H.Res. 790

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.

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.

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. 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. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia.

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. 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.

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

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. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 1 minute.

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.

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.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

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. 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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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. 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.

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. Chair, I respectfully yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

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. 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. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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. 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. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield on the point he just made?

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.

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.

I didn't support him, however, when he did those zeros in those years when we were doing well.

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. 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. 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.

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.