Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to finish this. I listened to you very carefully. You had an outstanding speech, but I want to just make sure we're clear on something. The senior executives suspected right now of criminal activity may already be removed or placed in indefinite suspension without pay. We need to focus on improving agency implementation. You talk about the Neely case. Rather than passing legislation that would deprive employees of their due process rights--I do want to keep in mind that there is a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America that every 2 years we come and swear we're going to uphold. Part of that Constitution is about due process, and that's what we are trying to adhere to here. I think we have to be very careful when we start looking at just individual cases. We're making legislation for Federal employees throughout this country, and I just want to provide some caution there. I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am no longer surprised, but I am saddened that the Republicans are wasting the last few days before the August recess to vote on bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 40th time and to continue their campaign to blame our country's civil servants for the challenges we face. We could be addressing the many serious and important issues facing our country, such as appointing conferees to negotiate a balanced budget to replace the harmful sequester, or passing legislation that would create jobs for the middle class, or voting on comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, Republicans are more interested in playing partisan games and in advancing political messaging bills. Americans want Congress to focus on creating jobs and on growing our economy. The Democrats have put forward a responsible budget that invests in the future and in the middle class while taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Yet, Republicans refuse to listen, with a record defined more by what they have failed to do than what they have actually achieved. It has been 209 days since the start of this Congress, and the Republicans have failed to pass a single jobs bill. It has been 129 days since the Senate passed a budget, and the Republicans have refused to appoint conferees to complete negotiations and resolve final legislation. Now Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, and Bob Corker have joined House Democrats in our calls to go to conference. Yet, here we are today debating on H.R. 2579, a bill that would strip due process protections from Senior Executive Service employees accused of wrongdoing. This bill would give a politically appointed agency head broad discretion to fire Senior Executive Service employees without advance notice. The bill would provide no opportunity for a proper investigation or for employees to address the agency's concerns before such action is taken. H.R. 2579 would eliminate due process protections that were put in place precisely to protect civil servants from partisan, political influence. It would shift the burden onto employees to prove their innocence and seek reinstatement. This is contrary to the core legal principle of the American justice system--the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. My Republican colleagues would have you believe that this is a bill needed to hold senior executives in our Federal Government agencies accountable. Although abuses committed by government employees certainly need to be addressed, denying due process rights to employees is not the appropriate way to do it. There are existing procedures in place to deal with these challenges. Under current law, agencies may take action against senior executives for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or the failure to accept a reassignment or a transfer of function. However, current law requires agencies to give Senior Executive employees 30 days' advance notice, among other rights, before disciplinary action is commenced unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime. I believe that we need to strengthen and improve the agency implementation of existing disciplinary procedures rather than pass legislation that would abridge the fundamental rights of our public servants. This bill would fire accused employees first, then ask questions later. I am afraid agency heads could feel undue pressure in particularly high-profile cases to terminate employees without first conducting a thorough investigation to determine the facts. For these reasons, I strongly oppose H.R. 2579, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding to Mr. Lynch, I just want to say one thing. I listened to the gentleman, and I have the utmost respect for him. But I remind him that this is American jurisprudence that has had the concept of ``innocent until proven guilty'' for as long as he just talked about.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say first of all that I associate myself with the words of the gentlelady from the District of Columbia. I think she said it quite well. Mr. Speaker, we must be about the business of guarding this thing we call the Constitution. We are here only for a moment--only for a moment--and in that moment we have already been given a document by which we should govern ourselves. It has been interpreted by courts over and over again, and one of the things that has stood the test of time is due process. That very due process, I have said many a time, has allowed me to be a Member of this Congress of the United States and so many others who would have never had an opportunity. And so no matter when we are here, no matter what time we are here for, we must guard it. Mr. Lynch was very clear when he talked about how we are in a situation where we fire somebody first, and then suddenly we say, okay, we're going to give them some due process. Going back to Ms. Norton, due process comes before the firing. That's the way it's supposed to be. And we all care about every employee. We care about how every American is treated, and that's what this argument is all about-- fairness. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. How much time do we have, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield the 45 seconds we have remaining to Mr. Lynch to close.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2711. This legislation would have a significant impact on law enforcement, and it would interfere with laws in a dozen States. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association sent a letter to Chairman Issa and me opposing this bill. This is part of what they wrote, and I quote: As the chair and ranking member with jurisdiction over H.R. 2711, we urge you to ensure that the bill is not considered on the floor unless it is amended to exempt law enforcement in its provisions. Until that time, FLEOA will continue to strongly oppose this legislation. They also wrote, and I quote: The legislation puts law enforcement activities at risk and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals. They're not the only law enforcement organizations that oppose the legislation. The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys also sent a letter opposing H.R. 2711. Here's part of what they wrote, and I quote: The most disturbing aspect of the legislation involves its dramatically negative impact on civil and criminal law enforcement investigative efforts. They went on to say, and I quote: The version of legislation approved by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 24 did not contain any exceptions. Clearly, this measure raises a magnitude of administrative and legal concerns that should be addressed before the House gives further consideration to approval of this legislation. The committee held no hearings on the legislation and heard testimony from no law enforcement officials before marking up the bill, and now it is being rushed onto the floor in record speed with apparently no regard to its consequences to law enforcement. The bill also would interfere with the laws put in place by 12 States to protect their citizens. For example, my home State of Maryland enacted a law in 1977 that made it a felony to record a private conversation unless every party to the conversation consents to the recording or another exception applies. This law was deliberately crafted to provide greater protection to Maryland residents. H.R. 2711 preempts the laws of Maryland and other States that require all parties to consent to a recording. The bill deems Federal employees to have consented to a recording just by performing their official duties and does not even require that they be notified. Maryland's statute requires actual consent, not forced or assumed consent. To assume a person consents to having their conversation recorded just by participating in the conversation undermines the State's laws, as well as those in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other States that require multiple-party consent for recordings. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2711 is a dangerous and poorly considered piece of legislation. I oppose this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself 10 seconds. Just listening to the arguments, this is why, Mr. Speaker, it would have been quite helpful to have had a hearing on the bill so that we could flesh through some of these concerns. With that, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me say this. The chairman has made some allegations that things were not true--and I guess he's not talking about us, but I guess he's talking about the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association in a letter that, just today, referring to what he just talked about, says--and I further quote from this letter of July 31, 2013: Also, by requiring written notices under the threat of disciplinary action, H.R. 2711 would create new administrative and bureaucratic requirements for agents conducting investigations. The time and the resources available to agents are already stretched too thin, and new administrative burdens make it more difficult for agents to protect the public. That's from them. By the way, the letters from the Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, their opposition to this bill goes to the bill that is on the floor right now, so they have their concerns. Again, I wish that this was something that we could have had testimony so that we could hear from those law enforcement agencies so that we could come to some type of agreement with regard to their concerns, but we did not have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, based upon the arguments that we've already made, I would urge Members to vote against this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman is inaccurate. The fact is that when the bill came in, at first, we did apparently have certain exceptions for law enforcement, consistent with these concerns. That's not in the bill. As a matter of fact, just today, July 31, 2013, we have a letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association talking about the bill that's on the floor right now: H.R. 2711 creates a broad right to record conversations with Federal employees and requires that the notices of the right to record conversations be provided to individuals engaged in discussion with Federal employees without any exceptions related to criminal investigations. This proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate with law enforcement and would result in the creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and important criminal and counterterrorism investigations. That's from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the Congressman from the great State of Missouri, Lacy Clay.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 313, as amended. I support the intent of this legislation to reduce wasteful travel and conference spending and to shine light on the Federal Government expenditures in those areas. The recent instances of excessive spending at a 2010 Las Vegas conference held by the General Services Administration and two 2011 Orlando conferences hosted by the Veterans Affairs Department gave good cause for the introduction of this measure. I believe that safeguards and heightened congressional and public scrutiny are needed to prevent incidents like those from happening again. This bill is similar to legislation that passed the House in the last Congress and similar to administration guidance issued to agencies. Legislation would require agencies to reduce travel spending by 30 percent below fiscal year 2010 levels in each of the next 5 fiscal years and limit expenditures on any single conference to $500,000. I also thank Chairman Issa for working with us to make some changes to the bill to address some of our major concerns. We added language to the bill to allow agency heads or the Secretary of State to waive the 50 percent limit on the number of employees who may attend international conferences. This change was made to address concerns raised by Representatives Rush Holt, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and others in the scientific community about the potential negative effect of the limit on the free and open exchange of scientific and technical knowledge. We also established $10,000 as the minimum threshold amount a conference would have to cost before agencies would be required to provide cost information in their quarterly reporting. Lastly, we appreciate the addition of the language in the bill exempting travel expenses from the required 30 percent reduction when the reduction would undermine national security, international diplomacy, health and safety inspections of law enforcement, or site visits required for oversight investigations. I believe that H.R. 313 has been greatly improved by the exchanges. I offer my support for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Republican leadership is wasting the few days we have remaining before the August recess with political message bills like this one instead of dealing with the major challenges the American people want us to address. The American people care about jobs. Let me say that again. The American people care about jobs. And the Democrats have introduced a Make It in America agenda that would create good-paying jobs by rebuilding America's infrastructure, investing in innovation and education, and reducing the deficit through a balanced approach. But the Republican leadership apparently has chosen a No Jobs Agenda. It has been 7 months since the start of this Congress, and we have not passed a single jobs bill on the floor of this House. Instead, the Republican sequestration plan is expected to cost up to 1.6 million American jobs through next year. The American people also want the Congress to pass a budget for our country. More than 4 months ago, both the Senate and the House passed their respective budgets, but the House Republicans are now refusing to appoint conferees to complete negotiations. For years, Republicans complained about not having a budget, yet now they are actively blocking it by refusing to negotiate with the Senate. Rather than dealing with these critical issues, we're being asked to vote on H.R. 1541, which is one of many bills that are a part of a relentless campaign to demonize Federal employees. H.R. 1541 would impose an arbitrary, across-the-board cap of 5 percent of basic pay on the amount of bonuses that Federal workers can receive and limit the number of senior executives who may receive performance awards to 33 percent of those eligible in each agency. These employees carry out our critical missions that serve and protect the American people. Among these awards are Presidential Rank Awards for senior executives who saved the Federal Government more than $95 million last year, quality step increases for our highest Federal employee performers, awards to law enforcement officers for foreign language capabilities, and recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives to fill critical gaps in such fields as nursing, information technology, and cybersecurity. I'm very concerned about the Federal Government's recruitment and retention efforts if Congress eliminates agency discretion to provide awards to our best performers. In an analysis of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government, the Partnership for Public Service and Deloitte found that only 4 out of 10 Federal workers believed they will be rewarded or promoted for doing a good job. This is the definition of counterproductive. I don't understand how Republicans can call for pay for performance and then eliminate the very performance awards they said they supported. Last Congress, our committee chairman, Representative Issa, and committee member Dennis Ross sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office proposing that we replace the Federal Government's General Schedule system with a ``merit-based, market-sensitive system that recognizes and rewards individual employee performance.'' How can we take such proposals seriously if we are being asked at the same time to slash the very awards that are supposed to incentivize performance? Of course, we cannot. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2579, and I reserve the balance of my time. I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) to manage the balance of my time.