pay, found that federal workers make an average of 30% less than their private sector counterparts. the chair: the gentleman's request will be by general leave. mr. cummings: thank you very much. so important t is that we do everything in our power to support our federal employees. and i want to thank mr. . nnolly and mr. hoyer they have given their blood, their sweat, and their tears for federal employees. constantly standing up for them , trying to make sure that they are treated fairly and given their due. just today i spoke to two people who were telling me employees at al
n.i.h. that basically saved their lives. saved their lives. and that they told me that -- one told me that the person who saved their life was making about $65,000. a doctor. come on, now. and the other said it was about maybe 70 at best. these are the people that could have been doing other things. could have been making a a lot of money. but they decided to give their fforts to a greater cause. their names will probably never appear on the front page or any page of the "washington post." they won't be on abc news.
they will not have the mansions they could have gotten, but they have done something that would have fed their souls. they have come to the job with passion. compassion, and desire to make things better. they are the ones that have determined that they want to put their fingerprints on the future of generations yet unborn. and then there are the others, like the t.s.a. workers, you now the ones, the ones earning $28,000 a year. and coming to work, by the way, during the shutdown, when they couldn't even afford the gas to get there. what about them? so we can make an example out
of example out of example, but one thing is for sure. that they are working hard. and they deserve our utmost support. if any message is going to be sent today, i pray, mr. speaker, that that message goes to our federal employees that we care about them. and that they are not unseen, unnoticed, preeshitied, and unapplauded. no. they are -- unaa appreciated, and unapplauded. in. they are, i hope the message goes out that we're holding them and we'llize it's not about them. -- we realize it's not about them. we realize when they don't get their raise, feament doesn't get their raise. when they don't get that raise maybe that little girl they wanted to send to ballet lessons can't get them. we get that.
or maybe that little vacation that they wanted to take, they can't get that. they are not trying to get to disney world. they are trying to get to the nearest amusement park with some tuna fish and crackers. come on, now. and that's what this is all about. we can talk about fences all we want. but right now we're talking about making people's lives the best they can be. we only have one life to live. this is no dress rehearsal and this is that life. and i do, i applaud the gentleman from north carolina. i know his heart is right. but right now i want to concentrate on those folks, the ones like the people that live in my block, get up at 5:00 in the morning, catch the early bus. to get to social security and places, trying to serve the public. talking about them. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back and i pray and i ask
members to vote in favor of this great legislation from mr. connolly, mr. hoyer, mr. wexler, and all of our co-sponsors, and to the gentleman from north carolina, i thank you. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment printed in part a of house report 116-5 shall be considered as adopted. and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended is in order except those printed in part b of house report 116-5. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in art b of house report 116-5. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. trone: mr. speaker, -- mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 116-5 offered by mr. trone of maryland. mr. trone: mr. chairman. the chair: according to house resolution 87, the gentleman from maryland, mr. trone, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. trone: mr. chairman, i rise to speak on behalf of this amendment, which would guarantee
the united states secret service receive a 2.6% pay increase with the rest of the civilian work force. the underlying bill will nullify the president's executive work order that froze pay for federal workers, it's important we include all employees of the secret service in that correction. the secret service's most well-known mission is to spend every day protecting the president of the united states. that's why it's unfortunate that first he froze their pay, then he didn't pay them for 35 days, in the longest government shutdown in history. i represent a district right outside of washington, d.c., and a lot of my friends and fellow constituents are federal workers. i was disheartened to learn in december they would not be receiving the pay increase. they go to work every day to serve our country.
they're american workers. they're patriots. they are friends and they deserve better. this amendment will ensure that no secret service employees are inadvertently left out of the much-needed pay raise. they wombing day to protect the president and the -- they work every day to protect the president and the vice president from harm and protect against crimes of our nation's financial and banking infrastructure, and they deserve recognition and they deserve a raise. i urge a yes vote on this amendment. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. meadows: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: mr. chairman, i -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. meadows: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment suffers some of the defects of the underlying bill. while there are numerous
dedicated civil servants in all parts of the federal government, offering additional across-the-board pay raise is simply not good policy. it rewards the bad, along with the good. the united states secret service is made up of many brave men and women, very honorable men and women. however, in 2015 the bipartisan report issued jointly by then-chairman chaffetz and the new chairman of o.r., then-ranking member cummings of the oversight and government reform committee, they detailed significant personnel problems. and the report describes, quote, an extraordinarily inefficient hiring process which overburdens the usss with low-quality applications, closed quote. so the men and women of the uniformed division render critical services to our government. many of them are friends and truly as we see their dedication, they have to sacrifice so much.
whether it is at the vice president's residence or whether it is on the complex just a few blocks from here. there is no margin for failure with respect to their protective mission and i acknowledge that. however, an across-the-board pay increase does exactly that. it rewards the good along with the bad. that is why we have to have, indeed, a merit-based system that truly recognizes the great performers, the vast majority of whom are great performers. but does not recognize and reward those who are not doing it. we need to do that and for that reason i would reject this particular amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. trone: mr. chairman, i'd like to point out that this is just a clarifying amendment. the secret service has pay authority for certain positions, we want to be sure that none of those positions are inadvertently left out of this underlying bill.
in short, the amendment guarantees all secret service employees are treated the same. fair and simple. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close. i'm going to go ahead and close as the gentleman from virginia is making his way down. i can just say that to rehash all the reasons, both good and bad, i'm willing to work in a bipartisan way with the chairman of both the committee and the subcommittee to try to find ways to address this issue. this amendment does not do that and for that reason i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. trone: mr. chairman, i yield one minute of my time to my colleague from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my good friend from
maryland. mr. connolly: i thank him for his leadership on this amendment which i support. the secret service do put themselves on the line and the studies my friend from north carolina cited had to do with bad management. bad management. and bad working conditions that really affect morale and product tevity at the seek -- productivity at the secret service. the gentleman's amendment is designed to try to help that situation. the idea that be a across the board of cost of living -- across-the-board cost of living doesn't distinguish between productivity and nonproductivity performance and nonperformance would also apply to the military. my friend has no objection to an across-the-board increase for the military. but apparently on the civilian side, that's different. and we're making the opposite argument. we're making the argument that pay parity is the right thing to do. especially after this reckless shutdown. i congratulate my friend from maryland on his amendment and support it. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. trone: mr. chairman, i have
no further speakers and i am prepared to close. i thank the rules committee for making this amendment in order. i urge adoption of this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-5. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? mrs. fletcher: mr. chairman, i have an amendment on the desk and ask for its consideration. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-5 offered by mrs. fletcher of texas. the chair: pursuant to house
resolution 87, the gentlewoman from texas, mrs. fletcher, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. mrs. fletcher: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to offer an amendment to ensure that the pay raises are equally distributed to all federal employees at the national aeronautics and space administration. in the houston area that i represent, there are more than 3,000 federal civil servants who do important work at the johnson space center. while most of these employees work under the traditional pay scal and -- pay scale and would be covered by the base pay scale adjustment, there are certain employees who would not. nasa, like many technical agencies, can authorize certain pay flexibilities under different chapters of the code to recruit talented individuals. my amendment merely clarifies that these employees are equally deserving of this pay raise. after the shutdown, it is now more important than ever to work
to retain talented civil service employees throughout our country, especially at nasa. i would like to thank my colleagues for working with me on this amendment and urge their support to ensure that the hardworking civil servants get the pay raise that they deserve. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. meadows: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. meadows: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. meadows: mr. chairman, i'm going to keep my remarks brief because we've got a number of different amendments going through. the gentlelady, certainly i acknowledge her tenacity and willingness to offer this. i would point out, mr. chairman, though, this particular across-the-board pay raise, it really shouldn't apply to the very individuals that she's talking about because they have flexibility already.
we know that. i mean, they get different pay raises. that is not to undermine the wonderful work that they do. i've been privileged to be able to talk to nasa folks from here in washington, d.c., to her home district in the great state of texas, and across this country. and remarkably they're one of the best-run agencies and i say that under the previous nasa administrator and under the current nasa administrator. so it's not to not acknowledge their good work, but the whole premise of being able to give them a bump, there is already great pushback among some federal workers about the flexibility that those individuals and the way that they get their pay raises, there's claims of unfairness. and so i think this sends a wrong message and i urge the rejection of this particular amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. mrs. fletcher: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to reiterate that the purpose of this amendment isn't to address the underlying issues that the gentleman from north carolina raised, but is really to just ensure that the language of this amendment may be applied equally and that no one at nasa is left behind because of differences in the way that their compensation structure is currently scheduled. this is a clarifying amendment and it just is dedicated to the purpose of making sure that these employees may be included and not excluded from this act. other than that, mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-5. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? mrs. trahan: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and i ask for its consideration. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-5 offered by mrs. trahan of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 87, the gentlewoman from massachusetts, mrs. trahan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts. mrs. trahan: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to commend the sponsors of this important bill that rewards the talent and commitment of our civilian work force by granting them a 2.6% pay adjustment for 2019.
mr. chairman, the shutdown was a stark reminder of how crucial these workers are to protect our air and water, secure our shores, guide air traffic and ensure that our tax returns are processed on time. i heard desperate stories from many of these public servants, including workers at the i.r.s. processing center in andover. one of my constituents who works there wrote the following to me during the shutdown, quote, apart from selling everything i own to pay for food, bills and the mortgage, i onest -- honestly don't know what to do and am truly scared that this may do me in. mr. chairman, this was an entirely avoidable tragedy that wreaked havoc on thousands of lives. yet he and thousands of others like him dutifully reported to work without any certainty of when or whether they would be paid next. . the underlying bill is the least we can do for them. my amendment is a simple
clarification that all i.r.s. employees would be eligible nor pay adjustment. we learned yesterday from legislative counsel that this could leave out some hired under special provisions of chapter 95, title 5. fwrecks title 5 section 9503 gives i.r.s. special authority to hire employees for critical functions necessary to carry out the functions of the i.r.s. however it's unclear whether such individuals would benefit pay raise.90's this removes all doubt. i hope the amendment can be departmented. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman re-- the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise to claim time in pposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> we are going through
amendments that are clarifying and technical and all that. mr. meadows: this could have been avoided if we'd had a hearing and a markup and gone through yet here we are today on the house floor trying to make amendments to a bill that candidly is missing the mark. i yield as much time heas may consume to the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is one of the most ridiculous amendments i've ever seen. just a few years ago, the i.r.s. targeted people -- targeted people for their political beliefs, systematically for a sustained period of time went after conservatives because they didn't like what they were -- their political beliefs, what they were doing. mr. jordan: new we're saying that those same people across this country, we have constituent, congressman meadows had skits -- constituents the gentlelady from massachusetts had constituents, we're now
saying, you may have been targeted by the i.r.s. but now we're taking your hard-earned tax money and give them a pay raise? giving people a pay raise who went after people's most fundamental right, your right to speak out -- your first amendment liberties. that's what this amendment would do. also, chairman knows this, we did an investigation in the oversight committee. the i.r.s. had fired people who they then rehired, think about this, and some of the people they rehired who had been fired, some of the people they rehired were people who didn't pay their taxes. and we're now going to give them a pay raise. you've got to be kidding me. the very agency that systematically went after people, went after our most fundamental right, our right urn the first amendment to speak out against our government, went after people for doing that because they didn't like their
political belief, set up this elaborate be on the lookout list, did that, also the same agency who fired people for not paying their taxes and rehired them and now the tax pay verse to give them a pay raise. that's what the democrats want in this amendment. this is ridiculous. we should reject this. and we should reject as we talk about before the whole darn bill. with that, i yield back. mr. meadows: i reeverybody -- i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. trahan: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my friend from massachusetts and congratulate here on -- her on this amendment. i can't believe that the distinguished ranking member of our committee would continue to engage in conspiracy theories that have been in fact disproved. and worse, would actually paint the entire 41,000 or more work force of the i.r.s. with one
brush, they're all apparently out to get us. mr. connolly: you would never know these are hardworking public servants who serve their country nobly and often under difficult circumstances because they're hardly the most popular agency in town. of course they deserve a pay raise. they were affected by the shutdown. many of them were called back by the trump administration to come back without pay because certain industries needed paper being processed. and they did it. because they're noble public servants and they're patriots as the distinguished chairman of our committee indicated. so instead of slandering public servants, we want to honor them. you're right. we're proud of this amendment. and it's anything but the most ridiculous to come to the floor. it's a very important amendment, i support it. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: i yield such time heas may consume to the gentleman from ohio. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm not painting with a broad brush, i know there are good employees there. all i'm saying is an agency that did what the i.r.s. did, who rehired an agency who rehired these who had been fired, some for not paying their taxes, who went after people for their real jus beliefs, do you think that agency who did those thing, do you think those people need a pay raise? mr. jordan: my guess is most of the constituents i get the privilege of representing in the fourth district of ohio would say i'm not for that not painting with a broad brush. all i know is what this agency did and it is not conspiracy theory and the gentleman from virginia knows it. the inspector general did a report and said targeting occurred at the internal revenue service, they went after
conservative, tea party conservative groups and it happened just as sure as i'm standing here speak on the house floor and the gentleman from virginia knows that to be the case. with that, i yield back. mr. meadows: i can tell you when we look at sending a message this sends entirely the wrong message, we need to make sure that we reward federal workers but we also hold them accountable and i urge rejection of this particular amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from is recognized. mrs. trahan: the employees i talk to at the i.r.s. are noble, hardworking, they're working with the utmost integrity. they have endured cuts to their agency and at times doing jobs that used to require two, sometime there's people to do. again, my amendment merely makes a clarifying change to be certain that all of these employees, all our i.r.s. workers, receive the benefit of this well-deserved pay adjustment.
i urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. meadows: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 790, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 790 and has come to no esolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. the house will resume
proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. clay: i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 79. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 79,
expressing the sense of the house of representatives that government shutdowns are detrimental to the nation and should not occur. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house resolution 79. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clay: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i'm relieved and grateful that the longest government shutdown in our nation's history has ended. i'm sure that many people share these same feelings, including
my colleagues. the american people and especially the 00,000 federal employees who were furloughed or forced to work without pay for 35 days have to be relieved. i hope that the one positive thing to come out of this experience is universal recognition that the government shutdowns are almost always pointless exercises that are harmful to our country and our constituents and the federal government should be open for business. and not closed. that is why i strongly support house resolution 79, the measure before us today. even though the recent shutdown affected only part of the federal government, its impact
was deeply felt throughout the country. the department of homeland security, state treasury, commerce, justice, agriculture and the e.p.a. and nasa were shuttered. operations at these agencies essentially came to a screeching halt. phone calls went unanswered as federal workers were furloughed. safety inspections of industrial sites, factories, and power plants were halted because e.p.a.'s inspectors were sent home. food inspection at the f.d.a. ceased. scientists at the national oceanic and atmospheric administration and the fish and wildlife service were furloughed. law enforced officers at the f.b.i., d.e.: a., secret
service, and customs and border protection were the lucky ones. they got to work without pay. these dedicated men and women, many of whom make only $60,000 a year, miss more than a month's pay. just like other middle class families, federal employees have bills to pay also. food, mortgages, rent, medical bills, student loans and car payments. and like so many other americans, many live paycheck-to-paycheck. it is simply cruel to inflict such financial hardship and unnecessary stress on workers who just want to do their jobs serving the american people. last atest irony of the shutdown is that immigration
enforcement and border protection suffered as a result, despite the president's fixation on the wall. a brilliant 14th century solution to a 21st century problem. the shutdown closed the immigration courts, contributing to an already significant backlog of cases and delays and deportations. the harm ripples through our economy touching everyone. from federal employees to federal contractors and private sector businesses. an most importantly, to every american who relies upon the vital services federal workers provide. the c.b.o. estimated that the economic cost of the shutdown is $11 billion. that's $11 billion.
almost twice the cost of the funding the president seeks for his wall. we must learn from this recent shutdown. we must not let it happen again in a few short weeks. we can and must do better and work together to prevent any future shutdowns, which i'm certain my friends and colleagues from north carolina and ohio want to do, so i'm sure they'll have a short response to opening statements and probably join in with us. and with that, mr. speaker, i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. i notice the smirk on your face. we find it laughable as well. but i enjoy the gentleman from
missouri, is that the way you say it, the gentleman from missouri -- excuse me. i enjoy the humor. but unfortunately there's nothing funny about this. you know, i find it just unbelievable that the gentleman opposite would be talking about how important this resolution is . they just dropped it on monday night. i mean, it hasn't been out there for any length of time. in fact, it violated the very rule that this chamber passed in the beginning of this congress. and yet somehow this resolution is so unbelievably important, it's nothing more than a message meant to go after the president of the united states and, quite frankly, i find this resolution nothing more than a political stunt. and i'm troubled by it, mr. speaker.
because here we are today arguing over this resolution that could have been dropped. we were here working. it could have been dropped long ago. but the gentlewoman from virginia just drops it on monday night of this week. maybe they were working on the wording in puerto rico when they were down there caravanning with lobbyists. mr. speaker, that you know very well. maybe, maybe when christmas was here, when the president was in the white house willing to negotiate, they were working and fine-tuning this message to make sure that it is here. but no. that's not what this is about. this is about a political stunt. this is literally a political messaging point meant to hopefully garner the support for some member of congress that has a swing district so that they can send a message and take it.
his, mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i am here today to let you know that we don't need words, we need compromise. and i take the gentleman from missouri's word. if we're willing to work together and find a compromise, i think we all would prefer that there's never another shutdown. in fact, i think we ought to propose legislation that would suspend congressional pay for every member of congress if there's ever another shutdown. and so hopefully my members opposite would join me in that. where we can put some kind of pain to make sure that we're there. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure my friends on the other side will agree, it does no one, it does this country no good when we shut down government.
and i don't know about you, but my friend from north carolina, i believe he goes through airports sometimes. and i'll say this. over the last five weeks it was quite difficult for me to look my constituents in the eye who happen to be t.s.a. agents, and tell them, i'm sorry, but you're going to miss a payday, or you're going to miss another payday. we're better than that. we're better than that as a congress, as an institution, and as a government. so on that note, let me yield to the sponsor of this legislation and my friend, ms. wexton from virginia. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from virginia is recognized. ms. wexton: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the gentleman from missouri for yielding me
your time. i rise in support of house resolution 79, which is my resolution, expressing the sense of the house of representatives that government shutdowns are detrimental to the nation and should not occur. mr. speaker, between december 22 and january 25, over 800,000 federal workers went without pay because of the trump shutdown. saying that shutdowns harm the american people and the economy should not be controversial. these facts are not up for debate. or at least they shouldn't be. but yesterday members of the freedom caucus basically tried to shut down the house of representatives because they obbletted to a sentence in the resolution that -- objected to a sentence in the resolution that said the president shut down the government to achieve a legislative end. now, he did. we all saw him say it on television and we've seen it many, many times since then. but i'm a brand new legislator, and i am all about getting the yes and finding consensus.
so the offending clause has been removed from this resolution and should not be a problem anymore. now, for 35 days, our workers were forced to go without a paycheck. that's two pay periods that workers had to make difficult financial decisions for themselves and for their families. essential services were halted. national parks were shuttered. and our national security was compromised during this time. t.s.a. screeners and air traffic controllers were forced to work without pay. f.b.i. offices had to delay entitlements against violent criminals. the c.b.o. estimated that the effect of the trump shutdown was $11 billion with over a quarter of that amount permanently lost. the shutdown also impacted our federal government's ability to recruit and retain career public servants, with many federal workers reconsidering their career choices after this shutdown irreparably harmed them. on december 20, the president
announced that he would refuse to sign legislation that had been unanimously passed by the senate just the day before. due to his insistence that congress provide funding to build a wall along the southern border. now, this was not a priority before democrats took over the house of representatives, but all of a sudden it was a crisis. and this resulted in the longest government shutdown in american history. mr. speaker, my resolution highlights the substantial burdens that were placed on the american people from the time -- from the president of the united states attempting to use the government shutdown to get a policy win. but nobody wins when the government shuts down. my district is home to tens of thousands of federal workers and government contractors, and the impact of the shutdown was felt in my district almost immediately. but i've also heard from people all over the country who were impacted by this shutdown. including an air traffic controller who told me about the stress that going two pay periods without pay added to
what is already one of the most stressful jobs in the nation. i heard from a family who had to give up their christmas entirely and who asked their children to hold their money because they had to make sure they had the funds to buy food during the prolonged shutdown. and heard from the c.e.o. of a small business in my district that relies on federal contracts with the federal government, who was worried about how he was going to continue to pay his workers when his workers -- when his invoices from the federal government were not being paid. meanwhile, the guidance from the administration to workers without paychecks was to suggest they take out loans, have a garage sale, baby-sit. drive for uber. become a mystery shopper. or ask their landlords for an extension on their rent. and on january 24, the secretary of commerce made comments on live news expressing confusion of why federal employees who have been furloughed or working without pay had to receive
assistance at food banks. these unreasonable suggestions from the administration and the comments from secretary ross show just how out of touch the administration is when it comes to our federal workers. many of whom do live paycheck to paycheck. we have an opportunity to make it clear that shutting down the government of the united states is not an acceptable strategy to resolve policy differences. madam speaker, mr. speaker, sorry, after all they've been through, we owe assurances to the millions of federal civilian workers, including the hundreds of thousands who were furloughed earlier this month, that congress will ensure continued, uninterrupted operations of federal government. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. perriello: thank you.
mr. speaker, people -- mr. perry: thank you. mr. speaker, people at home think they're watching c-span but this is more like masterpiece theater. this is like a documentary where we record what happened in history but here we see we're going to change, we're going to revise history and remind everybody who is watching and everybody in this house that under this minority leader, who is the majority lead -- who was the majority leader at the time, we passed the bill in this house to keep the government open. we didn't want to shut the government down. we wanted to keep the government open and fund voter security. we passed this in the house. we bassed it in this house and -- passed it in this house and we sent it to the senate. and it was the senate democrats who said, oh, no, we're not going to do any of that border security stuff. we want you to have a shutdown and then we'll blame it all on you. mr. speaker, we're not here to revise history. we would like to get to the task at hand, which is solving this issue of border security. and we ask the other side, instead of engaging in this blame game, of which they're wholly a part of, obviously, they don't want to keep the
government open, those senate democrats didn't want to do anything to keep the government open, forget this charade, this theater, and let's get to negotiating on border security and making sure that the american people are safe. with that, i yield back. mr. meadows: i thank the gentleman. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's hard to respond to that last speech. a bill came from the senate unanimously. .epublicans and democrats which would have opened the government. we would have voted for that
, but after not moving on department of homeland 11 2/3 of a year, the then-majority party added into that bill a piece of legislation they knew would not pass the united states senate. democrats would not be for it. the gentleman is correct. and you knew they wouldn't be for it. and you knew you couldn't get 60 votes. and notwithstanding that, you passed a piece of legislation that directly resulted in the shutdown of government. i say that, those are the facts. as a matter of fact, we thought the president of the united states agreed with that bill, 900 feetow in the some from there to here, he changed his mind.
maybe he talked to ann coulter or sean handity. i don't know who the operative advisor was, but he changed his mind. as a result, we had the longest shutdown in history. c.b.o. says it cost at least $11 billion. the economic advisor at the white house said it was costing .1 of a point a week. this resolution says, shutdown is stupid. if you don't agree with that, and i'm sure some of you don't agree with it, because i've been in this chamber when you have voted to keep the government shut down, and you don't like me saying that. your speaker asked you to open
up the government and 144 of you , your speaker, mr. boehner, not a democrat, said, look, this is stupid, we need to open up the government. and 144 of you voted no. now, it passed because all of us voted with 87 republicans, including your present leader, who voted yes to open up the government. this resolution is so simple. shutdown is stupid. that's all it says. we'll see how you vote. i'm going to say something about some people who think it's stupid. i want to thank my friend from -- ms. , ms. wecksman
wexton, who saw many hardworking employees who were negatively affected. about whetherment to give them 2.6% pay increase. we voted to give them nada, zero, zim no pay at all i see my friend the minority leader on the floor, he said not paying 800,000 people was unacceptable. i agree with him. i think that's unacceptable. i think asking people to work and not pay them is not a moral thing to do. this resolution as i said is simple. it's one i believe nearly every member of this house ought to support unless you support shutting down the government of the united states of america. it says shutdown should never be a strategy in negotiations over funding. period. full stop.
we just endured 35 days of a dangerous and unnecessary partial government shut dunn that caused 800,000 american workers to be denied their paychecks and that the c.b.o. says as i said $11 billion was the cost. those are the direct costs. our resolution makes it clear that such a use of shutdowns or the threat of shutdowns ought not to be tolerated in our political system. this resolution says that. but i'm going to have some other people who are going to say that as well. no other country has this phenomena. i can't find another country that shuts its government down. in australia, if you shut the government down, the government falls. you have to form a new government. there's no reason why americans should have to live under the threat of being taken hostage yet again by the next time there's an unresolved debate over an issue. whatever the issue might be. even many republican leaders agree that using shutdown is
wrong. i think most leaders, as a matter of fact. not everyone. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, very definitively called shutdowns, quote, a failed policy, close quote. and senator susan collins, rightfully said just a few days ago that, quote, shutdowns represent the ultimate failure to govern and should never be used as a weapon. let me repeat that. and never should be used as a weapon to achieve an outcome. sure allolleagues, i'm of you nola mar alexander. former governor of tennessee, former secretary of education, a member of the united states someone who was
prominently mentioned, regular he mentioned as a candidate for president of the united states on the republican ticket. here's what he said. it is always wrong, always wrong , for either side to use shutting down the government as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations. now, hear this, my colleagues. senator alexander, it should be as off limits as chemical eapons are in warfare. could senator alexander have said it any more powerfully that shut dunns -- shutdowns are not an option? that's all this resolution says. sadly, i think a lot of you are going to vote no. i suppose on the theory that you
think no, if we don't get our way, shutting down the government sour optionful that's certainly what you told mr. boehner. and then later mccarthy. this resolution says let's not allow that to happen again. we now have three weeks to avert the next shutdown. i'm hopeful the appropriations committee will present us with a bipartisan agreement on how best to invest in border security. we all need to do our job. i call on my colleagues to join us on this resolution to make it clear to our federal employees, to our contractors, the american people, and yes, to the rest of the world that we don't believe shutting down the government of the united states of america is an option in negotiations. ote for this resolution.
you know that shutting down government is not a positive result of our failures. i yield back the balance of my ime. mr. clay: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: may i inquire how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina has 15 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from missouri has eight minutes. mr. meadows: mr. speaker, the comments that we just heard from the well from the majority leader fail to mention one critical point about this resolution. this resolution doesn't do anything to stop a future shutdown. it's designed in its purpose to give cover to a number on the
other side of the aisle who voted in this very chamber to not fund those who were deemed essential pay at a critical sometime. in fact, indeed, the very sponsor of this resolution voted against giving pay to those men and women who continue to show up to vote and now somehow we're going to vote on a resolution and make it all ok? let's -- if we're going to have history, let's make sure it's accurate. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> what's stupid is not securing the border. if democrats support now what they supported then there never would have been a shutdown. 10 years ago, all kinds of senators supported money for a barrier on the border. senator obama said this we cannot allow people to pour into the united states undetected, undocumented, unchecked, americans are right to demand
better border security, better enforcement of our laws. mr. jordan: secretary clinton said this i voted numerous times as a senator to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. oh how times have changed. where's the democrats today? what's the position they have left today? congressman blumenauer, abolish i.c.e. candidate clinton, we need a border -- borderless hemisphere. the speaker of the united states house of representatives said walls are immoral. and the person they selected to give the state of the union response, gubernatorial candidate in georgia, said she's ok with noncitizens voting. oh, how times have changed. all we're asking for is, do what you said before. be for what you were for before, let's build the border security wall. let's focus on one simple thing here. one simple thing. let's do what's best for the country.
everyone knows a sovereign nation should control its borders. everyone knows a border security wall will help with this caravan phenomena we've watched over the last several months. let's build the border security wall. if we can agree on that democrats were all for it a couple of years ago, there never would have been a shutdown and we'd be serving the american people. with that, i yield back. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserve the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend, mr. clay, of missouri, and the -- and a distinguished member of our committee. i hope the american people are listening to what is being said here on the floor. because they're actually getting an honest flavor of where my friends, some of my -- some of my friends on the other side of the aisle actually are.
everybody, mr. jordan says, agrees we need a wall a barrier on the border. actually not everybody does. actually most polls show most americans don't support that. and that number is increasing. the opposition. federal workers make more than their private sector counterpart despite the fact that the official study shows that 31% behind the private sector counterparts and there are differences because of the differences in the nature of the work. what you're also hearing besides darwinian survival of the fittest rhetoric, marie antoinette "let them eat cake" kind of rhetoric out of this administration and some members of this body, which i think reflects poorly on an understanding about where the average american, including the average federal employee, actually is and what their needs
really are and they don't demand much but respect is something they do demand. and it is something we offer them. and that's why this resolution in front of us is so important. sit that hard to come together? yeah, it's nonbinding but it's aspirational. and even that apparently some of my friends from the other side of the aisle find difficult to swallow. a commitment not to shut down government for any reason. let's not hold federal employees and the american public they serve hostage ever again. we'll keel with our policy disputes separately but we won't, we won't engage in shutting down the federal government. because it's disastrous, it's reckless, it's dysfunctional and it's a disservice to the people who sent us here. and it's that simple. never again shut down government. yield back. mr. clay: i continue to reserve.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves, the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, for two minutes. mr. roy: thank you, my friend from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roy: mr. speaker, you know what's hard to respond to? it's hard to respond to my constituents at home who are witnessing the theater of the absurd. it's hard to respond to lori vargas, a mother in san antonio who lost her son jared last summer to somebody who was here illegally, who was captured, released, captured, released, stopped by law enforcement and then murdered her son. it is extremely hard to respond to our members of the border patrol who go down to the river, the rio grande and laredo, down there with no cell signal no radio, can't see the river through the cane, they're down there by themselves, they know the cartels have operational
control of the border, they know their lives are threatened if they speak out about the cartels, they know there are terrorists who are leading cartel organizations across the board in nuevo laredo, and we're doing nothing to give them what they need to defend the united states of america. i can't go home to the people in texas 21 and explain to them why we're here for two days having show votes and then leave on a wednesday. explain that. explain to the people why we're going to leave this afternoon at 1:00, not securing the border. it makes absolutely no sense to the american people when they watched what happens in this body and they wonder how this people's house leaves them with an unsecure border and nothing more than show votes like we're going to have today for political theater. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized.
mr. meadows: is the gentleman prepared to close? i've got two more speakers. mr. clay: i've got one more. mr. meadows: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is ecognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i thank the managers of the bill, both of them, the gentleman from missouri and the gentleman from north carolina. i thank ms. wexton and mr. connolly for capturing the essence of what this legislation is all about. it is not contentious. we don't intend to divide this house, we intend to unify this house. but i think as we speak to our colleagues and the american people it is clear that the opening sentence says that this body believes that shutdowns are
detrimental to the nation. that is a word that i think all of us can join on. if we look at the desperation of r federal workers, 00,000, 270,000 in texas, 4,000 in my district, you see the opening line, my landlord is calling and i must pay and the followup is, i have no money. so all that we are saying today is to affirm our constituents of their value from coast guards to f.b.i. to customs and border protections, transportation security, forest service fighters an coast guard are on the front lines. to my good friend from texas, i can't count ethe times i have been to the border and seen barriers and fencing but what i do know is yes, sheila jackson lee has voted over and other for border security, here years ago, and made the first crunch of
dollars. that dealt with increasing border patrol when they were barely in existence, providing laptops and providing the kind of vehicles that they needed and work with land owners who didn't want any kind of fence, stone or otherwise. but to be able but to be able to give them the support. now we need smart border security, technology with drones, better infrastructure, more ports of entry. but today we hope that will happen. because it will happen because appropriators are sitting down. but can we reflect? this shutdown was in the midst of christmas, when we had bills that republicans and democrats had signed on to, came from the senate, we could vote. this is saying that whatever our policy differences are, you never hold a federal worker, a person who is serving his or her
nation hostage. you never make them desperate. you never make them have to call a congressional office, i'm about to be evicted, as my constituent did, and you have to save them. we never let them lose their house or bring their children out of school, as some had to do. you never let them do as they're doing in my district right now, going to get groceries, and you never let them hear the words, go to a bank, i don't you know why they just can't walk into a bank, or someone else say, it's ok, they're doing it for their nation. that's what this is about. it is simply allowing us to tell a reservist from the middle east that she doesn't have to sell her belongings because she doesn't have a job, because she is a federal worker, and she's been furloughed. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution and i ask them to stand for the american people. i yield back. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i thank the gentlewoman from texas and i continue to reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. in consultation with my friend opposite, we're going to recognize the gentleman from west virginia and then recognize the republican leader after that , and be prepared to close. so i'm going to recognize the gentleman from west virginia for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this resolution talks about not having more government shutdowns. we don't need a resolution for that. of course there shouldn't be government shutdowns. that's why last year this body passed a resolution to fund government, including trump's border wall, that he asked for. we passed that out of this chamber. it went to the senate and they did nothing. the senate did nothing. they did nothing for over 30 days. they just sat while the government shut down. why? because the minority party in the u.s. senate, the minority party in the u.s. senate, chooses to just threaten to filibuster. moon moon and if they don't -- mr. mooney: and if they don't get everything they want, they
shut down government until such time as this chamber or the president or whoever they want to bully around gives them everything. that is not the way government is supposed to work. i had a conversation yesterday with a young man here in d.c. who said, how are you going to end these government shutdowns? what's going to happen now? we've appointed a committee, a conference committee. that's how it's supposed to work. the homeland security conference committee meets today. there are four republicans three, democrats. which reflects the makeup of that chamber. there are 10 from this chamber, six democrats, four republicans. which reflects the makeup of this chamber. that's the committee where you meet and you work these things out. that's the system, the founders of our country -- system the founders of our country set up for us here. the problem is we've gotten away from that. we do continuing resolutions, like we shunalt, and we sit here and one side -- shouldn't, and we sit here and one side has to get everything they want. if democrats don't get everything they want, they want to shut down government and then falsely blame everybody else. that's not the way it's supposed to work, ladies and gentlemen. i'm glad wf a -- we have a conference committee. my senator from west virginia is actually on that committee that's supposed to meet today to
work out exactly what we're going to do with the border wall and fund homeland security. that's what we should do every bill. that's why last year when we were in the majority we passed the appropriations bills, over to the u.s. senate. you know what they did? nothing. ok. and it doesn't take 60 votes to pass a bill. it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. that's different than passing a bill. the dysfunction in the u.s. senate cannot continue to reign in this country and cause government shutdowns, particularly when the minority party wants everything. with, that mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. -- with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. meadows: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his remarks. we have dozens of people that are willing to speak. but in the interest of time, none more important than the republican leader, that i yield one minute to. the speaker pro tempore: the republican leader is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition of house res. 79.
a glorified press release that the majority is having this chamber spend time on at another, yet, underwhelming legislative week. at a time when the country expects its leaders in washington to look forward, this house majority is looking backwards. when our country expects solutions, they're using this chamber to settle political scomplets as hundreds of thousands of american -- political scores. as hundreds of thousands of americans experience the pain of a shutdown, a shameful record under this majority's watch. it was a shutdown that never had to happen. let's recall last december when this house passed an appropriations bill that would have funded the government, secured the border, and provided disaster assistance to the millions affected by hurricanes and fires. and most importantly, it was a bill that would have been signed
into law. and this occurred under the then-leader pelosi, declared in the oval office earlier this month, that the house majority couldn't pass such a bill. that legislation went to the senate and alas, senator schumer stopped it. and in doing so, once again, senator schumer shut this government down. from the moment senator schumer blocked consideration of that appropriation bill, president trump and congressional republicans offered solution after solution after solution after solution to solve the challenge. in all, the president offered four reasonable solutions to end the shutdown and secure the border. the democrats never offered one. in fact, they went on vacation and political fundraisers to puerto rico. they littered this chamber with messaging bills that didn't come
close to solving the problem and would never be signed into law. mr. speaker, i want to focus on the very last solution the president offered. i want to focus on it because it met democrats halfway. it was the truest form of compromise this town has seen in quite some time. it would have secured portions of the border with barriers. and it would have provided certainty to the very communities that my friends on the other side of the aisle have stood on this floor for countless hours to claim they want to help. instead, mr. speaker, the actions of this majority when presented that opportunity and following the shutdown, it tells you all you need to know about who they truly want to help. you know who they want to help? themselves. after the president signed a three-week continuing resolution, the speaker gloated
with a presidential style enrollment ceremony. democrats marveled at the exercise of raw political motivation. and many in the media responded like they were beat reporters from their hometown team. this all sounds like a historic event. what exactly was everyone celebrating? they were celebrating nothing. they were celebrating achieving nothing. they were celebrating the status quo that suits their political interests and political per suits of self--- pursuits of self-righteousness. a status quo that causes pain and suffering for americans across this country. and here are just a few examples. here has been 266,000 criminal aliens arrested in the last two years. this includes charges of convictions of 100,000 assaults, nearly 30,000 sex crimes, and
4,000 violent killings. 300 americans die every week from heroin and more than 90% of heroin comes from across the southern border. and roughly 10,000 children are being smuggled into the u.s. every year to be sold for human trafficking. and they are celebrating a atus quo that leaves 700,000 daca-designated individuals unsure about their future. it was the best display of politics that this country is sick and tired of seeing. zero-sum politics and nothing ever changes. i'd like to spend some time and reflect on americans and their families who may not have been celebrating the status quo reserved by this majority. rry david, sherry david,
deputy josi greenhouse fox, ierce corcoran, officer singh, clinton how, robert page, justin e, ellie bryant, grayson , edwin dominic durden ronabeck, kenneth , ott mall, officer kevin will sergeant brandon mendoza, sergeant cory ryde, josh galavek, katencer steinle, detective michael davis , deputy danny olver, bob barry
- tibets, ronald desilva, sara ot, drew rosenberg, cara willingham, oscar navarro, rgaret costanik, andreas urran, rock jones, michael grubbs. these are just 50 names of americans whose lives have been lost to illegal immigration. they no longer have their voice. but we can and must be their voice today. and if these names sound amiliar, it's because we heard them on the news. also i'd like to reflect on others who certainly weren't celebrating the status quo. the names may sound familiar because these are the same individuals that then-leader
pelosi set a record on this floor just a year ago in february, more than eight hours, defending the passion of daca and shutting the government down. vanessa rodriguez, anna sanchez, an, cesar vargas, nicole , cesar andreas sabria espinosa, denise rojas, ray panetta, kelly, crystal, carlos, mary anne, brittany, hugo, fernando, javier, marco drado, myra, fernando herrera, emily, sanchez,bruna, cynthia se, hugo alexander acosta, deana, louise, hector are a vera
arez, juan carlos, trisha, maria, jose, carlos emanuel diaz-balart, louise roberto ara, sophia de la varga, gloria, alonzo, uri hernandez, oscar, ashley la madrid, gladys, mr. a joseph, miriam ocho, speaker, as this house adjourns after just today, one ruled bill, i implore my colleagues to take some time and think deeply about these individuals, their families and what our country stands for. it's certain -- it certainly isn't this political stunt by
this majority, and it certainly isn't the status quo they are so proud to protect. . as members of the u.s. house of representatives we're a small group with a very large responsibility. the burden on us 435 americans is to represent 325 americans faithfully. to work together so tomorrow is better than today. let us not let these political distractions get in the way of our duty. instead, let's actually work together to give the voice to the voiceless. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: mr. speaker, powerful words. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i'm ready to close whenever my friend is. the speaker: the gentleman from north carolina -- excuse me, the
gentleman from missouri reserve, egentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. meadows: powerful words by our republican leader. there's been a lot of debate, i don't think more somber moment and -- experienced this week than when the 50 names were read out. where their loved ones will never be able to welcome them home. there will be ballgames that are missed. there will be calls that are no longer made, welcome home, daddy. or welcome home, son or daughter. mr. speaker, we have talked a lot about the pain and anguish of federal employees and indeed, there are real hardships there that are undeniable. but mr. speaker, they're getting their pay back. the lives of the 50 people that were just named on this house
floor, there is no returning. their lives were extinguished, mr. speaker, and we must do something about that as well. and i'm committed to my colleagues opposite to work with them to protect federal workers as long as they're willing to work with us to protect the communities and the safety of moms and dads from toast to coast and on that, it is important that we have no more show votes. this resolution that is meaningless other than to provide cover for some on the other side of the aisle that voted against giving pay to those that were essential employees. i urge a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank all the body for engaging in this debate of the
minority leader bringing forth those names. but let me say that house resolution 79 is not about the undocumented. nor is it a political stunt. it is not messaging for some political purpose. this resolution is about compassion and respect for fellow americans. who happen to be federal workers. that deserve to stay on the job and deserve to get a paycheck. and go to work -- and for the work and the service they give to the rest of the country. my friends on the other side know better. they know better than shutdowns are -- that shutdowns are harmful to our economy as well
as our national security. you know that. and the federal government should always be open for business and federal employees should not be held as hostages. so with that, mr. speaker, i urge a favorable vote ton the passage of house res. 79 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 79 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 eing in the affirmative -- mr. meadows: mr. speaker, we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina -- the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays
will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to house resolution 87 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 790. will the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, kindly resume the chair.
the chair: the hougs is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 790 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide far pay increase in 2019 for certain civilian employees of the federal government and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-5 offered by the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. trahan, has een postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-5, by the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. trahan, on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-5 offered by ms. trahan of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 790 and pursuant to house resolution to the house ck with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 790 and pursuant to house resolution 87, reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on
any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. amendments are agreed to. the question is on en-- is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the speaker pro tempore: -- the clerk: a bill to provide for pay increase in 2019 for certain civilian employees of the to federal government and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the house will be in order.
members, take your conversations outside. the house is not in order. members please take your conversations outside. embers, please clear the well. embers, please clear the well. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the kesk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am, mr. speaker, in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. brooks of indiana moves to recommit the
bill h.r. 790 to the committee on oversight and government reform with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, at the end of the bill add the following. section 3, prohibition on pay adjustment for -- on pay adjustment for employees disciplined for sexual misconduct. during calendar year 2019 no pay increase as authorized -- under this act may be provided to any under any osecuted other provision of law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, my motion to recommit amends the democrat bill by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to give raises to federal employees who have been disciplined for sexual misconduct. without this change, federal employees who have engaged in -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend.
he gentlewoman will suspend. the gentlewoman may continue. mrs. brooks: without this change, federal employees who have engaged in sexual misconduct in the workplace would be rewarded for their bad actions. the republican motion to recommit amends the bill, reports it back forthwith with an amendment. if it passes, the republican motion to recommit will allow an immediate vote on final passage of the bill. the underlying premise of the democrat bill is that our federal civilian work force should be treated the same as members of our armed service who receive a 2.6% pay raise in last yore's ndaa. the federal government is blessed with amazing federal employees. as a former united states attorney, i led an office of those amazing federal employees. i worked with countless other dedicated federal employees. our dedicated civil servants work day in and day out to
protect and serve the american public. we are most grateful for their service. and the vast majority are hardworking. they do not engage in conduct un-- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the shouse not in order. will the members please take conversations outside. the gentlewoman may proceed. mrs. brooks: the vast majority of federal employees are hardworking they don't engage in conduct unbefitting their civil service. however, those who have been disciplined for sexual misconduct should not be rewarded with a 2.6% pay increase. the bill before the house today treats every federal employee the same. good, bad, competent or not. they all get a pay raise on top of automatic step increases and promotions. earlier today my colleagues asked, doesn't everyone deserve
a pay raise? and the answer is no. a broken disciplinary process in our federal agencies make it nearly impossible to fire anyone. this democrat bill is nothing short of a handout to individuals who engage in sexual misconduct in the workplace and that is wrong. how can we reward anyone who harms federal employees in this manner? how do we reward people who abuse the public's trust in this way? let me give you a few past examples. a 2018 p.b.s. report included interviews with 13 current and former u.s. forest service employees who alleged discrimination, sexual harassment and assault, do the employees who perpetrate this behavior deserve a raise? no. an nbc affiliate found almost 100 cases of federal employees doing pornography on government exumptes. should these employees be rewarded with automatic pay
raises? no. in 2015 d.o.j. found that d.e.a. agents participated in sex parties in colombia involving strippers and prostitutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house is not in order. members please take your conversations outside. the gentlewoman will proceed. mrs. brooks: in 2015, d.o.j.'s office of inspector general found that d.e.a. agents participated in sex parties in colombia involving strippers and prostitutes, paid by drug cartels. does this type of conduct warrant automatic pay raises? i don't think so. a recent study, and this is horrible, shows that sexual harassment is common place in federal offices. one in five women have experienced harassment in the workplace an nearly 9% of male employees report the same. it took seven year farce former trial lawyer -- it took seven years -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend.
members please take your conversations outside. the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. the gentlewoman may proceed. mrs. brooks: it took seven years for a former trial lawyer from the justice department to win a ruling from the eeoc confirming she was harassed by two male supervisors and in 2018 five i.c.e. officials told "the washington post" the agency hadn't yet responded to sexual harassment claims they filed more than a year ago against a manager who they say pressured them to view nude photos. our disciplinary process is confidential and murky. it varies agency by agency. we don't know how many employees have been disciplined for sexual misconduct and remain on the job. we have serious faults we must address. before we give across the board pay raises during consideration of this bill in rules, there was bipartisan sent optometrist look at long-standing issues that face our civil servant, retention, private sector wage
comparison, millenial recruitment some of those issues. this was a hastily drafted bill and it's not how the process should work. the american people deserve a federal work force with high standards for appropriate conduct. federal employees should feel safe and protected doing the people's business. mr. speaker, we have problems in our federal work force we must deal with before we give across the board pay raises. the republican motion to recommit protects due process rights of all federal employees by ensuring that only those substantiated claims will result in an employee being ineligible for a pay raise. it is inexcusable that the democrat bill as drafted would treat victims of sexual harassment the same as the perpetrators who may still be drawing federal paychecks. taxpayer dollars should not be used to give a pay raise to these bad oklahoma city or -- actors. i urge my threes to vote for this motion to recommit and if it fails i urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed bill. yield back. is
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? concxds con concxds con i rise in strong opposition to the slander we just heard. mr. connolly: i have rarely heard such sin civil on the floor of the house of representatives. o', know no, my friends on the other friends, there is so much, but this one takes the cake. we're here to honor the federal rk force, not slander them with insinuation. to listen to the gentlelady from indiana, one might infer that
the federal government is riddled with people who are ilty of all kinds of nasty crimes and offenses and should ot be rewarded for it. i wonder if we'd use the same standards on ourselves here in he house of representatives. how many in the last congress especially on the particular side of the aisle, have there
been filed sexual harassment charges and that wasn't insinuation, that was real. so let's not have a double standard. and by the way, i say to my friends especially on this side of the aisle, let us not be distracted by what is going on. we are, after the worst shutdown millioncan history, 2.1 federal employees, you are valued, you're respected. to actually vote for this is not only to say the opposite and deny them a simple cost of living that we have already given the military. by the way, we buy into it. we think you are riddled by guilt of insinuation and association. we have the opportunity to defeat this. and one of the most cynical
arguments i have ever heard, to actually make a positive statements to our federal employees, stand up and be heard. say no to shutdowns and yes to federal employees and restore their sense of respect with our dignity. defeat this m.p.r. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mrs. brooks: on that, mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.
a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered, the motion to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 79 and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 206. the nays are 216. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote
will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 259. the nays are 161. this vote -- the bill has passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 79, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house resolution 79, resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives that government shutdowns are detrimental to the nation and should not occur. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 79, as amended. members will record their votes
by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 249, the nays are 163. 2/3 not being in the affirmative, the rules are not suspended and the resolution is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, the unfinished business is agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which he chair will put --
with the senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the president of the united states. members are advised that will be no votes in the house on tuesday. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 for morning hour debate. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. with votes no later than 3:00 p.m. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules and will be announced by close of business on friday. the house will consider h.r. 840, the veterans access to child care act introduced by representatives brownley and higgins. this bill would make permanent the v.a. pilot program and expand it so veterans have a convenient cost free option for medical care when they have appointments. mr. scalise: as it relate to the suspension calendar, there was
an extra bill added to the suspension calendar that wasn't on the list by close of business last week. do you anticipate this friday's list being amended again the following week or should that be a complete list? mr. hoyer: additional items are possible to be added and we said that last week and we did add one. and it was noticed on monday and voted on it today. so in effect we met the three-day rule, not the 72-hour rule and there may be others. mr. scalise: if it was a suspension, it wasn't in the traditional sense. it went down. there being a sense of the house resolution, typically those are resolutions where both sides work together. i ask the gentleman, do they anticipate approaching this in a partisan way or hopefully in a bipartisan way to get a true sense of the house that could
pass? mr. hoyer: we want to move on a bipartisan basis, this resolution although it failed to have 2/3 vote, it did have a bipartisan vote with more than 20 republicans voting for it, which i appreciate. and the balance voted against the resolution, which said that shutdowns were bad. we will give as much notice as possible to the gentleman and to his party. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. and as we approach bipartisan resolutions we would hope that the gentleman from maryland and his side would work with us that could have been a resolution that actually passed had we been able to work together and include language about border security. but as we look to the conference committee that's now meeting as we talk about border security especially of being the centerpiece of the big debate over government funding, but
hopefully we get agreement to, there were reports that last week, the democrat majority was going to roll out their plan for homeland security. and ultimately that plan wasn't, in fact, rolled out. is there going to be a rollout of the -- as we had these negotiations. mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield? mr. scalise: i would yield to let the gentleman know, you said you wouldn't negotiate during a shutdown. the shutdown is over. will there be a counteroffer put on the table? mr. hoyer: as the gentleman knows, the conference committee has either met or is meeting and it's my understanding that chairman -- chairwoman lowey is going to have a press conference after the first initial meeting so we are in a conference. that is good news. i'm sure the conferees are going to talk about proposals that they have to reach border
security. i might say that although it appears to be the central part in terms from our perspective, shutdown, it's not about border security or any other particular issue, but it's a bad policy to shut down the government of the united states. notwithstanding that, i expect chairwoman lowey will be explaining our position in the conference. i yield. mr. scalise: i look forward to hearing that proposal laid out as the senate and house democrats and republican conference committee is meeting. we are not that far removed in reaching a deal to put a real amount on the table that shows how we can secure the border, as the experts, the men and women have suggested in their proposal. if we can come to a place on a way to achieve border security and that includes physical
barriers. when the gentleman from maryland was talking about some democrats that were going over to the white house back then, it was said they didn't have the authority to negotiate. do the democratic conferees have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the democrat majority? mr. hoyer: certainly. mr. scalise: as we wrap this up, i do want to ask an issue a number of our members were concerned about and hope this is not a trend, but in the house natural resources committee, the majority yesterday as they were proposing their new rules for the committee and each committee as we know proposes their new rules as a new congress is sworn in and established on the committee level, in the oath that is administered to men and women who come before the committee to testify, the original proposal suggested
removing so help you god from the oath. one of the members on our side noticed that omission, put an amendment in place to restore so help you god in the oath. fortunately that was added back in. what i would ask the gentleman, is this going to be a trend, a general movement by committees to remove so help you god from the oath administered? mr. hoyer: not as far as i know. mr. scalise: hopefully it's not a term that we see. the last few weeks have been contentious and we have a lot at stake as we try to get an agreement on something that can actually work to properly fund the government and properly secure the border. i'm grad that the conferees are finally meeting. i hope we don't see any attempt to run the clock out because we have a limited amount of time
but more than enough time to reach agreement and i think they are meeting in earnest. i hope they put all options on the table and listen to all the proper expert testimony that's been given why we need to have certain amounts to secure the border and certain techniques and technology that are all going to be part of this. and hopefully at the end of that discussion very quickly, they can reach an agreement we can then bring to the house and senate and pass in a bipartisan way that the president can sign to properly fund the government and secure our nation's border. with that, i yield. mr. hoyer: i hope the conferees can reach an depreelt that will be agreeable to both the democratic party and the republican party in both the house and the senate and the president. mr. scalise: i know we look forward to welcoming the president of the united states to this house chamber on tuesday night for the state of the union
address. appreciate the work that we are going to do together to secure our nation's border and properly fund our government. and unless the gentleman has something else he would like to add. i yield back the balance of my time. i ask er: madam speaker, unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today to meet at noon tomorrow, and then 11:30 a.m. on monday, february 4, 2019. and when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourns to meet on tuesday february 5, 2019 for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> today i rise to celebrate the life of dr. james harold bowles. dr. bowles was born in june, 1921, and raised in virginia. dr. bowles served in the u.s. army and graduated from virginia union university before attending medical school and returning home to open his medical practice. as he began his career serving his patients, dr. bowles continued his service as the first african-american to serve on the board of supervisors where he worked to strengthen our community for 32 years. ms. spanberger: he was a trustee of the baptist church and active member of community organizations across central virginia. above all, he was a beloved husband, father, brother,
uncle, grandfather and great-grandfather. he left an indelible mark on our community. madam speaker and colleagues, i leave you with the advice dr. bowles frequently gave, may it guide our work in this chamber, smile, seek to understand before being understood, m, make others feel important, i, it is not about me, l, listen fwice as much as you speak, e, enthusiastically and quickly admit when you are wrong. when you do this dialogue can easily be achieved. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to honor the legacy of a great hoosier, william r. carto. the president and c.e.o. of the plastics industry association
and dedicated supporter of the u.s. plastics industry, which employs nearly one million americans. mr. carto passed away on december 10, 2018, after bravely fighting leukemia. having worked with bill, his passion for the plastics industry, which employs 50,000 hoosiers and 10,000 in my district alone was unmatched. mr. bucshon: he pushed the industry for recycling and sustainability, bringing together industry leaders to find effective, market-based solutions to our environmental challenges. bill was first diagnosed with leukemia in 2016, and he set out to beat the disease for himself and others. he eventually chaired the washington area leukemia and lymphoma society and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. the u.s. plastics industry is stronger today because of bill's efforts and he will be sorely missed. our prayers are with his wife and two daughters as we honor
his legacy and impact in the house today. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the floor for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the food banks and organizations across new mexico that supported federal employees, contractors, and their families during the shutdown. i especially want to thank arlene and the border about a troll agent family network in new mexico. it was an honor to witness their collaborative work to feed their neighbors who were affected by the shutdown or otherwise fighting hunger for other reasons. these res small: organizations showed what it is o be new mexicans and to
always have your neighbors' back. now the damage of the shutdown is over, we as a congress have the responsibility to ensure it never happens again. that's why i joined fellow freshmanmen and signed on to end the shutdown act. i invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. thank you. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to honor one of lancaster county's most honorable public servants and a true hero, former denver fire company chief john weaver who passed away on january 26. john served our community for 50 years. he became a junior fire man when he was just 14 years old.
he later joined the denver volunteer fire company when he was 18 in 1969. he held every officer position, including fire chief. he became a fire instructor and most recently he was one of the primary drivers for the fire department. mr. smucker: he was a brave man who helped make the fire department what it is today. john was also an entrepreneur, founded a manufacturing company , weaver industries. beyond working for the fire company and saving lives there, john was also involved in our community. he believed in giving back and serving others. he served on the school board for 12 years and coached golf and bowling. john found great joy in helping people and set a wonderful example for all of us. he leaves behind a wife and three sons and four grandchildren. may we remember his giving spirit and may he rest in peace. with that i yield back, madam
speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. it is with a heavy heart that i rise to honor the life of jack, a distinguished army veteran, former broward county school board member, fierce veterans' advocate and most importantly, my friend for 30 years. he served as president of the broward veterans coalition and was always on the front lines in responding to the critical needs of our community. he worked tirelessly to ensure the men and women who served our nation maintained their dignity and well-being. jack was a civic force and had a life lon passion for politics, serving 10 four-year terms as a democratic party committee man in broward county. he was a defender of civil rights and someone who helped make broward county a kinder, more compassionate community.
he was a dear friend and embodied the best of what it means to give back to your country and your community. although jack is no longer with us, his legacy lives on through veterans he served with and the countless individuals whose lives he changed for the better. jack was one of a kind. a selfless, compassionate, and tireless advocate for others in broward county. he was a patriot in the truest sense and will be profoundly missed but never forgotten. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the importance of school choice. last week was national school choice week when individuals all over the country gathered to raise awareness of different education options available to parents and their kids. in my home state of florida, we are blessed to have access to
traditional public schools, charter schools, magnet schools, private schools, online learning, and homeschooling. these diverse programs provides kids with different opportunities to excel in the learning environment that is best for them. hunter frost, a man with autism, who i have gotten to know very well. he went to a tuition free charter school in our district who helps those with learning disabilities. mr. spano: he graduated third in his class. he went on to receive his associate's degree with an a average and has been accepted by my alma mater, the university of south florida, where he plans to begin this fall. members, i am proud to have hunter as an intern in my office, and i look forward to his success and to seeing him excel in college and beyond. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition?
>> madam speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the solidarity and salary act, which would withhold paychecks from members of congress, the president, and the vice president during a shutdown. mr. rose: everyone right now is trying to figure out who won the shutdown and who lost it. well, here's the deal. nobody won this thing, but the american people lost. we failed them. we turned our back on them and they suffered. keeping the government open and running is our most basic responsibility. it's what our constituents ask of us. and in just three weeks, we managed to make them question whether members of congress were born without common sense whether we just get frontal lobotomy after we are sworn in.
and what do we get after putting them through this misery? nothing. all that happened is we arrived at the same basic truth that we knew five weeks ago, that we had a deal. in these halls, we love to kiss up to vets and cops and firemen. all we do is thank them for their service, and rightfully so, because they put it all on the line each and every day. but it's time that we actually try to emulate their service here, because what they do, what they have to endure is that when they fail at their job, people die, people get hurt, and they have to live with that for the rest of their lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rose: all this bill is talking about is having skin in the game and not getting paid. we as members of congress should be feeling the same pain that we just inflicted on the american people. and with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek
recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you so much. madam speaker, like many of my colleagues, i came to washington to work -- to washington to work across the aisle and create economic opportunities for minnesota families. ms. craig: since i got -- mrs. craig: i met with democrats and republicans to discuss issues that so many people talk about around the kitchen table -- better schools for their children, a fair shot at economic security for their family, and health care they can afford. we've also discussed over the last several weeks the shutdown. this must never happen again. yesterday, i joined many of my colleagues, freshmen colleagues, to introduce a bill to prevent another shutdown. the shutdown to end all
shutdowns act. this would prevent federal workers from being used as pawns in future political negotiations. our bill creates strong incentives to prevent another shutdown from occurring by withholding pay from members of congress and the executive branch while forcing lawmakers to remain in washington while a deal is reached. additionally, the bill requires , ensures the government will continue running even if we can't get to an appropriations bill. americans deserve better. we can do better for them. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the shutdown to end all shutdowns act. and take a stand to never put politics over the american people again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. craig: thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the body for a minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to bring attention to the vietnamese government's violent and oppressive attacks on its own citizens. for generations, families have thrived in this farming community, lock hong gardens. they raise their children and care for their elders. these citizens are law-abiding itizens, yet, the vietnamese government sent over 100 officers to destroy this community and displace over 200 families. there was no due process, no day in court, and no compensation. mr. correa: instead, the vietnamese government took land by force from its own citizens. these tactics cannot go unnoticed, and the world must call this out for what it is,
tyranny. i ask the vietnamese government to allow those families to return to their homes. on behalf of the thousands of vietnamese citizens living in orange county, i ask the vietnamese government, cease this behavior, cease these tactics, and let the vietnamese people live in peace and return to their land where they have been living for generations. madam speaker, i yield the emainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, the american people sent us here to clean up corruption and make washington work for them. restoring public trust in our system of government has to be one of our top priorities. i'm proud that the very first legislation i introduced this
congress is aimed at strengthening ethics rules and slowing the revolving door between executive branch agencies. we need to bolster the fire wall between public service and corporate lobbying to make sure that public servants are putting the needs of the people first. i'm pleased the act was included in h.r. 1, the first major government reform package we will consider. this bill will elevate the people's voice in our politics by restricting the influence of dark money in campaigns, defending voting rights protections and limiting corporate influence. working together, we can build government and make it more responsive to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. i rise today to speak about the bill that i put into place yesterday that i introduced called the shutdown to end all shutdowns along with 21 of my fellow freshman. this will stop the use of government shutdowns as a tool in political debate and ensure our federal workers are never held hostage when congress and the president cannot agree. if the deal cannot be reached, members of the house, the senate, the executive office of the president and his political appointees will have their pay suspended and travel from d.c. curtailed. this bill was pause of you. u asked me why the average customs and border patrol, f.a.a. employee and f.d.a. employee were punished, and i
heard you. to my fellow members of congress who may be rett sent to support this bill, this is a moment of leadership. this is a moment to acknowledge that we may not have started this shutdown. i implore my colleagues to do the right thing and support this bill. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces without objection, the speaker's appointment pursuant to clause 11 of rule 10, clause 11 of rule 1 and the order of the house january 2019 and notwithstanding the requirements of clause 11-a paragraph 4-a of rule 10, the following members of the house to the permanent select committee on intelligence. >> mr. conaway of texas, mr. turner of ohio, mr. wenstrup of ohio, mr. stewart of utah, mr. crawford of arkansas, misstefan
nick, mr. hurd of texas and mr. ratcliffe of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: madam, under clause 2-g of rule 2 of the u.s. house of representatives, i designate mr. robert reeves deputy clerk to sign any and all papers under the name of the clerk of the house which they would be authorized to do by virtue of this designation except such as are provided by statute in case of my temporary absence or disability. this designation shall remain in effect for the 116th congress or until modified by me. with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. rodney davis of -- for today and the balance
of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. zpwome earth, is recognized for 60 -- mr. gohmert, as the degig knee f the minority leader. mr. gohmert: been an interesting day more than most. we have heard over and over ain republicans supposedly in my the shutdown, but days as a trial lawyer, judge, chief justice, always good to look at the evidence. and the evidence is very clear,
yeah, republicans in the house d senate and the president actually passed spending bill in the house before the end of december. and the only thing that was keeping it from getting through democrats ere that there, led by senator schumer, would not negotiate. there was no -- they arrived at no agreement to get 60 votes so it could go forward with debate. in the't the republicans position of the white house, president trump made clear this is negotiable, but we do need a war, a barrier, call it whatever
you want, he moved from talking about concrete to talking about the steel barrier and having spent time with other members of congress now invited by congressmen biggs and gosar in the arizona border, we saw a lot of that and it would just end. and you saw a clear path right around the end of it as people kept coming, invading this country illegally from the border patrolmen. some are carrying big loads of drugs, sometimes they are able to catch them and sometimes they're not. and sound like the times i have ofnt on the border southeast not, n, more often than
they don't catch the drugs coming in. it is an invasion and it is a huge problem. and i was hearing people, friends across the other side of the aisle, some senators who are democrats acknowledging, yeah, we need to do something, but when it came to negotiating, there was no negotiating. so we have this bill today decrying how horrible shutdowns are, but if you look at the tactics, when the tactics of the leaders -- and i say that at least some of the leaders of one party are that we are not going to negotiate. we're not going to compromise. we are not going to do what's best for the country, in effect.
as they have stated on prior occasions, as they voted on prior occasions. some of them -- that's what causes a shutdown. no, we did not need this shutdown. we shouldn't have had to have this shutdown. it should have been agreed back in december by at least some of the senators so that we could have gotten a spending bill. of course, we had spending passed on three fourths of the government. about one fourth of the government that was not funded. so we talk about a shutdown. it wasn't a full shutdown, but still, it did harm to those who were not getting paid. but as i would go through airports and t.s.a. agents would know who i was, numerous times i was told, it's hurting that we
are not getting paid. i'll be all right. we will be a lot lot worst off if we don't start securing the border. teachers were saying, we love our kids and want to teach them. but it's so unfair to the students that are already there to have people brought in and say, you got to educate these kids and they don't speak english. and the teachers would say it does damage to those students that we're supposed to also teach and now we have people that we have to teach who don't speak english. there are some school districts who have done a great job trying to work around that and teach english in an immergs-type setting so we can help people not being relegated to manual labor the rest of their lives
but help them speak good english so they can get good jobs. but we need a bar i don't remember -- barrier on the border in some places where we don't have it. and that's clear. you just can't have 20, 30-foot barrier just proceeding along that is stopping the drugs, stopping the sex trafficking, stopping the human trafficking and then just stop it. as we saw in the arizona border, it goes miles and miles and comes right up to the point where the barrier ends and goes right around. and in one place there is a bashed wire gate that is held to the massive barrier that is held with a quarter-inch nylon rope.
and they leave it in a slip knot so you can open the gate and the drugs can come pouring in to kill americans. something had to be done, and yet what happened was the president was willing to negotiate. kevin mccarthy and the republicans were willing to negotiate. senator mcconnell and the republicans in the senate were willing to negotiate. and yet the word from our speaker was, we're not negotiating at all. on a barrier, a wall. so we continue to have people in the interim while the government was shut down, continue to die as a result of us not securing our border. we have had people continued --
we were told by border patrol every day, there are women that are pulled into sex trafficking every day. there are women often young girls, we're told about a third of the girls that are brought up to bring them into the united states illegally are raped at least once and normally multiple times. solong as we keep our border unsecure, that's going to continue. i mean, how much lack of compassion do you have to have o say, we're fine with the third of the girls coming into the united states illegally after having been raped. we're fine. that's fine. but we aren't going to negotiate because apparently from what we're hearing, the reason that many of the people who refuse to
negotiate have talked about the need for barriers and talked about the need for securing the border. they were very concerned that the president would get a political win by getting even part of a wall, a barrier. so people were just going to have to keep suffering, getting raped and dying. we didn't secure the border. there is no additional wall, so they could claim the president didn't keep his promise on the wall, that that was more important than saving lives and rapes from happening. it's all about politics. that is not across the board, across the isle -- aisle. we could have worked something out. but apparently at the top, it was too important to keep a political win from the president than it was to do what was right
for the country. i don't know anybody on our side of the aisle that loves shutdowns. but there were some claims made .n the bill that went too far so most of us voted no. we don't want a shutdown. same way, we don't want anybody in our military dying. . but if we never had any military willing to risk their lives, we wouldn't have the freedoms we have today. if we didn't have a president willing to put a stake in the sand saying we got to do something to secure our border, we need some barrier, wall, whatever you want to call it, in some places, and i'll negotiate. the amount's negotia