Mark Meadows

Mr. MEADOWS

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

Mr. MEADOWS. 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. MEADOWS. 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. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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

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

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

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I notice a smirk on your face. We find it laughable as well. But I enjoy the gentleman from Missouri. Is that the way you say it, the gentleman from Missouri?

Mr. MEADOWS. Missouri. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the humor, but unfortunately, there is nothing funny about this. I find it just unbelievable that the gentleman opposite would be talking about how important this resolution is. They just dropped it on Monday night. I mean, it hasn't been out there for any length of time. In fact, it violated the very rule that this Chamber passed in the beginning of this Congress, yet somehow this resolution is so unbelievably important. It is nothing more than a message meant to go after the President of the United States. Quite frankly, I find this resolution nothing more than a political stunt. I am troubled by it, Mr. Speaker, because here we are today arguing over this resolution that could have been dropped--we were here working. It could have been dropped long ago, but the gentlewoman from Virginia drops it just on Monday night of this week. Maybe they were working on the wording in Puerto Rico when they were down there caravanning with lobbyists, Mr. Speaker, that you know very well. Maybe when Christmas was here, when the President was in the White House willing to negotiate, they were working and fine-tuning this message to make sure that it is here. No, that is not what this is about. This is about a political stunt. This is literally a political messaging point meant to garner, hopefully, the support for some Member of Congress who has a swing district, so that they can send a message and take it. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to let you know that we don't need words. We need compromise. I take the gentleman from Missouri's word. If we are willing to work together and find a compromise, I think we all would prefer that there is never another shutdown. In fact, I think that we ought to propose legislation that would suspend congressional pay for every Member of Congress if there is ever another shutdown. Hopefully, my Members opposite would join me in that, where we can put some kind of pain to make sure that we are there. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the comments that we just heard from the well, from the majority leader, fail to mention one critical point about this resolution. This resolution doesn't do anything to stop a future shutdown. It is designed, in its purpose to give cover to a number on the other side of the aisle who voted in this very Chamber to not fund those who were deemed essential pay at a critical time. In fact, indeed, the very sponsor of this resolution voted against giving pay to those men and women who continue to show up to vote and now somehow are going to vote on a resolution and make it all okay. If we are going to have history, let's make sure it is accurate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, in consultation with my friend opposite, we are going to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia and then recognize the Republican leader after that, and then I will be prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. We have dozens of people who are willing to speak, but in the interest of time, none more important than the Republican leader. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, these are powerful words by our Republican leader. There has been a lot of debate. I don't think a more somber moment have I experienced this week on the House floor than when the 50 names were read out, where their loved ones will never be able to welcome them home. There will be ball games that are missed. There will be calls that are no longer made of, ``Welcome home, Daddy,'' or ``welcome home'' to a son or a daughter. Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about the pain and anguish of Federal employees. Indeed, there are real hardships there that are undeniable. But, Mr. Speaker, they are getting their pay back. For the lives of the 50 people who were just named on this House floor, there is no returning. Their lives were extinguished, Mr. Speaker, and we must do something about that as well. I am committed to my colleagues opposite to work with them to protect Federal workers, as long as they are willing to work with us to protect the communities and the safety of moms and dads from coast to coast. On that, it is important that we have no more show votes. This resolution is meaningless other than to provide cover for some on the other side of the aisle who voted against giving pay to those who were essential employees. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. MEADOWS. I appeal the ruling of the Chair, again.