[Pages H1295-H1306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FEDERAL CIVILIAN WORKFORCE PAY RAISE FAIRNESS ACT OF 2019

General Leave

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 790.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 87 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 790.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands
(Mr. Sablan) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1042

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr.
Sablan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 790, the
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019, along with
my fellow colleagues of the local delegation. I pay special thanks to
Chairman Connolly and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership on
this very important piece of legislation.
H.R. 790, as amended, would authorize a 2.6 percent pay raise for
Federal civilian workers for 2019, the same raise that our military
servicemembers are receiving this year.
Historically, Congress has tried to ensure parity in pay increases
between Federal civilian employees and military servicemembers. This
bill would continue this longstanding tradition.
The bill would provide the pay raise to Federal employees in the
competitive and excepted 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 this small increase in
pay because they have endured so much during the last several years.
They were subjected, Mr. Chair, to repeated and unrelenting attacks on
their pay and on their benefits.

{time} 1045

They have suffered through pay freezes, hiring freezes, higher
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 other 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 a
political dispute over funding for a border wall that the President had
stated over and over again would be paid for by Mexico. There is
something wrong with this picture.
They include members of the Coast Guard, TSA screeners, Department of
Agriculture workers who help farmers and ranchers, FAA air traffic
controllers and safety inspectors, FDA food inspectors, the FBI, EPA
pollution inspectors, Border Patrol agents, and Secret Service agents.
Given all the hardship Federal employees have experienced, they
deserve a modest pay increase to help make up for the years of freezes
and negligible increases and to help offset the cost of inflation.
The pay increase also would help the Federal Government compete
against the private sector to recruit and retain highly qualified
candidates to serve the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his words on the importance of
making sure that our Federal workforce is properly compensated. Indeed,
this is an important subject.
Mr. Chairman, I guess my question here today is, fundamentally, if it
is so important, then why haven't we had a hearing? Why haven't we had
a markup? Why the rush to push this bill on the floor?
Not too long ago, my good friend from Maryland, the chairman of the
committee, would be on this same floor arguing the same thing: Why are
we not having a markup? Why are we not going through regular order?
Mr. Chairman, I remind this body that, less than 30 days ago, there
was a vote on the House floor that said we are going to return to
regular order; we

[[Page H1296]]

are going to make sure that every bill goes through the committee, has
a markup, and actually has fair debate.
Yet, here we are, less than 30 days into this new Congress, and we
are putting forth a messaging bill that, quite frankly, has not been
vetted. The amendment process has not come out of the Committee on
Oversight and Reform.
I will also say, and this is no laughing matter, I have been one of
the few Members on our side of the aisle on this committee who has
actively engaged in trying to make sure that our Federal workforce is
not only compensated, but properly recognized.
Mr. Chairman, here is my problem. According to Federal workers, over
25 percent of them believe that raises do not happen based on merit,
that everyone gets a raise. Indeed, this bill does that. It says,
regardless of how you perform, we are going to give everybody the same
increase.
Now, that same Federal workforce went even further. One-third of them
said that we don't do enough to get rid of poor performers.
What message are we sending to the Federal workforce here today? We
are rushing a bill that has not gone through committee. We have not
provided meaningful amendments that are actually appropriate. We have a
Federal workforce that says they don't get raises based on the merits
of their work, on the hard work they put forth. Indeed, they are saying
that a third of the employees are getting compensated regardless of
their performances.
Now, when we look at that, what message does this body send to the
Federal workforce? It says that it doesn't matter what kind of job you
do. I think that is a terrible message to send.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, as we look at this bill--and I am sure
we will debate the merits of this particular piece of legislation--we
have the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, here, and the gentleman
from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, both Members who I respect greatly. 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.
I 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.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me be clear that there are many Federal workers who
are suffering and who have suffered. The message that we send to them
is that we care about them, and we know that they give their blood,
sweat, and tears over and over again. That is one of the messages we
send.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Government
Operations.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the distinguished new
chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. I am so proud to
call him that.
Mr. Chairman, 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 hollow when you support a 35-day
shutdown of the Federal Government.
If you believe in regular order, then you never shu 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 tool to
get some policy goal achieved.

That is never acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable to Washington.
It is not acceptable to the American people. It certainly is not
acceptable to the 800,000 Federal employees and an equal number of
Federal contract employees and small business owners who were affected
negatively by this shutdown.
So it is hard to listen to a lecture about regular order in the midst
of that wreckage.
That is what we are trying to do here. It is 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 are called Federal employees. They were innocent victims
of political games, as if they were pawns, Mr. Chairman, for a wall. We
are just trying to begin the process of making them whole again.
I thank the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for bringing this bill to the
floor. The bill would end the current freeze for Federal employees,
recommended by President Trump, and provide hardworking civil servants
with a 2.6 percent 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 is appropriate for the House of
Representatives to take up this legislation to make a statement in the
people's body that 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 were 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 employees should have received a 2.1 percent pay
increase for 2019. Instead, the recommendation from the White House was
zero.
This bill represents a pay increase for Federal employees above that
statutory level equal to an additional 0.5 percent over and above the
statutory level that would have otherwise been provided.
While the House of Representatives passed appropriations bills that
included a 1.9 percent pay increase for 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 ensure parity in pay between
Federal civilian employees and military servicemembers. This bill would
continue the tradition of pay parity for which I have advocated since I
came to Congress 10 years ago.
A Federal employee pay increase of 2.6 percent is, in my view,
further justified, as the distinguished chairman of the committee
pointed out, by the hardships just suffered and those suffered over the
last 10 years: three pay freezes, hiring freezes, compensation cuts,
and benefit cuts. Federal employees are the only group on the planet
that actually has contributed nearly $200 billion to deficit reduction.
In 9 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 is why we are trying to have pay parity.
In 8 of the last 10 years, basic pay increases trailed increases in
the cost of living itself.
I will point out that the legislation in front of us has been
endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees; the
National Treasury Employees Union; the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees; the International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers; the Senior Executives
Association; the Federal Managers Association; and the Professional
Managers Association.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support from these
groups.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

January 29, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), which represents
more than 700,000 federal and District of Columbia government
employees within 70 agencies, I write urging you to support
H.R. 790, the Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness
Act of 2019, introduced by Representative Connolly (D-VA),
when it comes to the floor this week. This legislation
provides federal workers with a FY 2019 pay adjustment of 2.6
percent. This modest adjustment would allow federal employees
to make up some of the purchasing power they lost over the
last decade and restore the long tradition of parity in the
rate of adjustment for civilian and military employees of the
United States government.

[[Page H1297]]

January 25, 2019 marked the end of our nation's longest
government shutdown, and federal employees have been without
a paycheck since December 21st. As a result of the funding
lapse, many federal employees have fallen behind on their
monthly bills and are experiencing serious financial
hardship. Although some federal employees make more, among
AFGE's own membership, the average take home pay is just $500
per week after they pay their taxes, health insurance
premiums, and mandatory retirement contributions. Many
federal employees were struggling to make ends meet before
the shutdown, and H.R. 790 would not only help agencies
recruit new employees, and retain a workforce battered by the
shutdown, compensation cuts enacted in the wake of the 2008
financial crisis, it would also demonstrate that the Congress
values the federal workforce's dedication and commitment to
serving the American public.
For decades, Congress supported pay adjustment parity
between federal and military employees. The civilian
workforce not only works alongside the warfighters to keep
our nation safe, they are also public servants who have
dedicated their lives to providing the American public with
invaluable benefits services. Federal employees work across
the country securing our borders, keeping travelers safe,
providing benefits to the elderly and disabled, caring for
our veterans, and keeping our air and water safe and clean.
Unfortunately, in recent years pay adjustment parity has not
been upheld and federal civilian salaries have continued to
lag standards set by private employers. H.R. 790 would help
narrow this gap.
As you work to pass legislation to fund the remaining seven
appropriations bills, AFGE urges you to support H.R. 790 when
it comes to the floor this week, and we strongly urge you to
support inclusion of a 2.6 percent federal employee pay
adjustment in the final funding measure for FY 2019.
Sincerely,
J. David Cox, Sr.,
National President.
____

The National Treasury

Employees Union,

January 29, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Treasury
Employees Union, which represents over 150,000 federal
employees in 33 agencies, I urge you to support H.R. 790, the
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019,
which would provide federal workers a 2.6 percent pay
increase for 2019 and ensure pay parity with the military,
with whom they frequently work in service to the nation.
At the end of August, the President sent a letter to
Congress reiterating the call in his Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
Budget Request for a pay freeze for federal workers. If not
for the President's decision to implement a pay freeze, the
Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act (5 USC 5303) indicates
that federal employees should receive a 2.1 percent pay raise
in January 2019, prior to any amount being provided for
locality pay rate increases. This formula is designed to
ensure that the gap between federal government and private
sector wages does not further deteriorate. According to the
most recent Federal Pay Agent Report, the current pay
disparity is over 30 percent.
Like all American workers and middle-class taxpayers,
federal employees face ever-increasing costs of living, with
rising utility, health care and food bills, along with school
loan and rent or mortgage obligations. Due to a three-year
pay freeze and five subsequent years of below-market pay
raises that were lower than the amounts called for under
current law, federal employees have seen their wages fall
further behind the private sector, which has adversely
impacted them and their families.
Moreover, if the federal government is to have the ability
to compete with the private sector in recruiting and
retaining a skilled workforce, it is essential that the
federal government provide its workers a pay increase. The
federal government relies on qualified and professional civil
servants that live and work in every state and congressional
district across the country to carry out our nation's laws
and programs, providing critical services for our nation and
the American people.
Now, after suffering through a 35-day shutdown that caused
unimaginable hardship for hundreds of thousands of federal
workers, their families, and their communities, it is
important to ensure that employees are able to afford the
increased fees and penalties that they suffered as a result.
All federal employees deserve an adequate pay raise and we
urge your support for H.R. 790 in appreciation for their
service.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Reardon,
National President.
____

American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, January 29, 2019.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the members of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), including thousands of federal government
employees, I write to strongly support the ``Federal Civilian
Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019,'' H.R. 790, which
would increase federal employee salaries for calendar year
2019 by 2.6 percent. AFSCME urges you to vote for this bill
to demonstrate your support for America's dedicated and
hardworking federal workers.
A salary increase is necessary because expert analysis
demonstrates that when contrasted position by position,
federal workers' wages lag below employees in the nonfederal
sector--both in the private sector and in state and local
governments. In fact, federal employees are significantly
underpaid in numerous occupations. Furthermore, since 2010,
as a direct result of congressional legislation that reduced
pay and benefits, federal employees have had their
compensation cut by more than $180 billion (over 10 years).
Congress should take action to reverse these cuts and close
this pay gap.
To recruit, hire, and retain a qualified capable federal
government workforce, America must pay competitive salaries.
This is vital to continue attracting the best and brightest
to our public service. Unfortunately, during the last two
years, the federal government's hiring freeze and shutdowns
have lowered morale, forced many federal employees to cover
others employees' job responsibilities, and reduced the
federal government's effectiveness. H.R. 790 would help
address these challenges and move us forward.
AFSCME endorses this important legislation and urges you to
vote for the ``Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness
Act of 2019,'' H.R. 790.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
____

International Federation of Professional & Technical
Engineers,
January 29, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 90,000 represented
members of the International Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers (IFPTE), we are writing regarding the
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019
((HR 790), legislation sponsored by Virginia Congressman
Gerry Connolly that is scheduled for full House consideration
this week. After the longest government shutdown in the
history of the United States, which impacted some 800,000
federal workers and their families, IFPTE is urging you to
support pay parity between military and civilian workers by
voting in support of this bill.
After three consecutive years of pay freezes, followed by
meager across-the-board adjustments, federal workers have
seen their incomes decrease by nearly 15% with respect to
inflation over the last eight years. Therefore, IFPTE feels
it is both fiscally responsible and reflective of the income
sacrificed by federal employees to adopt the long-standing
practice of pay parity between civilian workers and the
military by supporting HR 790 calling for a 2.6% federal pay
increase.
As Congress works to negotiate an acceptable solution to
pass the remaining FY19 appropriations bills, IFPTE urges
that whatever action is taken--whether it be a Continuing
Resolution (CR) or a full FY19 Minibus that includes all or
some of the seven outstanding spending measures, we believe
that quickly approving a 2.6% civilian pay raise is more than
reasonable. This number is reflective of pay parity with the
military pay raise approved last year as a part of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is reflective
of the many years of sacrifices made by federal workers,
including enduring a senseless 35-day government shutdown.
IFPTE does recognize the acute difficulties facing Congress
in these contentious times, but we simply ask that the men
and women who work hard every day in the trenches to deliver
excellence for the taxpayer not be harmed any more than they
already have by the political turmoil in Washington.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul Shearon,
President.
Matthew Biggs,
Secretary-Treasurer/Legislative Director.
____

Senior Executives Association,

January 29, 2019.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gerald Connolly,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Hoyer and Representative Connolly: On
behalf of the Senior Executives Association (SEA)--which
represents the interests of career federal executives in the
Senior Executive Service (SES), and those in Senior Level
(SL), Scientific and Professional (ST), equivalent executive
positions, and other senior career leaders--I write to convey
our support for H.R. 790, the Federal Civilian Workforce Pay
Raise Fairness Act of 2019.
For the past decade the federal workforce has been treated
as the nation's piggy bank, with nearly $200 billion in pay
and benefits being taken for debt reduction and other
purposes. Providing all civilian federal employees with a
2.6% raise in 2019, especially following the shutdown, is an
important step to ensure the government can attract and
retain the talent it needs to serve the American public in a
competitive labor market. Moreover, reestablishing pay parity
with the uniformed services is applauded and welcomed.
This legislation sends a signal that Congress is serious
about ensuring the federal

[[Page H1298]]

government is an employer of choice. For too long race-to-
the-bottom policies related to the federal workforce have
become the norm. It is our hope that the silver lining of the
shutdown is that the American people now better understand
what government does for them every day, how dedicated the
professionals who work for them in the government are, and
that Congress and the administration will find ways to work
together to ensure our federal government has the personnel,
tools, and resources necessary to fulfil the duties assigned
to it.
SEA is deeply concerned that neglect of federal workforce
capabilities in recent years have resulted in an increased
risk of government failure, as outlined in a paper we
released last week. Strengthening the Senior Executive
Service (SES) and civil service and advocating for
cultivation of the public service leadership profession are
among our top organizational priorities in the 116th
Congress. I hope that passage of this legislation is just the
beginning of concerted efforts to modernize and strengthen
our civil service, to bring data-driven approaches to
management and compensation, and much more.
Thank you for your steadfast support of our federal
workforce and your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,

Bill Valdez,

President,
Senior Executives Association.
____

Federal Managers Association,

Alexandria, VA, January 29, 2019.
Hon. Gerry Connolly,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Connolly: On behalf of the managers and
supervisors currently serving our nation in the federal
government and whose interests are represented by the Federal
Managers Association (FMA), we extend our strongest support
for your bill, the Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise
Fairness Act of 2019 (H.R. 790). This legislation provides a
much-deserved 2.6 percent pay raise for 2019, and addresses
the inequity federal employees faced in recent years due to
pay freezes and minimal raises.
The federal workforce ensures the safety of our borders,
protects the nation's food supply, cares for our elderly and
veterans, and serves alongside our military forces. But the
minimal increases in pay received do not reflect the duties
of these dedicated workers. It is time for the federal
workforce to be recognized for their dedication to serving
our country at home and abroad, and your legislation does
that.
In addition to providing fair wages to federal employees,
FMA believes H.R. 790 will help to combat the problem of
morale, recruitment, and retention in the federal government,
particularly in the aftermath of the partial government
shutdown. As the federal government continues to struggle
with these issues, your bill is a step towards offering
competitive salaries, attracting and keeping the brightest
and best to the federal workforce. By calling for wages that
fairly compensate the abilities and responsibilities of the
federal workforce, you recognize the need to ensure a fully
engaged federal workforce that remains dedicated to serving
the nation.
Thank you for your continued support of our federal
workforce.
Sincerely,
Renee Johnson,
National President.
____

Professional Managers Association,

Washington, DC, January 29, 2019.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gerald Connolly,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Hoyer and Representative Connolly: On
behalf of the Professional Managers Association--the non-
profit professional association that has, since 1981,
represented professional managers, management officials, and
non-bargaining unit employees at the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)--I write to endorse H.R. 790 the Federal Civilian
Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019.
Pay parity between federal civilian employees and members
of the military has long been the norm, until recent years in
which the federal workforce has been faced with constant
attacks that have taken billions in earned pay and benefits
out of the pockets of hardworking middle class Americans. The
result of abandoning pay parity has been an ever-growing
imbalance between the compensation of federal workers and the
broader labor market.
In a highly competitive economy in which the types of
skills and abilities the government needs are in high demand
across the board, this legislation providing a 2.6% pay
increase across the board to federal civilian employees can
help begin to close the gap. Especially on the heels of the
embarrassing 35-day government shutdown, it is important for
Congress to ensure the government is a competitive employer
with good pay and benefits offerings.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and for your
steadfast support of our federal workforce.
Sincerely,

Thomas R. Burger,

Executive Director,
Professional Managers Association.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that 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 are not rich.
They are not living high on the hog. They deserve and need this
adjustment, especially after the longest, most reckless shutdown of the
government in American history.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend, the ranking member of
the committee, and a champion for the American people.

{time} 1100

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for
his hard work on the committee and in the United States Congress.
There are just a couple of key things to keep in mind. I am against
this bill. The average yearly pay for a government worker is $85,000.
CBO did a study. Those with college degrees who work in the Federal
Government make 21 percent more than people with college degrees in the
private sector; those without a college degree, 53 percent more than
those in the private sector.
Think about what this bill says. All of those hardworking taxpayers
in the private sector, hey, you are already making less, but now you
are 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 is that fair?
Even worse, think about what the Democrats are doing on H.R. 1, their
signature legislation. H.R. 1, they are saying to those same people who
are already making more money than folks in the private sector, they
are saying to those private-sector taxpayers, Hey, guess what? We are
not only going to give them a raise, even though they are already
making more than you, we are going to give them 6 paid days to work on
campaigns, 6 vacation days where they get to work on campaigns. And,
oh, by the way, they may be helping the very candidate you are against.
Such a deal for the taxpayers.
That is why I am a ``no'' on this bill. I am thinking about the
taxpayers in the 11th District of North Carolina, the Fourth District
of Ohio, and all across this country. Tell me how that is fair.
Oh, I forgot. There is one more thing the Democrats want to do. H.R.
1, they want to make election day a paid holiday for Federal employees.
This is not where we need to be. This is not the respect taxpayers
deserve.
Mr. Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I appreciate the good work
Congressman Meadows is doing on this legislation. Frankly, he is right.
We probably should have had a hearing and talked 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 who
work for the Federal Government.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished majority leader.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I am, of course, not shocked that those who
wanted to shut down the government and keep it shut had Federal
employees making nothing. I am not shocked that they don't want to give
Federal employees 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 NASA and to work at NASA, or
the FBI, or the CDC, or the other agencies that require high levels of
skill to work.
I am sure my friend from Ohio has read the government reports from
the council that is charged with the responsibility of determining
whether we are paying comparable wages who say, no, we are not. As a
matter of fact, we are substantially under, if you compare apples to
apples, educational requirements, and skills requirements to the
private sector, similar requirements.
He doesn't mention that because the averages, they sound just much
better.

[[Page H1299]]

Now, of course, the average salary on the Washington National's team is
a little higher than that. Why, because their skill levels are higher
than almost anybody else in the country.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representative Connolly and Representative
Wexton for their hard work, and I want to thank my friend, the chairman
of the committee. Representative Connolly, of course, has been a long-
time advocate of the pay and benefits, and retaining, and being able to
recruit people who have those kinds of skill levels.
You better be careful; some 30 to 40 percent of our people are
getting pretty close or are at retirement age, and they are going to
say, you keep shutting them down and not keeping their salary level,
unlike our salary, which has deteriorated now for 10 years in terms of
its purchasing value. But averages are averages.
I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Connolly in particular. He has
been an outstanding advocate for many Federal civilian employees living
and working in northern Virginia and across the national capital
region, and, indeed, around the country.
Let me disclose, I represent 62,000 Federal employees. You are not
shocked that I am for Federal employees. But when I was in the State
Senate, I represented a miniscule amount of State employees, and I was
for 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 it has caused. Do you
think those high-price people were in food lines because they wanted to
say: I am 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 less than 20 percent of the Federal
employees live in this Washington metropolitan area.
The pay freeze President Trump imposed on Federal workers has been
detrimental to our ability as a nation to recruit and retain the best
and brightest citizens to serve in government.
Now, very frankly, Abe Pollin, a very good friend of mine, owned the
Washington Wizards. He never asked me to play center because I have a
disability. I am 6-feet tall, not 7-feet tall. That is all. And the
people he asked, he had to pay a lot of money to them because he
wouldn't get them if he didn't.
The people who were running our space program, or running NIH, they
are just not run-of-the-mill people, frankly, like me. They have got
extraordinary skills. If we keep shutting them down and we keep not
paying them, you are going to have a second-rate government. That is
where you are going
You are going to have another opportunity to say shutdown is stupid.
I hope you join us on that because it is stupid. It cost us $11 billion
according to CBO. After 5 weeks of an unnecessary, costly, and 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 that 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.
That isn't right. We had, for a long time, an agreement. We do parity
for our military personnel. Now we pay our military, who we put at the
point of the spear, hazardous duty pay, as we should. But our agreement
was we are going to make sure that everybody keeps their pay at pretty
much a stable level of purchasing power. That is the key.
Very frankly, some people in this House are not for raising the
minimum wage. The minimum wage has eroded 40 percent in purchasing
power since 1968. The Federal employee pay will erode in purchasing
power if we don't pass this legislation.
Let's not forget that 85 percent of Federal employees live outside
the Washington area in 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 am proud to represent, as I said, 62,000 of them. I have met many
of them over the years. They are wonderful people dedicated to serving
the Nation and the people of our country. They deserve better than to
be treated like pawns in political games with shutdowns and pay
freezes.
Now, the Senate included 1.9 percent. We included zero over here, of
course, 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. $182 billion they have contributed
to try to bring down our debt, which is 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 headroom to create $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion
of additional debt to give some of the wealthiest people in America a
huge tax cut, but not 2.6 percent for Federal employees. My no.
That scientist at NASA or the FBI agent who has maybe a college
degree, maybe a law degree, who has to figure out what some of the most
dangerous people in America and around the world are doing, no, not 2.6
percent for them.
Mr. Chair, 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 2.6 percent that all of you voted
for on that side of the aisle for our military personnel.
I honor our military personnel. We should give them that. We should
make sure their purchasing power doesn't erode. And by the way, you 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 show the hardworking men and
women--unlike we showed them for 35 days--that we do have respect for
them; that we do care about their morale; and 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.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, at a time of extraordinary trauma
among our Federal employees, to show them the gratitude and respect
that they have earned and that they deserve.
The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am glad the Chairman made this admonishment because some of the
comments that were just offered actually seemed to be directed at me
from a standpoint of respect. 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 TPS and
a number of things. The majority leader knows that well.
I would also say if we are going to make broad-sweeping statements
that impugn the motives of individuals, it needs to start with the
previous President of the United States, Barack Obama, because he froze
the Federal workforce at zero three different times.
I didn't hear the outrage on this floor, Mr. Chairman, that I am
hearing today. It is somehow always one side of the aisle's fault,
unless it happens to be their party's President that invokes the
freeze.
So I would say, Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that those broad-
brush characterizations are not conveyed here on the House floor.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on the point he just made?
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I respectfully yield to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much because he
makes a good point. When President Obama became President, of course,
we were in a deep trough as the gentleman remembers.

[[Page H1300]]

{time} 1115

It was January of 2009, and 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.

I supported the second year of not having a COLA adjustment because
we were still in a problem. Mr. Chairman, you will not find any record
of my 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 job and losing their homes. So I just wanted to tell the
gentleman that when a 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 are not in trouble now. The President talks about what a great
economy we have and what low unemployment we have. So now is the time
to give them that raise.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. MEADOWS. I appreciate the gentleman, but 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. The Federal pay freezes
were 2011, `12, and `13 when the same President was saying that
everything was going fine. So I want to remind the gentleman that if we
are going to look at history, then I think--to use the gentleman's
words--let's not use revisionist history.
Mr. HOYER. I didn't support him, however, when he did those zeros in
those years when we were doing well.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to direct it to you. The same
gentleman who is making the argument here today was not on the House
floor talking about how evil the President was and how he should not be
doing that. So I just want to make sure we correct the record here
today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the majority
leader. In his comments he said that the shutdown is painful and
stupid.
No one wants a shutdown, Mr. Chairman, but I will tell you what is
stupid. What is stupid is a southern border that is not secure. I feel
for the Federal employees who missed a paycheck. We don't want any
family to have to go through that, and 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 took the life of someone they cared
deeply about.
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 are so focused on stopping the President that they
can't get focused on helping the country.
Everybody knows we need a border security wall. All you have to do,
Mr. Chairman, is watch the caravan phenomena over the last several
months. There is another one forming. Until we understand this and are
willing to deal with the problem, we can keep having these debates, but
I just wish Democrats would support what they did previously, support
money for the border security wall that everybody knows needs to
happen. That is the real problem here.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me make it clear, Mr. Chairman: this is not about a border wall.
This is about building people and allowing them to sustain themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Jeffries), who is the very distinguished leader of our caucus.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, 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
workforce.
For 35 days, this administration recklessly shut down the government
so it could try to fund a campaign applause line. For 35 days, this
administration shut down the government and held hardworking employees
hostage using them like bargaining chips from a bankrupt casino. For 35
days, hundreds of thousands of Federal employees were furloughed,
putting their well-being in jeopardy.
For 35 days, members of the Coast Guard, air traffic controllers, TSA
agents, FBI 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 from north to south to east to west
stepped up for us. Now it is time for this Congress to step up for
them.
Over the last 2 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 is the only way, Mr. Chairman, that you
can explain jamming a reckless tax scam down the throats of the
American people where 83 percent of the benefits went to the wealthiest
1 percent.
House Democrats will spend our time fighting for working families,
middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, the afflicted,
and veterans from all across this country, many of whom, by the way,
are part of the Federal workforce. We are 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, and month after month we will continue to do
everything possible as we fight hard for the people.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation, and I 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 balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cardenas). The gentleman from North Carolina
has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 15\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, before I make some statements, I would
notify the gentleman from Maryland, my good friend, Mr. Cummings, that
I have no additional speakers on this particular topic, so I am
prepared to close at any time he would like to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time based
on the speakers the gentleman might have.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday we had our organizational
meeting, and I made it clear that the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina has been truly a person who has worked very hard in a
bipartisan way trying to come up with commonsense resolutions. So in no
way do I want the gentleman to feel as if that is not being recognized,
and we appreciate it.
It is just that we have a lot of employees who aren't making those
very high salaries. They are the ones who are living from paycheck to
paycheck.
Mr. Chairman, one of the saddest parts is when they go from paycheck
to paycheck it is almost like no check because when they look at their
bills, the bills are so much higher than their net pay. All we are
trying to do is make sure that they keep up with the cost of living.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Lynch), who is the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on
National Security.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I do agree that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) has
tried mightily to work with us on various issues. He is not a bad man,
he is 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.
My wife has a habit of reminding me from time to time. She says: When
we

[[Page H1301]]

first met, you were an ironworker. Then you went to law school and
became a lawyer. Then you ran for office and became a politician. You
know, it has been one disappointment after another.
But I want to say, as an ironworker I was in a much better position
than our Federal workers. When I was an ironworker--and I eventually
became president of the union--if my job was unsafe or if the employer
refused to pay my workers, as a union president, I would pull my men
and women off the job. Under Taft-Hartley 1947, we changed that law for
Federal workers, everybody in the Federal Government. We said,
ironically, that 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 increase for all of 2019 for
our Federal workers.
I want to point out that the TSA workers--whom 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 ironworkers back in 1972--$28,000
a year. This would represent a $27-a-week cost-of-living adjustment for
those workers.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts
an additional 1 minute.
Mr. LYNCH. In Taft-Hartley we said that as a government we were
taking away the right of workers to strike. As an ironworker, I 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 am saying that this President has broken that covenant of treating
our workers with respect. 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 are not going to treat them right.
I think that, unfortunately, we have come to this point. 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.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the new chairman of
our committee, for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, this tiny--I will call it modest--2.6 percent pay raise
authorized by H.R. 790 does not begin to make up for the long overdue
pay raise our Federal workers are due. It does not begin to make up for
the puny raises--sometimes as low as 1 percent, sometimes no raise at
all--that our Federal workers have had to bear, and it certainly does
not make up for 35 days of no pay for the 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 the 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
money, we no longer even try to bring together these two parts of our
workforce. It is hard to justify bifurcation of the civilian from the
military workforce today.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia an additional 1 minute.
Ms. NORTON. For example, what about the many who work side by side
such as the civil servants who guard our borders who are hardly
different from the soldiers who do the same thing around the country?
The 2.6 percent pay raise proposed here does not begin to make up for
the 32 percent average difference 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 pay, now is the
time to try to insinuate some fairness into pay for Federal workers
with this modest 2 percent pay raise.

{time} 1130

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We hear a lot of discussion today on what is reasonable and small
amounts. In fact, the pay raise that they are talking about is about
$5.5 billion a year or $55 billion over 10. Actually, CBO would
probably score it higher than that, closer to $60 billion over 10
years. Yet this whole shutdown that we are talking about could have
been solved with a compromise between zero and $5.7 billion for a wall.
So it was an extreme amount of money when we are talking about
securing families, securing our borders, and protecting our
communities. It was a price too high to pay. But now, all of a sudden,
it is not too high of a price to pay because it is a small amount of
money? I fail to see the logic, Mr. Chairman.
When we are looking at this, if we are really talking about
compromises, where was the compromise over the last 35 days? There was
zero money for a wall on day one. There was zero money for a wall on
day 35. Yet, here today, we are talking about $5 billion or $6 billion
as if it were pocket change.
I find that interesting, Mr. Chairman, because, as we look at this
particular issue, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would
have the American people think that it is only the Republicans who are
totally responsible for everything. Yet we know that history shows
that, when there was a Democrat in the White House, indeed, there was a
pay freeze 3 different years.
We also know that there were two votes during the economic and
financial meltdown in 2008 and 2009 where they gave Federal workers a 3
percent increase while everybody else was out looking for a job. Now,
where is 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, that they are getting the same amount? They
are not getting the same amount. Talk to a chief master sergeant who
has been on the job for 15 years. He is getting far less pay than the
Federal worker who is getting this same increase when you have over 25
percent of the Federal workforce making over $100,000 a year.
We hear all these statistics that are low statistics, but let's at
least be honest in our debate. When we look at what we have, if this is
a small amount of money, I guess I would challenge my colleagues on the
opposite side: Let's find a compromise on border 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 am all in. Are all the Democrats in? Let's look at it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today we are zeroing in on Federal workers whose average pay is
$60,000. We are zeroing in on folks who are, in many instances, barely
making it.
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. Chairman, in our committee, we had a lady who came in
and told us that her daughter died. She died because she couldn't get
$333 worth of insulin a month. That happened in America.
What is my point? These dollars mean a lot to these Federal
employees.

[[Page H1302]]

I am not going to pit our military against our civilian employees. They
are all very important. I want them all to be well paid. But right now,
we need to concentrate on, again, building people and making a
difference in their lives.
Speaking of building people, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton), a cosponsor of
this bill.
Ms. WEXTON. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Gerry Connolly, for his
strong leadership on this issue.
I rise in strong support of H. Res. 790 and in strong support of a
long-overdue cost-of-living increase for Federal civil servants.
Many will remember the President's callous executive order of
December 30, right in the middle of the shutdown, freezing Federal
workers' 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 the 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. They are FBI agents investigating criminal activity. They are
the air traffic controllers and TSA 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, to pay their mortgage, to afford childcare, to pay off their
student loans, and, yes, even to feed their families.
It is time to give Federal employees the pay raise and the respect
they deserve, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in
personalities toward the President.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
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. It has been said many times that
you can disagree without being disagreeable, and I want t compliment
the two gentlemen for their vigorous debate today yet 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 deescalate the
emotions--and I know this is a highly charged, emotional debate, as it
should be--we can find common ground.
Mr. Chairman, I commit to the two gentlemen with whom I have had the
privilege of working for the last 6 years that I will continue to work
hard and with great resolve to find ways that we can not only recognize
and compensate our Federal workers, but we can do so in a manner that
is fair and equitable and certainly makes sure that the servants they
are is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, I would also say that this particular piece of
legislation, hopefully, will provide the fodder for us going back to
the committee and going through 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 and we have
had me here citing the CBO, and those two statistics are at odds. So 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 workforce 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.
Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I insert in the Record an article from The Washington Post
that reports the Federal Salary Council, the official monitor of
Federal pay, found that Federal workers make an average of 30 percent
less than their private-sector counterparts.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 14, 2018]

Federal Employee Salaries Lag by Average of 31 Percent, Pay Group
Reports

(By Eric Yoder)

Federal employee salaries on average lag behind those of
the private sector by almost 31 percent, an advisory council
said Tuesday, while splitting between union and non-union
members on whether to recommend potential changes in the way
it arrives at that figure.
The average salary difference of 30.91 percent reported by
the Federal Salary Council is somewhat smaller than the 31.86
percent it reported at a special meeting it held April. The
figures of prior years were in the 34 to 35 percent range.
Those figures, based on two Labor Department surveys
covering some 250 occupations, stand in contrast to
assessments of some conservative and libertarian
organizations that have concluded that the advantage is about
the same or even greater in favor of federal employees.
The Congressional Budget Office last year essentially split
the difference. It found an average advantage for federal
workers of 3 percent, although within that average it said
there is a wide range by educational level: from a 34 percent
advantage for federal workers with a high school education or
less to a 24 percent shortfall for those with a professional
degree or doctorate.
Under a federal pay law, the ``pay gap'' as measured by the
Salary Council is to be used in setting annual raises varying
by locality for federal employees under the General Schedule,
the pay system covering most white-collar employees below the
executive levels. However, that law never has been followed
due to the potential cost of paying such large raises and
disagreements over how the figure is calculated.
In an August message to Congress, President Trump said that
following the law's formula would result in locality-based
raises in January 2019 averaging 25.7 percent plus an across-
the-board raise of 2.1 percent, at a cost of $25 billion.
``Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases,''
Trump's said in backing a pay freeze that he originally
proposed in a budget plan early this year.
A House-Senate conference underway on a spending bill will
decide between a freeze and a Senate provision to pay an
average 1.9 percent raise. Unless Congress passes, and Trump
signs, a bill specifying a raise, salaries will be frozen by
default. If the raise is enacted, it would vary slightly
among 44 city areas and what is called the ``rest of the
U.S.'' locality everywhere else; employees working in the
Washington-Baltimore area would stand to receive one of the
larger raises, probably around 2.3 percent.
The long-running controversy over comparing salaries flared
at Tuesday's meeting of the Salary Council, a group of
federal employee unions and compensation experts whose
decisions typically are unanimous.
A ``working group'' document produced since the April
meeting laid out a series of potential changes for
consideration by a higher-level body called the President's
Pay Agent. Those options included adding more detailed data
on salaries by occupation and level of work, taking into
account other data such as attrition rates, switching to a
``total compensation'' approach taking benefits into account,
and conducting a very detailed review only once every four or
five years--the latter two of which would require a change in
law.
Council chairman Ron Sanders, a longtime career federal
personnel official who is now a clinical professor at the
University of South Florida School of Public Affairs, argued
in favor of exploring those options. ``I think it's obvious
to all of us that the current methodology is problematic,''
he said.
``That methodology does not tell the whole story,'' Sanders
said. ``It's nice to say there's a 30 percent gap. If OMB
[the Office of Management and Budget] doesn't believe it, the
White House doesn't believe it, the Congress doesn't believe
it, what good does it do?''
He pointed to the testimony of officials of federal
agencies from several urban and rural areas not now receiving
higher city-based locality pay, who told of their
difficulties in recruiting and retaining employees despite
using special hiring authorities and incentive payments.
However, the current process doesn't support specific salary
rates for them, he said.
Two other members supported exploring the options: Katja
Bullock, associate director of presidential personnel, and
Jill Nelson, who leads an advisory committee on pay for blue-
collar federal employees.
However, members from federal unions argued against
changing the calculations and questioned whether the group
even has the authority to raise new options for
consideration. ``I don't think the methodology is broken,''
said J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation
of Government Employees.
``The elephant in the room is the Congress and the
president over time not funding the

[[Page H1303]]

pay system'' as the law intended, said Randy L. Erwin,
president of the National Federation of Federal Employees.
Anthony M. Reardon, president of the National Treasury
Employees Union, expressed concern that including the value
of federal benefits ``will be used as a justification to
reduce those benefits.''
The council adjourned without voting on whether to
recommend that the Pay Agent consider different approaches.
Afterward, Sanders said that in the annual report to that
higher-level body to be made by year's end, individual
members of the Salary Council could express their own
opinions.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, it is so important that we do everything in
our power to support our Federal employees, and I want to thank Mr.
Connolly and Mr. Hoyer. They have given their blood and 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 about how
Federal employees at NIH basically saved their lives--saved their
lives. One told me that the person who saved their life was making
about $65,000. This is a doctor. Come on now. And the other said it was
about, maybe, $70,000 at best.
These are people who could have been doing other things, could have
been making a lot of money, but they decided to give their efforts 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 mansion that they could have gotten, but they have done
something that will have fed their souls. They have come to the job
with passion, compassion, and the desire to make things better, and
they are the ones who have determined that they want to put their
fingerprints on the future of generations yet unborn.
Then there are the others, like the TSA workers--you know 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 example after example after example, but one thing is
for sure, and that is that they are working hard and they deserve our
utmost support.
Now, if any message is going to be sent today, I pray, Mr. Chair,
that that message goes to our Federal employees that we care about them
and that they are not unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and
unapplauded. No.
I hope the message goes out that we are upholding them and we realize
that it is just not about them. We realize, when they don't get their
raise, their family doesn't get their raise. When they don't get their
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 just
trying to get to the nearest amusement park with some tuna fish and
crackers.

{time} 1145

Come on now. And that is what this is all about. We can talk about
fences all we want.
Right now, we are talking about the building of people and making
their lives the best that they can be. We only have one life to live.
This is no dress rehearsal, and this is that life.
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 people who live on my block, who get up at 5 in the morning, catch
the early bus to get to Social Security and places, and trying to serve
the public. I am talking about them.
Mr. Chair, I pray and I ask the Members to vote in favor of this
great legislation.
I thank Mr. Connolly, Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Wexton, and all of our
cosponsors, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Meadows).
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 790, the
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019.
Our federal civilian workforce, who continued to work without pay
through a record-long 35-day shutdown, deserves to be fairly
compensated for their dedication to our country.
Often unnoticed, this group includes TSA agents who ensure our
airports and air travel is safe, the FBI, which actively combats
terrorism, and CBP agents, who diligently protect our borders. These
heroic employees deserve to see their salary reflect the important and
selfless work they do on behalf of the United States.
The civilian federal workforce also includes FDA personnel who ensure
the food we eat is safe, National Park rangers who patrol and maintain
our beautiful national parks, and IRS employees who work tirelessly to
process and distribute tax refunds to Americans all over this country.
Mr. Chair, these federal workers dedicate their lives to serving the
American people and this great nation--it is about time we return the
favor by ensuring they are fairly compensated for their hard work.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 790, the
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019.
On December 28, 2018, one week into the longest government shutdown
in history, President Trump added insult to injury by announcing that
all federal civilian workers would not receive a pay raise in 2019.
This action continues the years of menial pay raises that federal
employees have received.
Federal employees have endured pay freezes, hiring freezes, higher
pension contributions, and furloughs as a result of sequestration and
government shutdowns, including the longest shutdown in our nation's
history.
Texas has over 270,000 federal employees.
Almost 4,000 of those federal employees call my district, Texas 18,
home.
It is time that Congress act and shows its appreciation for these and
the almost 2 million other men and women who are federal employees and
the services they provide to our great nation.
Denying these federal workers a hard-earned raise is not the way to
balance the budget.
Providing these workers with a raise is not an unrealistic burden on
the federal budget.
The cost of a pay raise would be approximately $25 billion.
Trump's tax reform bill cost over 10 times this amount.
It is inappropriate for the President to use these civil servants as
a bargaining chip, and it is inappropriate to not recognize their hard
work and dedication through a much earned pay raise.
For too long, federal employees have been the victims of attacks
being told that ``good people don't go into government,'' that the
federal government is full of ``waste, fraud, and abuse.''
This is categorically false.
Federal employees have contributed nearly $200 billion to deficit
reduction and other government programs over the past several years.
These attacks on federal employees are in addition to the Republican
attacks on federal worker pay and benefits that have been happening for
years.
We need to help the morale of the federal workforce.
We need to make the federal government competitive with the private
sector so that highly qualified candidates are able to serve the
American people.
We need to retain the talent that we have.
It is time for Congress to show their support for the men and women
who work selflessly and tirelessly for our government with this modest
pay raise.
H.R. 790 would authorize a 2.6 percent pay raise for federal civilian
workers and established pay parity between them and military service
members for 2019, a longstanding Congressional tradition.
Federal workers who would receive this pay raise are employees in the
competitive and excepted services; prevailing wage or blue collar
workers; members of the career Senior Executive Service; and employees
in the scientific and senior level positions.
This modest pay increase, between $488.41-$4,041.54 a year, would
help offset the cost of inflation and to make up for years of freezes
and negligible increases.
I am a strong supporter of the men and women who make up the federal
civilian workforce, and I ask my colleagues to show their support to
these integral federal employees by joining me in supporting H.R. 790.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Federal
Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act.
Our federal public servants dedicate their lives to serving their
fellow Americans.
Today, let's thank them for their dedicated service to our country by
providing them and their families an overdue pay raise that they have
earned.
The Trump shutdown exposed the all-too-real economic reality for many
Americans. Millions live paycheck-to-paycheck, including many of our
public servants. They did not choose a life of public service to make
it rich, but rather to serve and improve the lives of their fellow
citizens.

[[Page H1304]]

The shutdown also crystalized the daily impact federal workers have
on all our lives. 85 percent of all federal workers live outside of
Washington, and their paychecks drive the economies of communities
across the U.S.
This increase of 2.6 percent will help federal workers, 1 in 8 of
whom make less than $40,000 a year, make ends meet while stimulating
local small businesses across the nation when federal employees spend
their earnings.
Mr. Chair, it is unacceptable that their pay has not reflected the
increased demands of cost of living for years. It's time we give our
hardworking federal employees the pay raise they deserve and earn every
day.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-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.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 790

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Civilian Workforce
Pay Raise Fairness Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PAY INCREASE FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
IN 2019.

(a) Statutory Pay Systems.--For calendar year 2019, the
percentage adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United
States Code, in the rates of basic pay under the statutory
pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of such title) shall
be 2.6 percent.
(b) Prevailing Rate Employees.--Notwithstanding the wage
survey requirements under section 5343(b) of title 5, United
States Code, for fiscal year 2019, the rates of basic pay (as
in effect on the last day of fiscal year 2018 under section
5343(a) of such title) for prevailing rate employees in each
wage area and the rates of basic pay under sections 5348 and
5349 of such title shall be increased by 2.6 percent.
(c) Senior Executive Service Career Appointees.--For
calendar year 2019, the rate of basic pay for any career
position within the Senior Executive Service or the FBI-DEA
Senior Executive Service (as that term is defined in section
3151(a) of title 5, United States Code) shall be the rate of
pay for any such position on December 31, 2018, increased by
2.6 percent.
(d) Senior-Level and Scientific and Professional
Positions.--For calendar year 2019, the rates of basic pay
for any senior-level and scientific and professional position
under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, shall be
the rate of pay for any such position on December 31, 2018,
increased by 2.6 percent.
(e) Excepted Service.--For calendar year 2019, the rate of
basic pay for any position in the excepted service (as that
term is defined by section 2103 of title 5, United States
Code) shall be the rate of pay for any such position on
December 31, 2018, increased by 2.6 percent.
(f) Application.--
(1) In general.--The adjustments in pay made under this Act
shall apply beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Other adjustments permitted; limits.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to--
(A) limit any other increase, including allowances,
performance awards, or bonuses, otherwise permitted under law
to any a rate of pay adjusted under this Act; or
(B) waive any provision of law, rule, or regulation,
including section 5307 of title 5, United States Code,
limiting total aggregate pay.

The Acting CHAIR. 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.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Trone

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 116-5.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Insert after section 2(e) the following (and redesignate
subsequent subsections accordingly):
(f) Secret Service Employees.--For calendar year 2019, the
rate of basic pay of any employee of the United States Secret
Service provided under chapter 102 of title 5, United States
Code, who did not receive a pay increase by operation of
subsections (a) through (e) shall be increased by 2.6
percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 87, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Trone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 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
percent pay increase with the rest of the civilian workforce.
The underlying bill will nullify the President's executive order that
froze pay for Federal workers. It is 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 is why it is
unfortunate. First, he froze their pay, and 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 a pay
increase. They go to work every day to serve our country. They are
American workers; they are patriots; they are friends; and they deserve
better.
This amendment will ensure that no Secret Service employees are
inadvertently left out of a much-needed pay raise. 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.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment suffers some of the same defects as the
underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, while there are numerous dedicated civil servants in
all parts of the Federal Government, offering an 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
Oversight and Reform, then-Ranking Member Cummings of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, detailed significant personnel problems.
The report describes ``an extraordinarily inefficient hiring process
which overburdens the USSS with low-quality applications.''
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 performance--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.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, I would 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.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1305]]

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, to rehash all the reasons, both good and
bad, I am 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.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Maryland 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 and bad
working conditions that really affect morale and productivity at the
Secret Service. The gentleman's amendment is designed to try to help
that situation.
The idea that an across-the-board cost of living increase doesn't
distinguish between productivity and nonproductivity, performance or
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 is different. We
are making the opposite argument. We are making the argument that pay
parity is the right thing to do, especially after this reckless
shutdown.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my friend from Maryland on his
amendment, and I support it.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, 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 Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Fletcher

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 116-5.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Insert after section 2(e) the following (and redesignate
subsequent subsections accordingly):
(f) NASA Employees.--For calendar year 2019, the rate of
basic pay of any employee of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration provided under chapter 98 of title 5,
United States Code, who did not receive a pay increase by
operation of subsections (a) through (e) shall be increased
by 2.6 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 87, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, 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 GS 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 around 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.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to keep my remarks brief as we
have got a number of different amendments going through.
I acknowledge the gentlewoman's tenacity and her 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 is 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 have been
privileged to be able to talk to NASA folks from here in Washington,
DC, to her home district in the great State of Texas and across this
country. Remarkably, they are one of the best run agencies--and I say
that under the previous NASA Administrator and under the current NASA
Administrator.
So it is 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 of those
individuals and the way that they get their pay raises. There are
claims of unfairness. So I think that this sends a wrong message.
Mr. Chair, I urge the rejection of this particular amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. FLETCHER. 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 it 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 is just dedicated to the purpose of making
sure that these employees may be included and not excluded from this
act.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Trahan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 116-5.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask
for its consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Insert after section 2(e) the following (and redesignate
subsequent subsections accordingly):
(f) IRS Employees.--For calendar year 2019, the rate of
basic pay of any employee of the Internal Revenue Service
provided under chapter 95 of title 5, United States Code, who
did not receive a pay increase by operation of subsections
(a) through (e) shall be increased by 2.6 percent.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 87, the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

{time} 1200

Mrs. TRAHAN. 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 workforce by granting them a
2.6 percent 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 IRS processing center in Andover. One of my
constituents who works there wrote the following to me during the
shutdown: ``Apart from selling everything I own to pay for food, bills,
and the mortgage, I 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 and the dedicated

[[Page H1306]]

public servants like them. My amendment is a simple clarification that
all IRS employees would be eligible for this pay adjustment.
We learned yesterday from legislative counsel that the bill could
inadvertently exclude some of these employees hired under special
provisions of chapter 95, title 5.
For example, title 5, section 9503 grants IRS special authority to
hire employees for critical administrative, technical, and professional
positions necessary to carry out the functions of the IRS. However, it
is unclear whether such individuals would benefit from H.R. 790's pay
adjustment. This amendment simply removes any doubt.
I hope that the amendment can be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I would highlight one thing.
We are going through all these amendments that are clarifying and
technical amendments and all of that. That could have all been avoided
if we had just had a hearing and had a markup and we had gone through
it, and yet here we are today on the House floor trying to make
amendments to a bill that, candidly, is missing the mark.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most ridiculous
amendments I have ever seen.
Just a few years ago, the IRS targeted people for their political
beliefs, systematically, for a sustained period of time, went after
conservatives because they didn't like their political beliefs and what
they were doing.
Now we are saying to those same people across this country--we had
constituents. Congressman Meadows had constituents. The gentlewoman
from Massachusetts may have constituents. We are now saying to them:
Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, you may have been targeted by the IRS, but now
we are going to take some of your hard-earned tax money and pay them,
give them a pay raise?
Giving people a pay raise who went after people's most fundamental
right, your right to speak out against--your First Amendment liberties,
that is what this amendment would do.
Also, the chairman knows this. We did an investigation in the
Oversight Committee. The IRS had fired people who they then rehired--
now think about this--and some of the people they rehired, who had been
fired, some of the very people they rehired were people who didn't pay
their taxes, and we are now going to give them a pay raise. You have
got to be kidding me.
The very agency that systematically went after people, went after our
most fundamental right, our right, under the First Amendment, to speak
out against our government, went after people for doing that because
they didn't like their political beliefs, set up this elaborate system,
this ``Be on the Lookout'' list, Lois Lerner, and the whole 9 yards,
did that, also the same agency that fired people for not paying their
taxes and then rehired them, and now the taxpayers have to give them a
pay raise. That is what the Democrats want in this amendment.
This is ridiculous. We should reject this, and we should reject, as
we talked about before, the whole darn bill.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and
I congratulate 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 workforce of the IRS with one brush. They are all,
apparently, out to get us.
You would never know these are hardworking public servants who serve
their country nobly and often under very difficult circumstances,
because they are 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. They did it because they are noble public servants and they
are patriots, as the distinguished chairman of our committee indicated.
So instead of slandering public servants, we want to honor them.
You are right. We are proud of this amendment, and it is anything but
the most ridiculous to come to the floor. It is a very important
amendment. I support it.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not painting with a broad brush. Look,
I know there are lots of good employees there. All I am saying is an
agency that did what the IRS did, that rehired people who had been
fired, some of them had been fired for not paying their taxes, an
agency that went after people for their political beliefs, I just--call
me crazy, but you can go ask your average taxpayer: Do you think that
agency that did those things, do you think those people need a pay
raise?
My guess is most of the constituents I get the privilege of
representing in the Fourth District of Ohio would say: Nope, I am not
for that.
That is all I am saying, not painting with a broad brush.
All I know is what this agency did. And it is not a 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 I am standing here
speaking on the House floor, and the gentleman from Virginia knows that
to be the case.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that 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. I urge rejection of this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the employees I talked to at the IRS are
noble. They are hardworking. They are working with the utmost
integrity. They have endured cuts to their agency, at times doing jobs
that used to require two, sometimes three people to do.
Again, my amendment merely makes a clarifying change to be certain
that all of these employees, all IRS workers, receive the benefit of
this well-deserved pay adjustment. I urge my colleagues to adopt the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Fletcher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cardenas, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________