Government Employee Accountability Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 322 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 367, the REINS Act; H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act; and H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act.

The rule provides a structured rule for consideration of the REINS Act, allowing debate time for 12 of 23 amendments submitted. In addition, the rule incorporates a technical correction to the bill from Chairman Sessions. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Additionally, the rule provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Furthermore, the rule provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides floor management tools to be used during the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, America's job creators have struggled against strong headwinds to recover. In fact, since President Obama took office, 131 new major regulations, costing at least $70 billion, have been added to America's regulatory system.

Under current law, Congress only has the power to disapprove regulations put forward by the executive branch. H.R. 367 flips that presumption on its head. Any major regulation estimated to cost over $100 million would need to be approved by Congress and must be given an ``up-or-down'' vote within 70 legislative days.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said:

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, when we find

rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will

fix them.

H.R. 367 does just that. It allows Congress to decide whether major rules place unnecessary burdens on job creators.

The second bill covered by this rule, Mr. Speaker, would prohibit the Treasury Department, including the IRS, from implementing or enforcing any provision of ObamaCare. In the last few months, the American people have learned that the IRS has targeted and intimidated Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. Given the recent scandal and the massive amount of sensitive information the IRS is required to collect under ObamaCare, it's completely inappropriate for the IRS to be given this responsibility.

A recent poll showed that 53 percent of Americans want ObamaCare repealed entirely. Mr. Speaker, health care decisions should be made by a patient and his or her doctor, not Washington bureaucrats.

The final bill covered by this rule, H.R. 2879, was extensively debated on the floor yesterday. In fact, it combined three bills, all aimed at limiting government and returning that power back to the people. This bill accomplishes three major objectives:

First, it caps bonuses for Federal employees at a maximum 5 percent of their salary through the end of fiscal year 2015. With Federal officials furloughing employees due to sequestration, the government should not, at the same time, be handing out millions of dollars in bonuses to other employees;

Second, this bill allows for senior Federal officials under investigation for serious misconduct to be put on unpaid leave. Under current law, agencies have little recourse but to put officials on paid leave, where they can collect a paycheck for months or even years while the investigation occurs;

Finally, this bill allows for citizens to record their meetings and telephone exchanges with Federal regulatory officials. In my home State of Oklahoma, along with 37 other States, this is already the case. However, 12 States require all parties involved in the conversation to consent to recording. This bill would allow individuals in all 50 States to record their conversations when meeting with Federal officials acting in their official capacity.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 367, H.R. 2009, and H.R. 2879 all express the views of my constituents. They're increasingly concerned and opposed to an intrusive and expansive government that seeks to tell them what they can and cannot do. These bills seek to stem the tide of crushing regulation and rein in an overbearing Federal bureaucracy.

I urge support for the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to quickly respond, if I may, to a couple of points my good friend made.

First, I want to begin by agreeing with her because, quite frankly, as I've stated publicly on many occasions, I don't believe a government shutdown is a good idea either. I think that's not a responsible political tactic. And while my good friend has been concerned that some people in my party have advocated that, I would also express a similar concern, quoting press reports that some advisors to the President have recommended that, should we send a so-called ``continuing resolution'' that funded the government that did not repeal sequester, he should veto it and that would shut down the government.

So I think there's been a little bit of irresponsible discussion about shutting down the government--which, with my friend, I agree, is never a good idea--that's come from both sides of the aisle.

In terms of her observations about sequestration, as an appropriator, again, we probably find some common ground here. I would like to see us also get rid of sequestration, but I'd like to do it by redistributing the cuts to the nondiscretionary side of the budget where I think they belong. We need to keep the savings--that's why the deficit is coming down--but there are certainly smarter and better ways to do that. And if the President is willing to do that, I suspect he would find a willing negotiating partner on our side of the aisle.

In fact, though, many of my friends advocate what is effectively a third tax increase this year. We had a tax increase with the so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' When all the Bush tax cuts ended, the President used that to raise taxes. We have a tax increase this year associated with his health care plan kicking in that's major. And now my friends on the other side of the aisle want a third tax increase to keep the government open and operating. We think we can spend money better and smarter, and that we ought to continue to reduce spending, not increase the burdens on the American people.

Finally, I want to talk to my friend, who discussed ObamaCare, and she's absolutely right; we certainly would like to repeal it, and we certainly have tried to make that point repeatedly. Frankly, her disagreement is not with us so much as it is with the American people. This is an extraordinarily unpopular law. No poll has ever shown that more people like it than dislike it; quite the opposite. People would like to see it repealed. It's simply not a very good idea. Frankly, we're seeing signs of that right now. The President himself, in a signature piece of legislation, had to ask that the business mandates actually be pushed back by a

year. We would like to help him in that, and we'd like to do it for individuals as well, but that suggests this was certainly a bill not ready for prime time.

A former Presidential candidate--I very seldom quote Howard Dean in agreement, but he had an interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal this week on why the central cost-control mechanism of ObamaCare--the Independent Payment Advisory Board--simply wouldn't work. Now, that's not us; that's criticism from somebody that probably supports a national health care plan of some kind.

Finally--and I think this does get overlooked in a debate, and I want to end my comments on a point of agreement, because while we have voted repeatedly to repeal, there have actually been times that we have, on both sides of the aisle, agreed--and agreed with the President--about changing this bill.

In the last couple of years, we have actually passed seven pieces of legislation when we were in the majority--they obviously had to go through a Democratic Senate and to the President's desk--that changed or modified ObamaCare--and saved, by the way, about $62 billion. My friends, after ramming that legislation through, looked at the so- called 1040s that were going to be attached to every $600 purchase and said, you know, you guys are right, that's a really bad idea. The President thought so too. And we got rid of it.

We also got rid of the assisted living portion of it, the so-called ``CLASS Act'' that was just financially unsustainable. Why? Secretary Sebelius looked at it and said, you know, this really isn't going to work. And I'll bet you sooner or later we'll get a medical device tax elimination down here on this floor--people on both sides know it's nuts to be taxing people's wheelchairs and oxygen cans because they're sick and use that to fund health care, and I'll bet you we can probably find common agreement on that.

So, while we would like to repeal, we certainly are willing to work when we find common areas and continue to try and improve a very flawed product.

With that, I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend--and he is my friend--I think is really one of the great speakers of this Chamber. I mean that with all sincerity.

But this isn't the Senate. We don't have unlimited debate over here, so he's kind of stretching it a little bit, but it's always worth listening to.

I will certainly yield to my friend.

And I want to say, my friend, the gentleman, exercised it to the extreme, but he's always worth listening to.

I want to underscore a point my good friend made, because I do agree with you very much about government shutdown. I don't think that's a responsible tactic. I've seen it advocated from time to time from people on both sides of the aisle. We've had reports of it from advisors to the President. I certainly wouldn't suggest the President would agree with that. But I hope we don't get there, and I will pledge to work with my friend to make sure that we do not.

I also think, though, that we ought to recognize that we have worked together on some occasions. My friend and I worked together on the fiscal cliff, we worked together on violence against women, we worked together on Sandy, we worked together, actually, on the CR in March. So there are times when we can come together.

We are working together now. I suspect the President will soon sign the Student Loan Act, an act that was originated on our side--problems were on the Senate side--and passed. Eventually, they came around and saw the same thing the way the President and we saw it on this side of the aisle.

We did. I appreciate that, and we found common ground. I hope we can again.

But also when we're lectured a little bit on rules--and, look, we both wear

these hats occasionally--I will remind my friends, when they were in the majority, the rules under which they brought a massive health care bill to this floor with almost no debate, a massive stimulus, billions of dollars, with essentially no debate and no consideration, the Dodd- Frank rule.

So whatever sins have been committed on our side of the aisle, I would suggest this is one where you need to look at the log in your own eye in terms of the size and scope of that legislation and the rules that accompany them.

I will yield to the gentleman on that.

Reclaiming my time, I seriously doubt that you have never said we wouldn't do this. I've heard the same thing when we talk about debt ceiling where we know the rules get reversed from time to time.

So I think this legislation--and I think it's very significant legislation--but I don't think it ranks with either of the three examples that I gave in which this body was not given the opportunity. Frankly, I think the Republican majority is here today largely because that's the way the House was operated the way the last time my friends had an opportunity to do that.

But regardless of that, I appreciate my friend's remarks as always. I always enjoy the exchange, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we did have a referendum on ObamaCare. Do you know what we got? We got a split decision because, while the American people certainly reelected the President, they also reelected a Republican House. That's a hard thing to achieve in what my friends would regard as a great Presidential victory. We had 435 different referendums about this. So the American people, for whatever reason, either wanted the debate to continue or certainly didn't want to leave the President, as they did in 2009 and 2010, with essentially total control over the legislative branch. They didn't like what they saw then, and I don't think they would like what they would see if that were to happen.

As for our friends in the Senate, letting them decide what the agenda is going to be in the House, I think, is, quite frankly, a mistake. They don't get a lot done over there. Every now and then, though, they'll surprise you.

I remember hearing these same arguments about the Student Loan Act in that, gosh, what we were planning and proposing, even though it was relatively close to what the President proposed, was never going to happen. In fact, if you'll remember at one point and if I recall correctly, I think the President, himself, issued a veto threat against the legislation. So, had we followed our friend's advice, everybody's student loans in America would be skyrocketing right now.

Every now and then, you just have to go out and fight for the things that you believe in; and, amazingly, sometimes the United States Senate will come around, and, occasionally, the President of the United States will change his mind or at least will decide this was close enough to be good enough.

So I would suggest we just continue to get up every day as we all do, to work as best we can for the things that we believe in, and at the end of the day--believe me--the American people will make a judgment, and we'll see what happens.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a number of points my friends have made about the issue of sequester. I simply want to remind them whose idea it was. If they have any doubt, they should read the Bob Woodward book, ``The Price of Politics,'' or follow the lively correspondence that came after the book was published.

The reality is that the idea of sequester was the President's proposal. He proposed it; he advocated for it; he signed it into law. Now we hear from our friends, gosh, the Republicans won't undo it or we didn't really mean that it would actually ever happen.

We've had this discussion before. The simple truth is that we are willing to renegotiate where the cuts come from. We actually agree with our friends on that. What they're not willing to do is to actually reduce spending. That's essentially what the debate is about.

This is the method that the President recommended, signed and advocated for. If he wants to undo it--something, by the way, this House twice in the last term did, but our friends in the Senate never picked it up, and the President never came up with a counteroffer, so we're sort of still waiting over here--and if the President would like to redistribute the cuts, I have no doubt the Speaker would like to talk to him. But the idea that we're just going to simply undo it and lose all the savings, I think, is also unlikely to occur.

So let's sit down. We all know there are better ways to do this. We're willing to do that on our side, but we are not willing to raise taxes, and we are not willing to lose savings.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I do not have any more speakers, and I'm prepared to close whenever my friend is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I want to begin by reminding my friends whose idea sequester was. It was the President of the United States.

The President likes to take some credit--and in some ways he deserves some--for our budget deficit coming down. Frankly, after four trillion- dollar deficits in a row, a Republican Congress came into office and that deficit is now moving down. It's about half of what it was. We've worked with the President to actually achieve something he said he wanted to, which is lower the deficit. He likes to take credit for it.

Second, I'd like to also remind my friends, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that I think these bills really are good bills. They provide important checks on the expanding power of the executive branch. How many times have all of us gone home and been regaled with tales of bureaucrats that are simply out of control or rules that make no sense or have an enormous economic impact? It happens all the time. That needs to change.

Senator Daniel Webster described the Federal Government as ``made by the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.'' I would suggest we've forgotten the last of these three phases, ``answerable to the people.'' That's what these bills are about, trying to make the Federal Government more responsive and more answerable to the people. The underlying bills recognize just that and restore the power of governance to elected officials, not to unaccountable Washington bureaucrats.

I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 113-187) to accompany House Resolution 322 the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 2879 included:

A waiver of clause 9(a)(2) of rule XXI , prohibiting consideration of a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee, unless the chair of each committee of initial referral has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration. The required statement from the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the primary committee of jurisdiction, was printed in the Congressional Record dated July 31, 2013. However, the required statement from the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, which also received an additional referral, was submitted for printing on August 1, 2013. Both statements provide that H.R. 2879 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

A waiver of clause 11 of rule XXI, prohibiting the consideration of a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which such measure has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner. While the text of the bill is substantially identical to the three bills previously debated in the House on July 31, 2013, H.R. 2879 was not introduced until later that day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

For those of you up in the gallery, please put on your seatbelts. Again, this room is spinning so fast right now that it's hard to determine what's being said or why it's even being said. So, please, put them on. I don't want you to fall out of the gallery in trying to keep up with what's being said.

My comment, Mr. Speaker, is I'm concerned about the safety of those watching today from the gallery. I just wanted them to be aware that there is a definite turntable here, and I'm really surprised that anybody can walk straight when they leave this room because of the spin that's put on everything. So my concern is for the safety of those watching today.

In going back to February 6, 1788, James Madison said to us, ``If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.''

I've got to tell you that Madison is still alive, and he is alive on both sides of the aisle. What amazes me sometimes is how we get so far away from what it is that we are trying to do and who it is we are trying to protect. Now, I've heard the terms that--do you know what?-- we're not protecting those who work for America. Let me tell you about those who work for America.

When I come out of my church on Sunday morning--out of St. Paul's, the 8 o'clock mass--I see all kinds of people who work for America. When I'm down at the Kmart, doing my shopping, I see all kinds of people who work for America. When I'm in Erie, Pennsylvania, I see all kinds of people who work for America--the same in Meadville, Pennsylvania, and the same in Butler, Pennsylvania. So I'm sometimes confused about who it is we're trying to protect. If it's truly those who work for America, it is those who work for America.

All of these folks behind me work for America. All of the people at our homes work for America, do they not?

Now the question is: Who looks after those people, those American taxpayers? When there is an abuse, my goodness, have we gotten to the point at which our only concern is for those who get a check that says it came from the United States Government?

I know who funds America. It is hardworking American taxpayers. That is why it's so unbelievable for me to sit here and listen to how we're not protecting those who work for America.

This is not about the men and women, the guys and gals that go to work every day for the government. The ranking member knows that this is not about stripping them of their rights. It truly is not. In fact, if you go to page 8, lines 15 through 17:

An employee against whom an action is taken under this

section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection

Board under section 7701 of this title.

Nobody is being stripped of anything. What we're doing is taking care of all those people who elected us to come here. I've got to tell you, I wasn't just elected as a Republican to come and take care of only those folks in my district that are registered Republican. I was sent here to represent everybody. I've never sat back and said, You know what? This isn't in the best interest of my Republican constituents. It helps my Democrat constituents. Since I'm a Republican, I'll game it, I'll spin it so that I can't vote that way. That's absolutely stupid.

Again, how far have we gotten from the initial message of what it is we're trying to do? The Government Employee Accountability Act--when we had the GSA hearing and the ranking member sat there, I said, Why is Mr. Neely on leave with pay when you know the IG had him under investigation? In fact, you bonused him money for the very same event that he's being investigated for. You bonused him, and then you let him go home to do what he wants to do. He's on leave with pay.

When I go back home, people ask me all the time, and I see their faces, and I can't look at them and say, You know what? What you don't understand is that in Washington, you can do the wrong thing and there's no accountability. Now, if you're back home in the private sector and you do the wrong thing, you're held accountable. What you have to understand is that you work in the private sector, not the public sector. They cry out for equal treatment. Not special treatment, not to be handled differently than anybody else. But they say, Mr. Kelly, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Should not both sides of this aisle be concerned with what's right for the

American taxpayer? Should we not be concerned with what's right for American citizens? Should we not say to these same people who run these agencies, Look, we know you don't have the tools that you need--and that's what I was told by the GSA, that they put Mr. Neely on leave because they don't have any mechanism to do otherwise.

I don't want to keep beating up Jeff Neely, but by the same token, I refuse to keep beating up American taxpayers. If I don't have the stomach, if I don't have the backbone to do what's right, and if I can't walk a straight line when I leave here--this is not about taking the rights away from people who work for the government. Come on, guys. You know that.

Oh, my goodness. We've got to get together on this because this is not making sense to me. This looks like the back end of a frat party where everybody's kind a walking crooked coming out, trying to figure out what it is they did for the last 3 or 4 hours. I've got to tell you that this is common sense for America. If we cannot protect those who sent us here, if we cannot restore the trust of those who sent us here, if we're going to come here and debate and make a mockery and spin it to the point where it confuses the American people--this is not about taking anybody's rights away. This is about reinforcing the responsibilities of those who work for the American taxpayer, and that is all of us, both Republican and Democrat.

I've got to tell you what I've said before. There is no way I'll ever go back to northwest Pennsylvania and tell them, You just don't get it. See, the problem with you people is you're so busy working trying to make ends meet, you don't understand how government works. We can twist it. We can turn it. We can say anything we want. What we ask you is to believe. You know what the American people are telling us? I don't believe you any more. I don't trust you any more. I don't understand why I can be held accountable for everything I do, but other folks that work for me can do pretty much anything they want. Then we'll redeploy them. We'll push them off to another area. They won't lose a penny. We'll bring them back in under some other title, some other agency. All I want to do is give those managers of those agencies the tools that they have requested of us in Congress, give them the ability to hold people accountable.

Who am I talking about? I'm talking about the senior executives. I'm not talking about every gal and guy who walks into an office every day that does great work for the American people. Let's not get confused. So, please, don't spin it. My days of riding a merry-go-round are over, and so should yours be. We can fix this. We have to put things in there that make it possible to hold people accountable. The people that raised me, the people that I've worked for, the people that I have played under as coaches, hold you accountable for everything you do, and there are repercussions for doing the wrong thing. You don't give them a pat on the back and say, You know what? Go home for a while. Don't worry about your pay. The American taxpayer is going to pick up the tab on that. We'll keep you safe. We'll keep you covered.

Senior executive, this is the creme de la creme, This is the top of the bunch. This isn't all those people you see walking in and out. I don't want to get it confused with the gentleman from Maryland about sequestration. This is about what's fair for this Nation. I'm sick and tired of having everyone else throwing in and saying, No, you don't understand. Let's all put it in a blender, we'll pour it out, and they'll drink it. No, they won't. The American people are choking now on the rhetoric that comes out of this House because we don't talk straight. We talk Washingtonese, which nobody understands. We wouldn't allow it in our public sector, and we shouldn't allow it here.

If it's about accountability, listen, I will tell you what, I would like to see accountability not just in the government employee, but also in Members of this great legislature. My goodness, if we don't understand what Madison said and we are truly not ruled by angels, as we know, we are obliged to put in elements that force us--because we won't do the right thing on our own--force us to do the right thing for the American taxpayers and those men and women who get up every day, throw their feet out over the bed, and go to work. Do you know why they do it? Because they love their families and they love their country, and they know they have to do it.

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for allowing this piece of legislation to come forward. I can't tell you how proud I am to be a Member of this body. We may disagree on some things, but people tell me, Kelly, you don't understand. I say, No, no, no. The problem is I do understand; I just don't agree. I understand it so well that if we don't right these wrongs, this great country will never be what it was supposed to be. For us to sit here as a body and allow it to happen and say, Too tough a vote. Man, some people are not going to like me for this. I may not get elected the next time. I just say, Get a stomach, get a stronger back, and do what's right for America. This is about what's right for the true Americans that keep this great organization going. That is the American taxpayer.

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for allowing me to get up and speak, and please, ``If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'' Isn't it amazing that over 225 years ago, the same thing rings true today? If it were really angels that were running the organization, we wouldn't be having these conversations, and we would just go ahead with every day and say it's all right.

We're not. We're ruled by men. Men make mistakes. Men need to be held accountable when they make a mistake. I want to make sure that each of us, no matter what party you represent, is able to go to their home district and say, I did what was right for you today. I did what was right for you, your children, and your grandchildren. I did what was right for America.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side, I do have great respect for both of the gentlemen. It is not a question of respect for other Members of Congress. The question is: How much respect do we have for American taxpayers?

I think sometimes we get too confused right here about the collegial atmosphere that has to exist. You know, if you don't talk nicely to each other, it can cause a problem. And I understand that. But we know each other. I have shared some very emotional moments with Mr. Cummings when he lost his nephew. I understand that. Steve--Mr. Lynch--and I know each other. It's not about the spin. Nobody is losing their due process under this. You know that.

Again, I refer back to page 8, lines 15 through 17:

An employee against whom an action is taken under this

section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection

Board under section 7701 of this title.

There is no reason for us to be having a conversation that again divides the Nation; and it divides people because we constantly want to make sure that everybody understands that one party is for one type of philosophy, the other party is not. You know, they don't ever want to take care of everybody.

I'm talking about the American taxpayer here. I'm talking about the agencies.

Mr. Cummings and I sat and listened to the people from the GSA; and when we asked them why are they placed on leave with pay when there is obviously an investigation going on, you knew about it. The IG came to you and told you that, in spite of that, you still bonused this gentleman. They gave him extra money for doing exactly what he was being investigated for.

And we said: My goodness, why would you do that?

And they said: Because we don't have any tools to do anything about it. We don't have the mechanism to do that.

Why is it that we have to constantly widen the gap between what's right for America and what's just flat out right?

This isn't about Democrats and Republicans trying to protect our friends who work here in the government. Of course I want to protect them. And I will guarantee you that if this is going to pass today, I guarantee you will not see a mass exodus of people who work for the government saying, oh, my gosh, let me get my resume together; I've got to get out of here.

They're not leaving. And why aren't they leaving? Because these are good jobs. We're talking about the senior executives. We're not talking about every gal and guy. We're not talking about those in uniform who protect us. We're talking about the senior executives, those to whom we have given the most responsibility and authority. We're talking about giving them a tool to hold those who work under them responsible. They don't have it now.

I don't want to walk away or turn my back on people who work every day for this government. These are darn good jobs. Please tell me, if it's such a terrible place to work, why do so many people apply for work?

No, I will not yield.

Mr. Lynch, we've been yielding for far too long, and I will be glad to yield to you when I'm done here, and that's up to the chairman.

But I have to tell you, why do we constantly put this spin on to divide this body?

If I were a manager and I were put in charge and given the responsibility to do things, but then told, Look, you have the responsibility, you better perform to the right level here, but by the way, when you have people who are not acting appropriately, you don't have any tool to change that. You don't have any way to reprimand them, to call them forward.

It just doesn't make sense. And I'll tell you who it doesn't make sense to. It doesn't make sense to all those folks I described before. I've got people back in western Pennsylvania working two jobs. This is mom and dad working a

job. Why? Because they have this tremendous ability to self-reliance, and they know they have children they've got to take care of. They want to feed them, they want to clothe them, they want to educate them. They want to be part of the system that has made sense to so many people for so long.

Why do people come to this country? My goodness, they come across the ocean in inner tubes to try to get here. They crawl across the desert to get here. They don't get here because they don't like us. They get here because they love the opportunity.

All I want to do is give the managers of these agencies the same tools that everybody else has. This is not about trying to make an employee look bad. This is about holding an employee accountable. When is it that we got to the point that accountability is a political agenda? Really? Really?

And we're going to take any time we can get to try and make the other party look bad, because I've watched here for 2\1/2\ years. It's not enough to win the vote. You've got to make the other side look really, really bad. It's not enough to say we just didn't agree on this and we moved to something else. No, the point is to say, you know what, this is how horrible these people are. They don't care about you. They don't care about your kids or your grandchildren. They really want to hurt you.

No, we've shared too much time together. I don't sit in any committee with anybody, whether from our party or from your party, that says, I came here to destroy America. They don't say that. They don't say, I came here to divide America. They don't say that. They say, I came here because I thought I had a calling and I want to make a difference.

This bill is so simple. It is so much common sense. Really, this is a problem, to hold people accountable for a job they're not doing right? We didn't strip them of anything in due process. They still have their rights, everything. And it's not for everybody; it's for the senior executives at the top. The top. That's all it's about.

So, Mr. Chairman, I've got to tell you, this is so common sense. It's what we do in the private sector every day. I don't want it to become a political battle over something that makes sense to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2711) to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by Executive branch employees with individuals, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have the author of this legislation before us, a principled Member of Congress who saw a problem and sought to fix it, and we brought it before you today. We brought it before you today because we hear, and hear rightfully, horror stories of harassment that includes Federal officials at the IRS, the EPA, the SEC, the FEC, and a list of other ABCs.

The truth is that in 39 out of 50 States, every Member on a phone, every American has a right to record that conversation without asking permission of that Federal officer on the other end. But in 11 States, States that most people don't know which is which, that is muddied. When a conversation occurs between two States, it is muddied.

The gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), as the author of this bill, sought, in principle, to fix that, and I'd like to yield 2 minutes to her to explain her bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask what day it is, what day of the month it is.

Mr. Speaker, is it the 31st day of July? Can you verify that for me? Because on the 24th of July, we amended this bill to send it to the House, and the ranking member knows full well, as I'm sure the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association know full well; and I'm shocked that they would write and that, in fact, the ranking member would write in a Dear Colleague, citing them, things that just aren't so in this bill.

Before us today we do not preempt States. As the ranking member rightfully so said, we make a statement on behalf of the Federal Government for our employees that we hereby consent that you may record us.

In 39 out of 50 States--there's a little ambiguity in that Montana allows these recordings; it just doesn't broadly allow them, but does recording for a law enforcement officer. But having said that, whether it's 11 or 12, the gentleman cited a portion of that letter from the National Association of U.S. Attorneys, but let me give you a portion that I want to make sure gets on the record.

It says, H.R. 2711 requires any employee of an executive agency, before or at a personal interview or telephonic interchange with an individual, to allow the individual to make an audio recording of the in-person or telephonic interaction.

We'll let that one slide. We'll go to the next sentence.

In addition, the legislation requires the executive branch employee to first provide notice to the individual of their right to make such a recording.

Mr. Speaker, that's just not true. We went through a long markup and, in that markup, in a manager's amendment, we made it very clear that the only notice the Federal Government would give would be a notice in its publications, Web sites, and so on letting Americans know that they no longer had to ask, if they were in Idaho, if, in fact, somebody calling them from Maryland did or didn't need to know that they were recording.

This interstate situation is one in which the American people deserve to know that they have a right to document when someone calls them, and if they trip up in that answer, they could go to jail or get a fine or lose their business.

Thirty-nine out of 50 States recognize it, and all we're saying, very clearly, is the Federal Government gives its approval.

These documents, sadly, were accurate, if you looked at the bill on the 23rd of July. The ranking member knows full well these documents are somewhat inaccurate. And his own letter implies that law enforcement will somehow be crippled by having to give notice. It's just not true.

In 39 out of 50 States, law enforcement would already know that somebody could be recording and not telling them. That's the law of those States.

But, more importantly, we're not affecting the ranking member's Maryland law enforcement. We're affecting Federal officers, such as the EPA, OSHA, and the IRS, when they call and ask you questions. And those questions could lead to real harm to you. And you would be able to document it. And if you're harassed, you'll be able to document it. That's what we're doing here today. We're empowering Americans to know that their Federal Government will never answer the question of, ``May I record this to protect myself? No.''

And in no way, shape, or form are these personal calls. This only affects when a member of our Federal employment is doing their official duty and calling a private citizen. Of course, the private citizen should have the rights since this isn't a personal call and one in which you should expect to be able to say whatever you want. These are not private. These are public conversations. These are public investigations. And the public should have a right to protect itself.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a longtime businessman and someone who knows firsthand about abusive governments.

I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say, you know, if two people take the Fifth when asked about their official conduct and there isn't a scandal, I'd be surprised to find that the gentleman from Maryland would find a scandal no matter what we find there.

My 10 seconds has expired.

Pardon me?

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds and yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the minority whip knows the Constitution. All of us have taken time to understand it. But when we investigate real wrongdoing-- wrongdoing like the IRS, wrongdoing that the American people understand, it was just wrong. Even the President started off agreeing with that. Then somehow, whether it's IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, or just somebody at the IRS putting a half-billion-dollar contract out to their buddy and then claiming that, as they got them to contract, that they didn't really know them well, somehow these become phony scandals.

There's only one scandal in Washington, and that's when we find things that are wrong and we don't fix them. We don't have to worry about who at the top is in charge, but we have an obligation to fix them. When people take the Fifth when you're asking simply questions about their official conduct, yes, that's the beginning of a scandal here in Washington--and if not here in Washington, around the rest of America.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) to speak on the bill before us.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, there was only one amendment offered by the minority, and this bill passed unanimously on a voice vote. The gentleman on the other side could have asked for a recorded vote if he objected to it; he did not.

We are trying to give the 2 million men and women who are Federal workers the right to record when they're called. This is a right every American gets, including the Federal worker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will read from the actual language, as amended, the bill before us today that says, ``Notice of rights when Federal employees engage in certain actions.'' It says:

A notice of an individual's right to record conversations

with employees shall be included in any written material

provided by an executive agency.

Mr. Speaker, that's the only notice that's required in this bill. And that's simply, quite frankly, to let people know that it's a 50-State right, where today it's a 39-State right.

I appreciate the fact that unions and associations representing Federal employees have made statements. I just don't appreciate the fact that they've gotten the details of the actual bill wrong--and knowingly wrong, based on the dates of their letter.

More importantly, let's understand, this bill does not require verbal notice of a right to record given by a Federal official. It does not compromise that. More importantly, in 39 States, the public has this right; and in the other States, in most cases, the worst that would happen would be, if a person pulled it out, they might not be able to use it when trying to defend themselves.

But most important, this bill does not override existing Federal wiretap laws. Of course, if somebody's talking classified on an open telephone, yes, I'd like it recorded because I'd like them to be able to make the case that classified information is being inappropriately talked for. But it does not override the right to go into a classified session. But that better not be with the public generally. If you're discussing classified information, please understand that's a secure location.

So I won't accept these canards, these false statements as to what could happen, because it simply isn't in the four squares of the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, classified information said by a Federal employee has an obligation to be said in a secure location. Of course, under the law, they can say no recording devices can be here in this secure location. But of course you go into a classified briefing, one, because you're cleared, and two, you go there knowingly. So let's not accept these kinds of things.

And let's understand, in 39 States, law enforcement is recording without the permission of the public--and more importantly, so is the IRS, the EPA, OSHA, Fish and Wildlife in many cases, or they're simply taking notes and holding you accountable. Remember, in America, if you answer the IRS wrong over the phone, you might very well get a bill; and your only ability to appeal that bill is to the IRS, and you must pay that bill before you can then go to the courts.

Let's understand, we're dealing in all kinds of agencies, and there are good people, lots of good people there. But on behalf of the 2 million Americans who work for the Federal Government, I want them to have the right to protect themselves by being able to have a right to record in all 50 States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we hold these truths to be self- evident: one of them clearly is our right of free speech; another, free association. But protecting from our government is what our Constitution is all about.

My Democratic friends want to talk about the good workers; but the ranking member knows well there are good workers, and there are some that aren't good. There are workers who would never call and harass somebody, and there are people who have threatened Americans repeatedly. We have whistleblowers, and we have proof of that. We have wrongdoing.

When you get harassed by the government or you simply want to make sure that you know what you said, you have the right to do it in 39 States. You have the right to do it in your State, but you may or may not have the right to do it in the other State which the Federal agency is calling you from. If you are a rancher--Fish and Wildlife, EPA, OSHA--these are not just names on a board; these are people who really affect your life and your liberty and your very commerce, your very ability to feed your family.

The minority whip talked about the Federal workforce not having a choice except to keep working because they need the money and they can't strike. We are not going to that issue. In the vast majority of States, this is already the law. They don't need the Federal Government's approval to record.

When we look at harmonizing how people in every State in the Union look to their government and expect their government to look to them, that is a solemn responsibility. We don't preempt States in any way, shape, or form. We simply make it clear that Americans have a relationship with their government that they can count on. One of them is if they get a harassing call from somebody, somebody who is out of line, or they're asked inappropriate questions, it won't be a ``he said, he said, she said, he said.'' They'll have the ability to record it if they choose.

Around here, we know that fact-based documentation and recordings have made a huge difference in finding out the truth about things that have happened. We also know that what people say is often discounted here, even when they're talking about horrific things that happened to them.

If we didn't have documents, not coming very quickly and usually blacked out, about the IRS's abuse of Americans simply trying to teach the Constitution or in some other way assert their rights of free speech, if we didn't have any documentation, it would just be a ``he said, she said.'' It shouldn't be a ``he said, he said.'' It should be absolutely something where you have that right.

I want all 2 million American Federal workers, I want State workers, I want everyone to know that they have this ability. And, yes, I want Federal workers to have an understanding that when they send an email out on the government email system, they, in fact, are sending out a public document, and it is going to be discovered potentially and used and they should be careful what they say or do, because they represent us, they represent the American people.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that didn't need a long set of hearings. I suspect that the same groups would object to it no matter how many hearings we had about Americans' right to life and liberty, their ability to assert what people would consider to be unalienable rights. We are not talking about a complex issue. We are talking about the vast majority of States have one rule, a few have a different rule, and as to Federal workers we are making the statement that we, their government, have decided that the answer if you're asked if you can record is, yes, and you don't even have to be asked.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your consideration, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final week that the House will be in session before we begin our recess. I don't like to call it recess since we work as hard at home, but this is probably the last time we'll get together until we come back in the fall. As the clock runs out on another legislative session, we are voting for the 40th time to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act.

By now, we all know how today's debate will end. The majority will pass the bill, the Senate will refuse to take it up, and we will have wasted, again, the public's time and their patience. And then they will adjourn for August recess, only to return in September with issues like jobs, immigration reform, and sequestration left unsolved, as they are today.

The other night, I was watching comedian Stephen Colbert on his program. He was talking about the number of times we've voted to try to repeal health care. He had a good idea for the Republicans. He said, Obviously, you're not going to be able to do it if you say you're going to repeal health care, so he suggested that a bill be written that is titled, ``This is Not Another Repeal of ObamaCare, We Swear, But Don't Look Inside It, Just Sign It Act.'' If you put that act out, maybe you would get somewhere with it.

Some speculated the GOP is desperate to get rid of this law because they know it is working and will work better as it gets fully implemented and they know they have firmly planted their feet on the wrong side of history once again. I can't comment on their motivation, but it's clear that millions of Americans are using this law because of the incredible benefits that it provides.

I was really stunned by the last speaker on the 1-minutes this morning talking about Maryland, because we just got the statistics from Maryland. The health plans are better than ever. Just last week, Maryland announced their rates are going to be among the lowest in the country, and not, as he said, a 20 percent increase.

Nevada announced a young adult will be able to purchase a catastrophic health insurance plan for less than $100.

And I said last week, when we had the other vote to get rid of health care, New York had just come out with wonderful news on the exchanges. Seventeen insurers had applied to provide insurance in the State of New York, and it would cause those premiums to fall by more than 50 percent. And we join 11

other States with the same kind of news. It's happening all over America.

For those States that decided not to do an exchange and are going to let the government do it, fine. I think they'll do okay there. Maybe we'll move closer to single-payer, which is what we should be doing.

Sixty-two days from now, those new exchanges will open their doors and they're going to provide millions of Americans with secure and affordable health care. For the very first time, insurers are going to be barred from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition and barred from placing lifetime and yearly limits on an individual's health care. They are sending checks back to customers all over the country, because the new law requires them to spend 80 percent of the premium dollar on health care. And since far less than 80 percent is spent, many companies are doing rebates, and people are getting those checks.

I really can't go on much further without talking about what it is we are doing here today. I think it's somewhat historical, but it may not be the first time. It's probably not. I have not had the pleasure before of doing a rule which consists of five bills with very little in common being stuffed into one because the House, basically, imploded yesterday. I've done all of the rules on health care repeal. If I had a machine, I could just press ``repeat'' and walk out of the room and do the same speech over and over again.

The other day I asked Dr. McDermott, who's a psychiatrist, ``What do you call someone or one group that does the same thing over and over and over again, anticipating a different result?'' and he gave me the psychiatric definition for that.

We all know that today's vote is not a single thing except another cynical attempt to score political points. As we go to our districts this August, the question is whether or not the majority will double down on their failed agendas in September and continue the irresponsible attempts to repeal the health care law. If they do, they will be escalating their brinksmanship to a new level and risking a government shutdown simply because they don't want to compromise.

Already, as you know, Members of the majority are threatening to shut down the government if the Affordable Care Act is not repealed. That does show kind of an act of desperation, doesn't it? In fact, a dozen Republican Senators have signed a letter vowing to vote against a continuing resolution--that we have to have because nobody got their work done--that funds the Affordable Care Act, and more than 60 House Republicans have called on the majority's leadership to defund the Affordable Care Act in any continuing resolution that comes before the House.

Instead, I want the majority to make a change here. My fellow Kentuckian, Hal Rogers, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, yesterday made it plain to everybody that this is all a hoax. He talked about sequestration and the impossibility of bringing a transportation bill that scarcely has enough money to maintain what roads we have, and it imploded on the floor when nobody would vote for it. While we're out on recess, please think about this, and think about what sequestration is doing in the United States.

I hope you read former Senator Byron Dorgan's article in The New York Times talking about the devastation on the Indian reservations because of the money that we owe them by treaty, which is being lost through sequestration; the people who are doing health research at the National Institutes of Health, where they tell me in the human genome project that they are very close to finding a cure for cancer, but now they have to stop it. As a scientist, I can promise you, you do not turn research off and on like a faucet. And think of all the people who can't get their treatment because of sequestration. Think of all the people who live in this area and work for this government and keep this government working, many of them two members of the family on the Federal payroll, who have suffered as much in that family as a 40 percent pay cut.

And the bills that are in here today, again, saying to the Federal employees: We don't value you for anything. We've already passed legislation in here that hurts their pensions. They haven't had a raise in 4 years. What we're saying now, if this bill passes today, is that they can be fired without cause and that their phones will be tapped by any citizen in the United States. I really am concerned about what's going on here.

We talk about too much regulation. I want to close with something I mentioned last night at the Rules Committee because I realize most Americans don't know it. But let me talk about under-regulation.

In the food market, chickens are inspected 100 at a time--100 a minute going through the conveyor belt. They're covered with barnyard debris and feces and whatever else. One person is inspecting them as 100 of them go by. So what's going to happen now they have decided to regulate? They will have to do 140 chickens a minute.

Recently, The Washington Post had a front-page story that stunned me to the core. It said that a young food inspector, working for the government, his lungs bled out and he died from the chemicals that he inhaled from his chicken inspection days. Now, after the chicken goes through a conveyor belt, it goes into a bath of cool water and Clorox. Then it's ready to be packaged and all plastic-ed up and have it for dinner. Is that overregulation? For heaven's sakes, give me more regulation than that.

But I want to urge my colleagues today to vote ``no'' on this rule, the underlying legislation, and quit this farce in the House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me take just a second to say another case of un-regulation is the fertilizer plant blowing up in West, Texas, that had not been inspected in over 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer on our side an amendment to the rule that allows the House to consider the SAFE Bridges Act, which funds emergency repairs and creates countless American jobs. We are about to go into a 5-week break; and so far, the Congress has done nothing to end sequestration or to create jobs for the country. My amendment will prevent the House from going home until we have done the job we were sent here to do.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Larsen), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I shall close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we speak, sequestration is hitting very hard in communities all across the country. Federal employees are furloughed; important investments in science, technology, public health, and defense are being curtailed; children are being shut out of Head Start. Meanwhile, the majority has repeatedly refused to repeal the sequester and have failed to pass a single job bill creation into law.

The American people need us to stop these political games and get down to work creating jobs and rebuilding this economy. Now is not the time to adjourn Congress, and we should not leave here until we have produced real results for the American families that are truly struggling to get by.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1541) to establish limitations, during any sequestration period, on the total amount in awards or other discretionary monetary payments which may be paid to any Federal employee, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 1541, brings common sense to the policies governing Federal employee bonuses while still providing agencies flexibility to recognize outstanding performance.

In fiscal year 2011, 75 percent of Senior Executive Service employees throughout the Federal Government received bonuses at an average of nearly $11,000 per person. The government's decision to furlough hundreds of regular, often blue-collar, Federal workers while senior employees cash in is unacceptable.

Americans are rapidly losing trust in government as the list of abuses by Federal agencies grows, but bureaucrats continue collecting large bonuses at the expense of hardworking taxpayers.

The IRS is a prime example. Between the years of 2006 to 2012, IRS Director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, was paid a combined total of $110,035 in bonuses.

Faris Fink, the senior IRS official best known for his starring role as Mr. Spock in a ``Star Trek'' parody at the IRS conference received some $149,506 in bonuses between 2007 and 2012.

The Federal Aviation Administration is another example. It threatened 90-minute delays for airline passengers in the weeks leading up to sequestration. However, the FAA handed out more than $12 million in bonuses during fiscal year 2012 despite knowing that sequestration was likely to occur.

These bonuses exemplify Washington's spending problem. A national debt of $17 trillion and an unemployment rate at 7.5 percent should not add up to millions of dollars in bonus payouts.

Following the President's decision to impose a 2-year pay freeze at the end of 2010, the administration issued a memo limiting the amount available to pay bonuses for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This past February, the administration issued a memo limiting bonuses to those legally required, and in June, you, the administration, suspended rank awards for senior leaders.

This bill builds on the administration's initiatives, limiting the amount and number of bonuses paid to Federal workers in periods of sequestration. It is time for the government to stop furloughing workers who depend on paychecks from week to week while awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to senior employees.

I urge all Members to support the Common Sense in Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a few of the items that have been brought up because we seem to talk about these in abstract ways, but the truth of the matter is is that bonuses have gotten way out of hand. You know, when we start to give out bonuses as a way to bypass the payment structure that we have established for the Federal Government employees, that is not what it was intended to do.

You know, the ranking member earlier, Mr. Speaker, mentioned a survey, which was the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. He used that data as evidence of, really, about performance pay, but I'd like to quote from that same study, that same survey.

A recent survey found that only 22 percent of Federal employees believe that performance and pay are linked. And I would like to point out that this bill certainly would cover that.

We are not saying do away with all bonuses; quite the contrary. We believe that people need to be incentivized. We believe in merit pay. We believe in bonuses for those that work. But I can say this, that when you start paying out bonuses to 75 percent of all senior executive employees, the people back home don't understand. Maybe the people in Massachusetts understand, but I can tell you the people in North Carolina don't understand.

We've got some 7,000 Senior Executive Service employees that make an average of $168,500 every year. So when you go back home and you say, Well, they're making $168,000 a year, and on top of that we're going to pay them a $30,000 bonus, those people don't understand. Whether they work for the Federal Government or whether they are in the private sector, they don't understand.

I've got single moms, Mr. Speaker, that said, You know what? I'd be glad to go to work just for the bonus pay that you're paying some of those Federal workers.

We go on a lot and we start talking about it, but it's interesting, because many times my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle want to go ahead and talk about what is fair. Well, this is not fair, Mr. Speaker, when we start to look at that. The rich, indeed, are getting richer at the expense of the hardworking American taxpayers, and that is not what we should be doing.

I also want to go on a little bit further, because when we start to look at these bonuses, it is the Federal employees in my district that have a problem with it as well. I have two of them, Paula and Martha. I won't give their last names, but Paula and Martha. I was there talking to them, and they said, You know, we are sacrificing under this pay freeze. We're having to give up. Why in the world are you awarding such bonuses to these people when we're having to suffer?

Now, I know the gentleman from Massachusetts has a real heart for Federal employees, as do I. I look here and there are a number of people that I would call my friends. There are a number of people that are watching this perhaps even on TV right now that are Federal employees that I enjoy being with. This is not about them. This is about being fair. What it is is, when we start to pick the winners and

losers with bonuses and bypass the payment structure that we have, you know, it's not right, Mr. Speaker, and we have to adjust that.

I would be glad to work in a bipartisan way. If we're having a hard time retaining scientists and doctors, I would be glad to work in a bipartisan way with my friend opposite here to come up with a structure that works on pay and merit pay to that and address it, but why do we allow the bonuses that we have today to bypass the very fundamental reason that we have it set up?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the comments that the gentleman opposite made.

When he said not a word has been mentioned about bonuses for contractors, I would remind the gentleman that in the NDAA we addressed this very subject. So that was addressed, which I'm sure the gentleman was here for that particular vote; but as we've looked at this, we have addressed that particular thing. I will go ahead and talk about a couple of other things, though.

We talk about this pay freeze and how we're asking so many people to suffer. I'm not talking about the normal pay that we would give employees. I'm talking about the excessive bonuses that have failed to be an incentive anymore.

When you give a bonus to 75 percent of the employees, it ceases to be an incentive; in fact, quite the opposite. All you have to do is make sure that you are not in the bottom quartile. It says all I have to do is perform better than only a few people to get my bonus. So if I'm just better than the worst 25 percent, I get a bonus. That's not an incentive. That's why we're looking at 33 percent. It rewards those people who rise to the top, the cream of the crop, and we need to do that.

I also want to mention that we were talking about all these pay freezes. Where is a pay freeze not a pay freeze? Only in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, 99.4 percent of Federal employees got an increase in salary during this pay freeze. That's the only ones we denied were 6 out of every 1,000 employees. So the gentleman opposite making comments that they've sacrificed, indeed, they have, but it's not as if they have not gotten pay increases.

What do I tell my constituents back home who are dealing with double- digit unemployment? They would love just to have a job. Many of them would take a job at 10 to 15 to 20 percent less than what they were making if they could just go to work. Yet here we are talking about people who continue to get raises as if they are suffering. You know, we've got to make sure that we're clear on the subject and we need to make sure that we're fair.

I keep coming back to the word ``fair,'' because when we are not fair with the government responsibility that we have, the American people lose trust in their government; and it is time that we hold it accountable, give tools to those managers that reward good behavior and good performance, but yet not continue to dole it out at the expense of every American taxpayer.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his candor and his passion with which he rises and debates it.

I do want to point out, though, that what we are talking about here are apples and oranges. When you start to look at contractors and the benefits of those contracts, those are really issues that we must address, and I'm willing to work with him on a bipartisan basis, but let's not take our eye off the ball.

Why would we allow Sarah Hall Ingram, who is going to be administering over the Affordable Care Act, a bonus of $35,000? Why would we award a bonus of almost $31,000 to a gentleman that played Mr. Spock? It's indefensible to me. I can't imagine why my colleague opposite would want to defend that and why he wouldn't want to have tools to let managers manage the process.

I'm going to close with this point: Daniel Pink writes in a book called ``Drive'' that really it's about motivational theory; it's about the fact that bonus impact is minimal. I think we see that even here because of the surprising truth about what motivates us. It says:

The carrot and the stick approach to motivating employees

through bonuses and benefits is statistically ineffective.

What they would rather have is a mastery of their position,

they would rather have autonomy, they

would rather have a sense of purpose that the job that they

are doing is very meaningful.

So, in essence, what it says is that if we get rid of the bureaucracy, our Federal employees will be more motivated to do a good job knowing that they are fulfilling a purpose. Yet we continue to throw bonuses at them over and over again, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a hard time going back home, as a number of my colleagues would go back home, and defending these excessive bonuses.

I would urge all of the folks here, all of my colleagues, to join with me in supporting this critical bill, the Common Sense in Compensation Act, H.R. 1541, as amended.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.