Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to thank Mr. Moran for his leadership and Mr. Wolf, as the lead sponsor of this bill, along with Mr. Cummings, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Turner, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Wittman. I know there are a lot of staff as well who have been working hard on this bill. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. This bipartisan legislation will ensure that our more than 800,000 Federal workers who have been placed on furlough since October 1 will receive full backpay for the duration of the government shutdown. This legislation recognizes that our middle-income Federal employees are totally committed to serving the American people. And to their great credit, our public servants have remained ready, willing, and able to perform their duties, even in the face of mandatory increases in their retirement costs, sequestration, related furloughs, and as they face the likelihood of their fourth consecutive year of pay freeze imposed by this Congress. Given that these furloughed employees have already carried a major part of the burden working towards deficit reduction, it would be unjust to expect them to bear the additional cost and uncertainty of a shutdown engineered by one extreme faction within the Republican Party--not all, but one extreme faction within that group--who are intent on destroying government operations for the sake of political brinkmanship. I would also note that these furloughed Federal employees, nevertheless, perform mission-critical agency functions. Among the employees who have been sent home by the shutdown are Federal aviation safety monitors, Department of Defense military technicians, disease surveillance personnel at the Centers for Disease Control, and also food safety inspectors at the FDA, as well as NIH researchers who are engaged in experimental clinical trials that are life-and-death matters for some. So it's, therefore, imperative that we also pass a clean continuing resolution so that these Federal workers can immediately return to their post. Again, I thank Mr. Moran, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Cummings for their great work on this important legislation and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3223.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I had a chance earlier today--because we are not doing a whole lot other than arguing for the last few days--to run up The Mall and go for a little jog. I went by the Washington Monument, the World War II Memorial, ran all the way out to Arlington where the Iwo Jima Memorial is. I got to thinking about all the great people in this country who have built this government and invested so much, sacrificing their very lives to preserve this government and to elevate it to a point where it is respected around the world. I thought about the debate that's going on here today. We should not be disgracing their memory, all of those people from Jefferson to FDR and others, by dissolving this government, by defunding it and allowing it to fail. We owe the American people better than that. There's a solution here. Hey, look, I didn't vote for the Affordable Care Act either. I thought it was a flawed bill. But that's a different argument about how to make that work best for the American people. We are failing the American people by allowing this government to shut down. It's a terrible precedent to set. It's disgraceful, and the American people deserve better.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2879, the so-called ``Stop Government Abuse Act.'' This legislation is simply a rehash of the three attacks on Federal workers that were incorporated in the bills that the Republican leadership abruptly pulled from the suspension calendar yesterday due to a lack of support from the required two- thirds majority of this House. The fact that these anti-Federal worker suspension bills have now been reconstituted into a single anti-Federal worker bill does not make this legislation any less misguided or any less harmful to our Federal workers than it was yesterday. After all, H.R. 2879 is based on the same message that has been continually reflected in a series of Republican legislative attacks on our Federal workers throughout this Congress. That message from the Republican leadership has been that our hardworking Federal employees cannot be trusted, and they are the primary source of our deficit burden. On the heels of repeated attempts to freeze Federal employee pay beyond the current 3 years, efforts to increase Federal pension contributions and slash our Federal workforce across the board, we are now considering legislation that would only add insult to injure by depriving Federal employees of their constitutional rights to due process of law. In particular, I'm deeply concerned about the expedited termination provisions in H.R. 2879. These provisions would give agency heads broad discretion, without limitation, to immediately fire senior executives accused of misconduct without notifying the employees of the charges against them and without giving them a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. Instead, it places the burden on the employee, after they fire them, to prove that their reinstatement is required. This ``ready, fire, aim'' approach by my Republican colleagues, where they fire the employee first and ask questions later, flies in the face of the rights guaranteed to all Americans under our Constitution. The ``guilty until proven innocent'' framework violates the due process protections envisioned by James Madison and guaranteed under the Constitution. In 1985, in Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that public employees, Federal employees, who are facing discipline are entitled to certain due process rights. The U.S. Supreme Court held that public servants had a property right in the jobs that they held and in continued employment, and that such employment could not be denied to employees unless they were given a meaningful opportunity to have notice of the allegations against them, to have a fair hearing and an opportunity to respond against the charges against them. Notably, that must occur prior to being deprived of their right to employment. The court stated: An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. The court goes on further and it says: This principle requires some kind of a hearing prior to discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment. Now, this is unconstitutional. This provision is flatly unconstitutional, and there's a long line of Federal cases under the Supreme Court that declares it so. The one saving grace, in my opinion, in this bill is that there's no severability clause, and that after this provision is struck down by the Supreme Court, these employees will all be reinstated with back pay. And the whole bill that they're offering will be struck down because of the lack of a severability clause in the bill.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. Look, this Nation was founded on the principle that every person, every man and woman is entitled to due process before he or she is deprived of life, liberty, or property. Our Supreme Court in the Loudermill case understood the injustice of depriving a person of their livelihood, and I hope that my colleagues understand that H.R. 2879 unfortunately would do just that. Due process demands that we oppose H.R. 2879. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this legislation. I thank the ranking member for his advocacy and his courtesy.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2711, the so-called Citizen Empowerment Act, that has been brought to this floor without a hearing. While I do understand that the legislation purports to address accountability and transparency in the Federal Government, I am greatly concerned that H.R. 2711, in its current form, will actually have quite the opposite effect. In particular, this bill would allow the recording of any telephonic or in-person conversation with a Federal employee that is conducted in an official capacity. Regrettably, however, the bill does not include critical exemptions pertaining to the discussion of classified information or conversations relating to sensitive Federal law enforcement or public safety investigations. In light of this significant flaw in the bill, our Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has underscored that, rather than enhance accountability in government, this bill would actually have a chilling effect on the ability of Federal law enforcement officers to perform their duties. According to the association--and I'll quote them: Put simply, this legislation does not work in the context of Federal law enforcement 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. For this same reason, the bill is also opposed by the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. Moreover, this legislation actually is evidence of a shift away from a greater transparency by failing to include a requirement that Federal employees receive fair notice that their official conversations are being recorded. Importantly, 12 States, including my home State of Massachusetts, have enacted State laws requiring the consent of both parties to a conversation to give their consent. These States' efforts have been undertaken in the interest of government transparency. Regrettably, this legislation would unfortunately serve to undermine them and preempt them. In addition, I would note that this bill would also serve to promulgate the severely misguided notion that our Federal workforce is not to be trusted.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. Let us remember that our Federal employees are dedicated public personnel who work at our veterans hospitals. I have three hospitals in my district. I know how hard they work. They protect our borders. They research cures for deadly diseases and provide key services in support of our Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. They deserve better than this, Mr. Speaker. They deserve better than this legislation. I hope my colleagues vote against it.

Mr. LYNCH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman misunderstands. The Federal employee doesn't know what is going to come out of the caller's mouth next, so classified information can come without notice.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I have the utmost affection and respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He and I are friends. But I must say that he's wrong on this case. It's ironic that you choose James Madison as the one person that you rely upon in your argument, because it was James Madison that actually drafted the due process clause. He was the one that took the recommendations from the delegates from New York and actually drafted the text. He made his own amendments to the due process clause that we today rely upon to protect constitutional rights. Let me also talk about the Senior Executive Service in our Federal government. Those are the employees that rise to the top. They do after years of serving in many cases because of their expertise in protecting our veterans at the VA hospitals. But the Senior Executive Service is an experienced corps of dedicated Federal employees who provide institutional stability and continuity across administrations, and they serve as a vital link between political appointees, frontline managers, and the Federal workforce. We don't want each administration coming in and saying for no reason, Well, I'm a Republican. I'm going to fire all the Democratic executives in the Senior Executive Service. We don't want a Democrat coming in and saying, I'm going to fire all these Republicans who are in senior positions. One of the protections we provide is due process of law. Despite the important role that Senior Executive Service employees play in the Federal Government, this bill that's on the floor today would deprive these employees of the basic due process rights available to them under existing law. The legislation would give agency heads the broad discretion to just fire people, fire senior executives that are suspected of misconduct, and employees would bear the burden of proving their reinstatement. This is called ``ready, fire, aim.'' It would allow firing employees for basically any reason that in the discretion of the senior management is required. As the gentleman from Maryland and I--and I congratulate him on his advocacy here--it presumes guilt before we get all the facts. That is completely inconsistent with the principles of our Constitution. I am deeply concerned that this legislation may cause irreparable reputational damage if an individual is wrongly accused and forced to seek reinstatement. The person may eventually be vindicated, but the damage to the individual's reputation, their financial stability, and their career may be beyond repair. Moreover, there are effective tools already existing to hold senior executives accountable for performance and conduct issues. These disciplinary procedures provide very simply, 30 days' notice. You have to have notice why you're fired in writing. That's not a lot to ask, 30 days' notice of why you're being fired. This is what you're eliminating from the law right now. It gives that person 30 days to scramble to get a representative to put a case together to say, No, these aren't the facts. It allows them, if they are able, to get an attorney or a representative, which includes the right to that written decision and the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Those are the basic due process rights that James Madison has supported. You're right, James Madison is still here today. He's on this side. He's on the side of due process. He doesn't want a kangaroo court. He wanted protections for constitutional rights, and he thought it was so important that he incorporated those in the text of the Constitution. During committee consideration of H.R. 2579, I offered an amendment to apply these existing due process protections to the expedited removal provisions in the bill, but my amendment was rejected. For these reasons--and I say again I have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania--I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure in support of due process, in support of the principles that James Madison advocated. Also, I want to say the previous bill that the gentleman talked about earlier that we voted on, 410 votes, that had the ``ready, aim, then fire'' provision. It gave the due process rights. The bill that we supported in the previous session, it wasn't exactly the same, as the gentleman acknowledged; it had due process rights. It allowed employees to have 30 days to have a written decision to know what the charges were against them and to respond. So this is a very, very different bill than passed the House overwhelmingly in the previous session. This bill does not allow the employee the 30 days' notice of what they did wrong. It does not allow them to defend themselves against the charges. It does not allow them to have a representative. It does not allow them the ability to protect their reputation in real-time. This bill fires them first and then asks questions later. For those reasons, it should be rejected.

Mr. LYNCH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his advocacy. Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out some inconsistencies in the argument by my friend from Pennsylvania. In the case of Mr. Neely and in the case of Lois Lerner, under existing law, all that was required before they fired either of those individuals is to give them 30 days' notice, 30 days' written notice of the charges against them, give them the 30 days to put together a defense or to offer their version of the facts. That's all that was required, and then we could have fired them or put them on administrative leave without pay. That was within the discretion of GSA. So when GSA tells Mr. Kelly they can't do anything, there's plenty they could do. They could have taken both those employees, put them on administrative leave without pay--talk about protecting the taxpayer. I'm for that. They had the power to do that in these cases. They could have taken both those employees, under current law, with due process in place, put them both on administrative leave without pay, and we could have protected the taxpayer. That was the discretion on the part of the administration and the folks that made the decision in that place. It was not a fault of the law. But interestingly enough, it also protected us to have the second version of the facts put forward to bring more light to this.

Mr. LYNCH. Think about this. That due process right would allow an employee who might be the fall guy, it might be a person that they're trying to fire to shut them up, it gives them an opportunity to come before the public and say, while they're still in their job, to say, no, that's not the way it went down. Now, it might be to the benefit of the Republican, it might be to the benefit of the Democrat, whatever position you have, whoever that individual might be. But it brings truth, it brings facts, and it brings the ability of that individual employee to protect themselves. That's what we're asking for here, that 30 days' opportunity. And it can be without pay. We can protect the taxpayer and still give due process rights to our employees. This bill should be opposed for all those reasons. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The tailored use of incentive awards, such as performance-based bonuses, help agencies recruit, develop, and retain employees who have the knowledge, skill, and ability to help agencies accomplish their critical missions. Such incentives also allow agencies to compete with the private sector for talent. Right now, we have incredible doctors, nurses, therapists, and staff at the VA hospitals all across America, that I'm sure--at least in my district--they could walk out that door and earn sometimes twice or three times as much at a private hospital as they do at the VA. The incentive programs that we have in place allow us to rebalance a little bit of what they might be compensated, but for the fact that they are committed to caring for our veterans. It's a similar situation with the SEC. Obviously, many of our securities analysts that we use at the SEC could go to Wall Street tomorrow and earn multiples of what their salary is and have great success and incredible rewards financially. But they work at the SEC because they're committed to protecting the taxpayer and working on behalf of their country. We have similar examples of banking supervisors at the FDIC that have such knowledge and such capability that they could go out tomorrow and work for one of these big banks like Citibank or Bank of America and go to work tomorrow at multiples of their salary. We have derivative analysts over at the CFTC that do such great work on our behalf, that I'm sure that--because that's such a hot area of employment--with their expertise and their resumes, they could demand tremendous resources. As well, we have scientists at NIH and lawyers over at the Department of Justice that we're lucky to have working on behalf of the government because we're trying to keep up with the changes in industry and in these areas of commerce that require excellent talent. For example, a 2010 Rand Corporation study found that the Department of Defense's increased use of bonuses had positive effects on recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. Notably, the study found that without the increase in bonuses, Army enlistments would have been 20 percent lower between 2004 and 2008 when the war in Iraq was at its peak. Further, the study found that bonuses were generally a cost- effective measure. Despite the importance of performance awards, this bill, H.R. 1541, as amended, would prohibit Federal workers from receiving discretionary bonuses that exceed 5 percent of their base pay during sequestration. This bill couldn't happen at a worse time. H.R. 1541 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain its most talented employees in the midst of a 3-year Federal pay freeze and ongoing furloughs. Right now, we have over 700,000 Federal employees at DOD that have taken 11-day furloughs. I sat with a group of firefighters on an Air Force base that are concerned about the safety protocols at that base because of the number of employees that are affected by furloughs. We've got 90,000 employees in other agencies that are taking between 2- and 5-day furloughs. And those furloughs are going to continue. H.R. 1541 would undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain our most talented employees in the midst of all these cutbacks. This bill would simply continue to demoralize the Federal workforce. By removing agency flexibility, the legislation would also impede managers in their efforts to keep employees committed and motivated to excel and to provide superior service. It is understandable that these employees do accept less pay because they work for the government, in many of these industries that I mentioned. Further, these awards are exactly the type of individual merit-based performance management tools that the committee chairman and other committee members have embraced in the past. During committee consideration, I offered an amendment that would exempt collective bargaining agreements from the caps on awards. But the majority modified my amendment so the caps would still apply to future agreements. I believe that determining by law or statute the terms of future bargaining agreements with the recognized representatives of those employees improperly interferes with the management and labor contract negotiations. This legislation would restrict agency flexibility at a time when it is critically needed for ensuring that the Federal workforce attracts and retains the best and brightest. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1541, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Could I ask the Speaker how much time we have remaining?

Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address a couple of issues the gentleman has raised and say that I have enormous respect for the previous speaker as well. Oftentimes, these studies look at the average employee in the Federal Government versus the average employee in the private sector. In recent decades, the Federal Government has privatized a lot of our common labor rather than employing them directly. We have become a much more specialized and much more professionalized workforce, between the doctors and nurses we hire at the VA; the scientists that we have at the National Institutes of Health and the EPA; the lawyers we have at the Department of Justice; financial analysts that we have at the CFTC and FDIC, as well as the SEC and other banking industries. Those are more professionalized employees. So naturally, if you look at a retail clerk, compare their salary to a scientist, there will be a drastic disparity between what an attorney is making or a financial analyst is making versus a secretary in the private sector. So that's a very crude way of comparison. One way of comparison is required in the Federal Pay Comparability Act. That's a statute that we passed here in Congress. It requires that we compare the levels of Federal doctors versus private sector doctors; federally employed scientists versus private sector scientists; finance analysts at the SEC versus those at Goldman Sachs. So we compared job to job. At the end of that analysis, the studies showed that Federal employees are making 26 percent less than their comparable job in the private sector; just a point that I wanted to raise. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out, though, if we're talking about what's fair and what's not fair, I think the Federal employees have taken it on the chin recently. They're in year three of their pay freeze. A lot of them say that's not fair because as costs keep going up, their pay has been frozen for the past 3 years. Now, on top of the third-year pay freeze, they're being asked--at least 700,000 employees in the Department of Defense, including civilian employees that we rely on for a lot of key services--are being asked to take 11 days on furlough without pay. About 100,000 other Federal employees are being asked to take between 2 and 5 days right now. The first year of sequestration I think we cut $37 billion. This year we will cut $52 billion, next year is 60. And this is just year 2 in a 10-year furlough schedule. So if you want to talk about unfair, I think that they're being asked to do more than their share. I do want to remind the gentleman that the bonuses and awards limited by this bill, H.R. 1541, are based on performance. The quality step increases are given to rank-and-file employees who achieve superior performance. The Presidential Rank Awards are given to senior employees who achieve extraordinary results or who are able to sustain superior accomplishments. Recruitment bonuses, now, they can't be paid to employees who work for the Federal Government, but someone who's done a very good job in the private sector, you know, running a hospital might come onto the Federal payroll to do that, and we might have to recognize that person's prior service. An individual's performance rating is based on how well they met or exceeded their expectations. In addition, I know that my friends across the aisle are eager to cap Federal employee and senior executive pay, but they're completely silent on capping Federal contractor pay. Under current law, Federal contractor executives can be reimbursed by the Federal Government for their salaries up to $950,000--Federal contractors. This is the private side. These are not the folks that are being capped. These are not employees. These are private contractors, $950,000 for 2013. Not a word, not a word in print or speech to cap those individuals. Contracting employees at the Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and NASA can also have their salaries reimbursed up to $950,000 as well in this current year, 2013. But just a comparison, the maximum salary for a senior executive in the Federal Government is $179,700. For example, the VA Administration head, the hospital director at one of my hospitals, he makes $179,700, while the average salary in my district for a hospital director in the private sector is $800,000. That's for the private hospitals in my area. So my VA director earns about 25 percent of what they make in the private sector. By the way, the maximum salary for a General Schedule step 10 employee at the top of the ladder is $155,500. That's what we're talking about here. And they are blown away by the salaries paid--as I mentioned, $950,000 in 2013--for Federal contract executives who are not Federal employees but are on the Federal payroll, about which this bill says zero. Completely silent. Zip. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Just one final point before I yield. The gentleman is correct, we did address contractor caps on pay in the NDAA, but we capped it at $950,000 a year. That's a far cry from anything that any Federal employee is earning here. As I mentioned before, the head of our VA hospitals makes $179,700. That's the max. Meanwhile, private contractors working for the Federal Government are making $950,000 this year, in 2013, with the NDAA caps in place. I'm just saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. There's an opportunity in this bill to cap these salaries, and we have not done that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1660, the Government Customer Service Improvement Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Cuellar, my friend from Texas, for his leadership and his persistence in advocating for this bill. The Federal Government provides services that significantly impact the American people. There are many dedicated Federal employees who perform their jobs with professionalism and distinction. But there are areas in need of improvement. For instance, the Department of Veterans Affairs takes an average of 243 days to process a disability claim, and that is unacceptable. This legislation would require the Office of Management and Budget to establish government-wide standards for customer service delivery, including target response times for phone calls, emails, letters, benefits processing, and payments. I thank the chairman of the full committee for working with me during the committee's consideration of this bill. The bill we are considering today includes a pilot project to evaluate customer feedback systems. This was a compromise that will provide a more limited application than requiring every agency to institute their own individual feedback system. I hope the chairman will continue to work with us and all Members on both sides in moving this bill as we go through this legislative process. It is important that we ensure that the bill can achieve its intended purposes without negatively impacting the ability of Federal employees to do their jobs. H.R. 1660 is a good government bill in the truest sense. At this point, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), the principal sponsor of this bill.

Mr. LYNCH. At this point, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LYNCH. First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, and also Ms. Kaptur from Ohio, the ranking member, for the great work they've done. In spite of the fact that many Members are coming up with refining amendments, I do want to acknowledge the great work they've done, for example, on the manufacturing piece that's in this bill as well as the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which has been amply funded and is so important to a lot of the coastal communities. Myself representing the Port of Boston and a large swath of the South Shore of Massachusetts-- some beautiful cities and towns--I do appreciate the work that they've done. However, there does appear to be a gap in funding with respect to the Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of my amendment would be to increase funding to the Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers by $20 million. This increase would, of course, be offset by decreasing the Fossil Fuel Research account by a corresponding amount. I am fortunate to represent a district that relies heavily and benefits greatly from the proximity to the coast, and I have wonderful, historic, beautiful towns and cities, like Quincy, Weymouth, Hull, Cohasset, Hingham, and Scituate, that, as I say, are benefiting greatly because they're on the coast. They house commercial fishing fleets and host wonderful beaches and marinas, and they are vital components of our Statewide economy and regional economy. But while these benefits are there, they are also exposed to the most recent violent coastal storms that have become increasingly devastating in recent years. Like many of my colleagues, I have seen firsthand the devastating effects that these much more intense storms have had on our communities--beaches erode, and roadways and bridges get washed away. In our case, we have not been hit as hard as places like the district of the gentleman from Louisiana or New Jersey or New York with the Superstorm Sandy effects, but much of our seawall infrastructure and protection for our beaches have been damaged considerably. We've benefited from prior Congresses that have made sure that the funding and the maintenance have been there to preserve that protection, and we are at that point again. It seems like we are having 100-year storms every 3 or 4 years now in my district, and I'm sure it's like that in a lot of places across the country. I think it's entirely appropriate that we balance this out, that we rebalance the priorities here, by putting $20 million into the Construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers while we are removing a corresponding amount from the Fossil Fuel Research account. I think that most of us realize that the impacts of climate change are at least increasing the intensity of the storms that we've seen in recent years, and we need to provide the Army Corps of Engineers in our communities with the resources they need to protect against these natural disasters. I believe my offset does that in a fitting way. Like President Obama, I think we need an all-of-the-above energy policy. I'm not here today to debate the cause of global warming or of climate change, but temperatures and sea levels are rising, and fossil fuel consumption is a contributing factor. So, as long as we are forced to rely on fossil fuels, we need to also deal with the fallout from our own energy policies. We need to protect our coastal communities from future devastation. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I appreciate her gracious remarks. I do want to point out, though, that, since 2010, we've cut $688 million from this account. Now, we all have great respect and admiration for the Army Corps of Engineers, but having cut $688 million since 2010 has been reducing their ability to prioritize those projects around the country that need to be worked on. Some of those are Democratic districts, and some of those are Republican districts. That's not what this is about. This is about our infrastructure. So a $688 million cut since 2010 is a serious obstruction for them to do their job, and that's all I'm asking here. I'm asking that we recognize our responsibility and our stewardship of protecting seawalls and ports and marinas, whether they're on the Great Lakes or whether they're on the Atlantic or Pacific coast. I am just asking that we step up and meet our responsibility in a meaningful way.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.