Mark Meadows

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2579) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for investigative leave requirements with respect to Senior Executive Service employees, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. From Jeff Neely at the GSA to Lois Lerner at the IRS, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has uncovered numerous examples of high-ranking government employees engaging in behavior contrary to the principles of public service. In the private sector, these behaviors would be grounds for serious disciplinary action or termination. In some cases, these employees could face civil or criminal penalties--but not in the Federal bureaucracy. Only in Washington would these employees not be terminated but, instead, be placed on administrative leave with pay. H.R. 2579 helps ensure Senior Executive Service employees are held accountable for their actions while maintaining existing due process rights. This legislation was unanimously approved by the Oversight Committee last week, and a similar version of this bill was passed by the House by a vote of 402-2 last Congress. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) for his work on this bill, and I urge all Members to support its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing, and what we are hearing today are a number of assertions that truly are not the facts. Let me read from the bill, because the opposing arguments would be that we can fire them for any particular reason, but that's not what the bill says. The bill says we may remove an employee for serious neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds--which, I might add, was the case in point that we were just talking about--or malfeasance. And the head of the agency has to know that it was knowingly done. This gives just another tool in the toolbox. It doesn't do away with due process. It doesn't do away with a number of the facts that we already have today, but it adds another tool. What it really does is allow our managers to manage. What a novel concept. We're going to actually allow and trust Federal employees to manage the people under them. We have been in hearing after hearing that says, Well, why didn't you do something about it? Why did you not address this? And they said, Well, our hands are tied. We didn't have the tools to do it. This bill, as Mr. Kelly has so eloquently put it, gives them the tool to do exactly that. It doesn't do away with due process. We've accepted amendments, three different amendments that protect the rights of employees--they are embedded in this bill--and yet we still find that my colleagues opposite want to say that they're not in support of this. I just find it just appalling that we can continue to allow employees to stay on the taxpayers' dollars when we know that there has been malfeasance, misappropriation of funds, and the neglect of duty. With that, I encourage all my colleagues to support this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1660) to require the establishment of Federal customer service standards and to improve the service provided by Federal agencies, as amended.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, we have had some vigorous debate. Really what this is about is the American people back home. It is about doing the responsible thing for them to see that government actually works and that we are willing to stand up with the people back home to do what is best and right and return government back to ``we the people.'' It has been great to hear some of the arguments from my colleagues opposite. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, the passion with which he has argued these points; and I look forward to working with him in a bipartisan way on some of these issues that he has highlighted. I urge all the Members to join me in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his foresight in bringing forth this bill. I certainly appreciate the fact that we need to be providing better customer service to those who call in and talk to employees on a regular basis. I commend the gentleman from Texas for that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his candor and his passion with which he rises and debates it. I do want to point out, though, that what we are talking about here are apples and oranges. When you start to look at contractors and the benefits of those contracts, those are really issues that we must address, and I'm willing to work with him on a bipartisan basis, but let's not take our eye off the ball. Why would we allow Sarah Hall Ingram, who is going to be administering over the Affordable Care Act, a bonus of $35,000? Why would we award a bonus of almost $31,000 to a gentleman that played Mr. Spock? It's indefensible to me. I can't imagine why my colleague opposite would want to defend that and why he wouldn't want to have tools to let managers manage the process. I'm going to close with this point: Daniel Pink writes in a book called ``Drive'' that really it's about motivational theory; it's about the fact that bonus impact is minimal. I think we see that even here because of the surprising truth about what motivates us. It says: The carrot and the stick approach to motivating employees through bonuses and benefits is statistically ineffective. What they would rather have is a mastery of their position, they would rather have autonomy, they would rather have a sense of purpose that the job that they are doing is very meaningful. So, in essence, what it says is that if we get rid of the bureaucracy, our Federal employees will be more motivated to do a good job knowing that they are fulfilling a purpose. Yet we continue to throw bonuses at them over and over again, Mr. Speaker. I just have a hard time going back home, as a number of my colleagues would go back home, and defending these excessive bonuses. I would urge all of the folks here, all of my colleagues, to join with me in supporting this critical bill, the Common Sense in Compensation Act, H.R. 1541, as amended. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the comments that the gentleman opposite made. When he said not a word has been mentioned about bonuses for contractors, I would remind the gentleman that in the NDAA we addressed this very subject. So that was addressed, which I'm sure the gentleman was here for that particular vote; but as we've looked at this, we have addressed that particular thing. I will go ahead and talk about a couple of other things, though. We talk about this pay freeze and how we're asking so many people to suffer. I'm not talking about the normal pay that we would give employees. I'm talking about the excessive bonuses that have failed to be an incentive anymore. When you give a bonus to 75 percent of the employees, it ceases to be an incentive; in fact, quite the opposite. All you have to do is make sure that you are not in the bottom quartile. It says all I have to do is perform better than only a few people to get my bonus. So if I'm just better than the worst 25 percent, I get a bonus. That's not an incentive. That's why we're looking at 33 percent. It rewards those people who rise to the top, the cream of the crop, and we need to do that. I also want to mention that we were talking about all these pay freezes. Where is a pay freeze not a pay freeze? Only in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, 99.4 percent of Federal employees got an increase in salary during this pay freeze. That's the only ones we denied were 6 out of every 1,000 employees. So the gentleman opposite making comments that they've sacrificed, indeed, they have, but it's not as if they have not gotten pay increases. What do I tell my constituents back home who are dealing with double- digit unemployment? They would love just to have a job. Many of them would take a job at 10 to 15 to 20 percent less than what they were making if they could just go to work. Yet here we are talking about people who continue to get raises as if they are suffering. You know, we've got to make sure that we're clear on the subject and we need to make sure that we're fair. I keep coming back to the word ``fair,'' because when we are not fair with the government responsibility that we have, the American people lose trust in their government; and it is time that we hold it accountable, give tools to those managers that reward good behavior and good performance, but yet not continue to dole it out at the expense of every American taxpayer. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a few of the items that have been brought up because we seem to talk about these in abstract ways, but the truth of the matter is is that bonuses have gotten way out of hand. You know, when we start to give out bonuses as a way to bypass the payment structure that we have established for the Federal Government employees, that is not what it was intended to do. You know, the ranking member earlier, Mr. Speaker, mentioned a survey, which was the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. He used that data as evidence of, really, about performance pay, but I'd like to quote from that same study, that same survey. A recent survey found that only 22 percent of Federal employees believe that performance and pay are linked. And I would like to point out that this bill certainly would cover that. We are not saying do away with all bonuses; quite the contrary. We believe that people need to be incentivized. We believe in merit pay. We believe in bonuses for those that work. But I can say this, that when you start paying out bonuses to 75 percent of all senior executive employees, the people back home don't understand. Maybe the people in Massachusetts understand, but I can tell you the people in North Carolina don't understand. We've got some 7,000 Senior Executive Service employees that make an average of $168,500 every year. So when you go back home and you say, Well, they're making $168,000 a year, and on top of that we're going to pay them a $30,000 bonus, those people don't understand. Whether they work for the Federal Government or whether they are in the private sector, they don't understand. I've got single moms, Mr. Speaker, that said, You know what? I'd be glad to go to work just for the bonus pay that you're paying some of those Federal workers. We go on a lot and we start talking about it, but it's interesting, because many times my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle want to go ahead and talk about what is fair. Well, this is not fair, Mr. Speaker, when we start to look at that. The rich, indeed, are getting richer at the expense of the hardworking American taxpayers, and that is not what we should be doing. I also want to go on a little bit further, because when we start to look at these bonuses, it is the Federal employees in my district that have a problem with it as well. I have two of them, Paula and Martha. I won't give their last names, but Paula and Martha. I was there talking to them, and they said, You know, we are sacrificing under this pay freeze. We're having to give up. Why in the world are you awarding such bonuses to these people when we're having to suffer? Now, I know the gentleman from Massachusetts has a real heart for Federal employees, as do I. I look here and there are a number of people that I would call my friends. There are a number of people that are watching this perhaps even on TV right now that are Federal employees that I enjoy being with. This is not about them. This is about being fair. What it is is, when we start to pick the winners and losers with bonuses and bypass the payment structure that we have, you know, it's not right, Mr. Speaker, and we have to adjust that. I would be glad to work in a bipartisan way. If we're having a hard time retaining scientists and doctors, I would be glad to work in a bipartisan way with my friend opposite here to come up with a structure that works on pay and merit pay to that and address it, but why do we allow the bonuses that we have today to bypass the very fundamental reason that we have it set up? With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

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

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 1541, brings common sense to the policies governing Federal employee bonuses while still providing agencies flexibility to recognize outstanding performance. In fiscal year 2011, 75 percent of Senior Executive Service employees throughout the Federal Government received bonuses at an average of nearly $11,000 per person. The government's decision to furlough hundreds of regular, often blue-collar, Federal workers while senior employees cash in is unacceptable. Americans are rapidly losing trust in government as the list of abuses by Federal agencies grows, but bureaucrats continue collecting large bonuses at the expense of hardworking taxpayers. The IRS is a prime example. Between the years of 2006 to 2012, IRS Director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, was paid a combined total of $110,035 in bonuses. Faris Fink, the senior IRS official best known for his starring role as Mr. Spock in a ``Star Trek'' parody at the IRS conference received some $149,506 in bonuses between 2007 and 2012. The Federal Aviation Administration is another example. It threatened 90-minute delays for airline passengers in the weeks leading up to sequestration. However, the FAA handed out more than $12 million in bonuses during fiscal year 2012 despite knowing that sequestration was likely to occur. These bonuses exemplify Washington's spending problem. A national debt of $17 trillion and an unemployment rate at 7.5 percent should not add up to millions of dollars in bonus payouts. Following the President's decision to impose a 2-year pay freeze at the end of 2010, the administration issued a memo limiting the amount available to pay bonuses for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This past February, the administration issued a memo limiting bonuses to those legally required, and in June, you, the administration, suspended rank awards for senior leaders. This bill builds on the administration's initiatives, limiting the amount and number of bonuses paid to Federal workers in periods of sequestration. It is time for the government to stop furloughing workers who depend on paychecks from week to week while awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to senior employees. I urge all Members to support the Common Sense in Compensation Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. MEADOWS. I want to thank the ranking member for his support of this legislation, and I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 313, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 313) to amend title 5, United States Code, to institute spending limits and transparency requirements for Federal conference and travel expenditures, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: July 30, 2013--rollcall vote 419: on agreeing to the Gallego Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 420: on agreeing to the Young Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 421: on agreeing to the Grayson Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote 422: on agreeing to the McClintock Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote 423: on agreeing to the First Hastings Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 424: on agreeing to the Second Hastings Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''; rollcall vote 425: on agreeing to the Third Hastings Amendment to H.R. 2610--I would have voted ``nay''.