March 4, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 43 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in House sectionPrev32 of 81Next
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1140, RIGHTS FOR TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICERS ACT OF 2020; PROVIDING FOR MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII...; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 43
(House of Representatives - March 04, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H1477-H1484] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] {time} 1230 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1140, RIGHTS FOR TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICERS ACT OF 2020; PROVIDING FOR MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 877 Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1140) to enhance the security operations of the Transportation Security Administration and stability of the transportation security workforce by applying the personnel system under title 5, United States Code, to employees of the Transportation Security Administration who provide screening of all passengers and property, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed in [[Page H1478]] the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of March 5, 2020, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020. Sec. 3. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of March 5, 2020, relating to a measure making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour. Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 877, providing for consideration of H.R. 1140, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and makes in order nine amendments. Lastly, the rule provides suspension authority for Thursday and same- day authority for Wednesday and Thursday, both limited to the consideration of a supplemental appropriations bill. Madam Speaker, when the Transportation Security Administration was established as a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, its Administrator was given broad authority over its workforce with respect to setting up pay and workplace conditions. As such, Transportation Security officers, TSOs, have been unable to benefit from Fair Labor Standards Act protections or fall under the general schedule pay scale. This distinction puts TSOs in a different class from other federal workers, preventing them from having the representational rights afforded through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Each day, TSOs screen more than 2 million passengers at over 440 airports nationwide. These workers are critical to helping Americans travel safely and make up more than 70 percent of the Transportation Security Administration's workforce. However, TSOs are among the lowest paid Federal workers and routinely have among the lowest retention rate of any Federal agency. TSO annual pay lags well behind industry counterparts, and even the top performing TSOs with exceptional performance find it difficult to advance within their pay bands. This was not Congress' intention when it gave the Administrator broad latitude to manage its own personnel system, nor was it Congress' intention that this authority should be used to benefit management over frontline TSOs, as is the case today. As a result, in the past decade TSA has come to rank near the bottom in Federal employee morale surveys. This has created a culture in which last year the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General said that TSA must address its retention, hiring, and training challenges. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record excerpts from that 2019 report entitled ``TSA Needs to Improve Efforts to Retain, Hire, and Train Its Transportation Security Officers.'' TSA Needs To Improve Efforts To Retain, Hire, and Train Its Transportation Security Officers What We Found The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs to continue to improve its retention, hiring, and training of Transportation Security Officers (TSO). Specifically, TSA needs to better address its retention challenges because it currently does not share and leverage results of TSO exit surveys and does not always convey job expectations to new- hires. Prior to August 2018, TSA did not always focus on TSO career growth. Thus, the agency may be missing opportunities to prevent early attrition. By improving its retention efforts, TSA could save funds otherwise spent to hire and train new TSOs. Furthermore, TSA does not fully evaluate applicants for capability as well as compatibility when hiring new TSOs. Thus, the agency may be making uninformed hiring decisions due to inadequate applicant information and a lack of formally documented guidance on ranking potential new-hires. Without complete information, TSA may not be selecting the most highly qualified individuals as TSOs. Prior to July 2018, TSA had not standardized the approach for training new TSOs before they attend basic training and did not consistently send TSOs to basic training immediately following onboarding. TSA also does not give all airports complete visibility into its basic training curriculum as a basis for training new-hires locally. Without an experienced workforce or a consistent, robust training program, TSA is missing opportunities to strengthen its workforce. Given the importance of TSOs fulfilling the aviation security mission, TSA must address its retention, hiring, and training challenges, which could save millions in taxpayers' dollars. TSA Response TSA concurred with all nine recommendations and initiated corrective actions to address the findings. ____ Memorandum for: The Honorable David Pekoske, Administrator, Transportation Security Administration. From: John V. Kelly, Acting Inspector General. Subject: TSA Needs to Improve Efforts to Retain, Hire, and Train Its Transportation Security Officers. Attached for your action is our final report, TSA Needs to Improve Efforts to Retain, Hire, and Train Its Transportation Security Officers. We incorporated the formal comments provided by your office. The report contains nine recommendations aimed at improving TSA's retention, hiring, and training efforts for its Transportation Security Officers. Your office concurred with all nine recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, recommendations 4, 6, and 8 are closed while recommendations 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 are resolved and open. Once your office has fully implemented the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendations. The memorandum should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed upon corrective actions and of the disposition of any monetary amounts. Recommendation 3 remains unresolved and open because we did not agree with TSA's proposed corrective action plan. As prescribed by the Department of Homeland Security Directive 077-01, Follow-Up and Resolutions for the Office of Inspector General Report Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, please provide our office with a written response that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action plan, and (3) target completion date. Also, please include responsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to inform us about the current status of the recommendations. Until your response is received and evaluated, recommendation #3 will be considered open and unresolved. Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post the report on our website for public dissemination. ____ Conclusion TSOs are critical to airline passenger safety and the security of the aviation transportation system. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act charges TSA with developing standards for retaining, hiring, and training security screening personnel at all [[Page H1479]] U.S. airports. Passengers rely on TSOs to screen other passengers and baggage properly at more than 400 airports nationwide. In FY 2017, TSA hired more than 9,600 TSOs and spent approximately $75 million to recruit, hire, and train them. Improving retention, hiring, and training of TSOs would save costs and provide a more stable, mature, and qualified workforce to better secure the Nation's aviation transportation system. Recommendations Recommendation 1: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Human Capital, continue to coordinate efforts with Security Operations to implement actions that facilitate improvements in the hiring process to ensure applicants are informed of the Transportation Security Officer duties and that TSA continues to hire qualified applicants. At a minimum, TSA should: a. require an applicant affirm whether he/ she has reviewed the Transportation Security Officer Realistic Job Preview video and understands duties include interacting with passengers, passenger patdowns, shift work, weekend work, and holidays. If the applicant has not, ensure the applicant reviews the video as part of the application process; and b. finalize the implementation of the agency's job compatibility assessment tool for use during the hiring process. Recommendation 2: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Human Capital, revise the exit survey process to: a. ensure airports offer local exit interviews; b. record results in a centralized system; c. provide relevant stakeholders access to the results for analysis and process improvements; and d. address areas identified in the exit survey results that would help retain a skilled and knowledgeable Transportation Security Officer workforce. Recommendation 3: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Human Capital, continue to review and develop recruitment and retention strategies for reducing attrition: a. at smaller airports; and b. among part-time Transportation Security Officers. Recommendation 4: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Human Capital, meet established timelines to implement the first phase of Career Progression for newly appointed entry- level Transportation Security Officers. Recommendation 5: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Human Capital, examine increases in pay based upon skill level for Transportation Security Officers that could help attract and retain a strong workforce. Recommendation 6: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Human Capital, compile a local hiring update message to remind airports to follow TSA records retention policies for Airport Assessment documentation. Recommendation 7: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Human Capital, formally document system functional requirements, such as the rating process criteria, for quality assurance purposes to ensure proper system logic in how applicants are ranked on the Certification Lists. Recommendation 8: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Training and Development, coordinate with Security Operations to enforce the pre-Basic Training Program requirements. Recommendation 9: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, Training and Development, provide all airports access to the Basic Training Program curriculum in its entirety. Management Comments and OIG Analysis TSA concurred with all of our recommendations and is taking steps or has implemented actions to address them. Appendix B contains TSA's management comments in their entirety. We also received technical comments to the draft report and revised the report as appropriate. We consider recommendations 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 resolved and open. Recommendations 4, 6, and 8 are closed. Recommendation 3 remains unresolved and open because we did not agree with TSA's proposed corrective action plan. A summary of TSA's responses and our analysis follows. TSA Comments to Recommendation 1: TSA concurred with the recommendation. TSA explained its efforts to make every TSO applicant aware of the realities of the TSO position and ensure the agency conveys job expectations to TSO applicants. These efforts include participating in job fairs and career events, hosting in-person and virtual information sessions, attaching an airport-specific fact sheet to every TSO Job Opportunity Announcement posted on the Federal Government's official employment site, USAJobs, and creating and sharing the TSO Realistic Job Preview video that is communicated throughout the hiring process and accessible through various avenues. TSA will mandate that personnel scheduling the Airport Assessment review an airport's hours of operations, typical shifts and days off, and typical duties of the position. Additionally, TSA will modify the Airport Assessment scheduling script to advise that each applicant is required to watch the TSO Realistic Job Preview video prior to attending the assessment. TSA expects these actions to begin by March 31, 2019. Additionally, TSA plans to include a compatibility assessment tool in the TSO hiring process, which the Office of Personnel Management will validate. The estimated completion date to pilot and fully deploy the compatibility assessment tool is September 30, 2019. OIG Analysis of TSA Comments: TSA has taken steps to satisfy the intent of this recommendation. We consider this recommendation resolved, but it will remain open until TSA provides documentation to support that all planned corrective actions are completed. Ms. SCANLON. Fortunately, Madam Speaker, this bill before us today will address each of those challenges. The Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act will honor those who protect America's aviation security by bringing the TSA personnel system within the bounds of the rest of the Federal workforce. H.R. 1140 will put an end to the current TSA personnel directives that have allowed the TSA to be the judge and jury in workforce disciplinary matters, and require TSA to follow the labor-management employee relations statutes that provide workplace rights and protections to most Federal employees under title 5 of the U.S. Code; the provision that is most notable in efforts to increase employee retention and morale by putting TSOs on the general schedule pay scale and finally aligning pay with the vast majority of other Federal employees. This legislation has been a long time coming for the men and women who protect our skies and keep millions of us safe on a daily basis. During the 35-day partial government shutdown at the end of the last Congress, TSOs were required to work for more than 5 weeks without pay. At Philadelphia International Airport in my district, a typical entry- level salary for a TSO is about $29,000 per year, without including additional locality pay. Working without pay for over a month would be difficult if you made three times that amount, Madam Speaker, but it is unconscionable that the Federal Government would force the very people we trust to keep us safe into having to turn to food banks, short-term loans, and donations to make ends meet. Yet these Federal workers kept reporting for work even when they couldn't afford gas and parking. These are not hypotheticals. In my district alone we collected food, diapers, gas cards, and other necessities for TSOs who were not being paid. The Federal Government did not live up to its commitment to these TSOs, but these civil servants did not waiver in their dedication to keeping the flying public safe. My colleagues across the aisle have objected to this bill which would support our Federal workers by claiming that our national security is at risk, that TSA would lose flexibility, and that the bill is too expensive. To the first point, I would say that a TSA staffed by underpaid and overworked TSOs is a greater threat to national security than paying a fair wage to keep Americans safe. Pay is one of the top reasons that the TSA struggles with keeping good employees. We lose current and potential TSOs every day because they can make more money in lower pressure work environments elsewhere. Whether in business, law, or government, you get what you pay for, and I, for one, do not believe that the security of our airports and skies or the lives of the traveling public are something we should be looking to get a bargain on. Further, granting the TSA workforce full collective bargaining rights under title 5 would not deny TSA the ability to remove bad employees or interfere with TSA's authority to direct security operations. Federal agencies already under title 5 jurisdiction have the flexibility to quickly deal with bad actors, but ensuring that proper protocols are followed in termination proceedings is a right that must be afforded to employees. This includes other Federal agencies with security and enforcement operations such as Customs and Border Patrol, the Department of Defense, and others. The TSA has had years to address its issues of recruitment, retention, and training, but has failed to do so. Now it is time for Congress to bring TSA in line with other Federal agencies. The TSA is not a new Federal agency, nor is it destined to go away. So, in that sense we must make sure that these patriotic civil workers are properly compensated and given the workplace rights that they deserve. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for [[Page H1480]] yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill has six main aspects that I have major concerns with. First, the bill eliminates TSA's unique personnel management authorities created in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, commonly known as ATSA. This legislation moves employees of the TSA into the government pay schedule. In 2001, when Congress created TSA, the decision was made not to do this in order to give the agency flexibility. At present, the TSA Administrator has authority over employee pay, hiring, termination, and discipline. TSA has repeatedly told us that placing the screener workforce under title 5 would tie the agency's hands related to national security policy, workforce management, and collective bargaining. Specifically, TSA would not be able to continue a one-step removal process for employees found to have committed serious security breaches or misconduct, such as allowing unauthorized access to secure areas or allowing threat items and illicit contraband through the security checkpoint. TSA's ability to move employees to different checkpoints based on passenger volume would also be curtailed. Currently, TSA can set new security policies TSOs must follow and move TSOs between checkpoints to manage passenger volume. Under this bill, however, both actions would be subject to collective bargaining and the security measures could be limited as a result. TSA's ability to set security screening policies, such as when and how to conduct pat-downs, would be negotiable with the union instead of being driven by national security imperatives. In fact, the bill eliminates the TSA's authority to immediately fire employees for serious misconduct, including sexual assault, drug and alcohol abuse, arrest, theft, and intentional security breaches, such as allowing guns, knives, and explosives past the checkpoint. In recent years, there have been several incidents of TSOs assaulting passengers, stealing passenger items, and allowing drugs past the checkpoint. Now, we all know the majority of TSOs are good people doing good jobs. But there are some bad actors. On February 6, 2020, the State of California announced the arrest and prosecution of a former TSA screener resulting from a joint investigation effort by Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies and the TSA. According to the criminal complaint, the TSA screener used fraud or deceit to falsely imprison a woman going through security while stationed as a travel document checker at Los Angeles International Airport in June of 2019. The screener allegedly insisted that the woman passenger needed extra screening in an elevator, where he told the passenger to reveal her full breasts and to lift her pants and underwear. The victim in the case stated that she complied with the TSO's instructions out of fear that he would inappropriately touch her. This sort of horrible incident is why it is imperative that TSA retain its one-step removal process for employees who sully the integrity and honor of the TSA mission and put American travelers at risk. Under title 5 protections, this TSA screener that I just talked about could remain on the Federal Government's payroll for years before removal. That is wrong. Under this bill, TSA leadership would lose the flexibility to respond effectively to incidents such as the one I just described. The second reason I have concerns about this bill is just recently in 2019, the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Panel for the Transportation Security Administration on Human Capital Service Delivery specifically recommended that TSA not--I repeat not--switch to the general schedule, GS, system, calling it overly rigid and outdated. {time} 1245 This panel is comprised of former officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations, and it is led by a Department of Homeland Security official from the Obama administration. They all pointed out that, under the current system and law, TSA can pay its employees more than they can make under title 5. It called on TSA to use the statutory flexibility Congress provided it to provide targeted pay increases, which I support. The Blue Ribbon Panel specifically recommended against the policies contained in H.R. 1140. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the Blue Ribbon Panel report, titled ``Final Findings and Recommendations, Blue Ribbon Panel for the Transportation Security Administration.'' Final Findings and Recommendations Blue Ribbon Panel for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has faced numerous challenges with human capital policy, operations, and services to support mission requirements. The Agency determined it needed a third-party review to identify the underlying problems and recommend solutions. ICF was contracted to perform the work and convened a Blue-Ribbon Panel (the Panel) to review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements. This Report documents the ``As Is'' state and recommendations for improvement. It is based on extensive interviews with Office of Human Capital (OHC) and other headquarters (HQ) stakeholders, interviews with airport leaders, and focus groups with the National Advisory Council (NAC) and Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). In addition, the Panel reviewed documents and data provided by TSA. ICF also analyzed TSA data to look for trends, corroboration, or potential root causes of identified issues. Because of the nature of the Panel's work--identifying problems and recommending solutions--this report documents difficult, long-standing challenges. The Panel also found areas of excellence. The TSO workforce, for example, demonstrates a remarkable level of dedication to their work. Even during the seven-week partial government shutdown, the vast majority of TSOs showed up and did their jobs. Some even participated in recruiting events to help TSA recruit new officers. Given the low pay and difficult working conditions that are inherent in TSA's screening work, the dedication these officers show is extraordinary. TSA's low ranking in the Partnership for Public Service's Best Places to Work in the Federal Government may lead some to conclude that there are no great leaders in TSA. That is not true. The Panel found there are airports with outstanding leaders whose work clearly demonstrates excellence. The challenge facing TSA is to take the lessons learned from those airports, feedback from employees and stakeholders, and Panel recommendations to transform human capital operations agency-wide. The Panel's key findings and recommendations are categorized into two major areas: Examining Human Capital Service Delivery and Supporting the Transportation Security Officer (TSO) Workforce. TSA human capital challenges include ineffective use of Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) flexibilities, an ill-defined service delivery model that relies on contractors with insufficient oversight and inadequate Human Capital Information Technology, poorly trained field staff, and a headquarters human capital office that lacks strategic focus and demonstrates insufficient teamwork. The policy and human capital operations challenges appear to result from deficiencies in the Office of Human Capital (OHC) and an inconsistent approach to field delivery of human capital services. The OHC suffers from a lack of teamwork and leadership challenges. Interviews with customers, stakeholders, and OHC staff make clear that human capital programs are not designed in the context of a cohesive strategy. OHC customers gave negative feedback on key programs, particularly human capital information technology systems, classification and position management, and hiring and pay, with a few bright spots in employee relations and training. OHC leaders consistently reported a culture where cooperation across OHC organizations was lacking and peer relationships are poor. TSA's Human Capital Office issues are significant, but the Panel has encountered other human capital organizations with such issues that have been transformed into effective units. With significant leadership support, the Panel believes the improvements in Human Capital Office leadership, work processes and policies required for TSA to have acceptable human capital services are achievable and has included recommendations for implementable and substantive changes that will provide a way forward for TSA. This report includes multiple recommendations. The most pressing among those recommendations are the need for more effective human capital leadership, a well thought out process for human capital service delivery, greater use of ATSA flexibilities, modern human capital technology, and standardizing and realigning the field human capital structure. Adoption of these recommendations, coupled with actions TSA is already taking to make improvements, should result in significantly improved human capital policies and services. The 2018 TSA Exit Survey report indicated employees were concerned about leadership issues, having experienced a ``lack of management skills,'' ``unfair practices (e.g., in [[Page H1481]] performance appraisal, disciplinary actions, career advancement, etc.),'' ``unequal levels of respect,'' a ``hostile work environment,'' and ``inadequate communication with the workforce.'' TSOs perceive favoritism and express an inability to voice complaints about issues. The Panel believes the systemic problems with TSO pay may be a major contributor to some of those perceptions, due to the inability of TSOs (even those with exceptional performance ratings) to advance within their pay bands. Employee perceptions of leadership and organizational fairness may undermine their commitment to stay at TSA. Surveys and Focus Groups reveal that TSO pay is a key issue for the screening workforce, and a complex problem. These officers work long hours, have difficult working conditions, and are the backbone of the TSA mission. By some measures, TSO annual pay in some locations lags well behind industry counterparts. TSO perceptions regarding inequity in their pay are aggravated by the fact that their pay averages about one- third of that of TSA employees in Management, Administration and Professional (MAP) positions. The Panel recognizes that the nature of the TSO's work and that of employees in MAP positions means a disparity in pay is always going to exist. While there is no indication it was deliberate, TSA's use of its flexibilities has boosted MAP pay above government averages, with TSO pay remaining below those averages for comparable jobs. The disparity is driven in part by a pay and performance management process that provides little hope of movement, especially within the E-Band. A TSO at the bottom of the E- band, even with exceptional performance ratings year after year, would take more than 30 years to reach the top of the E-Band. This produces the effect that the E-Band pay range is illusory, with few TSOs in the middle or at the top of the band. TSO turnover is high in the first three years in comparison to other positions in TSA and in the federal workforce. TSO turnover is somewhat consistent with other low wage jobs in the private sector with comparable skill requirements for initial hiring, where annual turnover rates of 20 percent or more are common. That does not mean TSA should accept high turnover as a given. The cost of turnover (in terms of recruiting, hiring and training replacement officers and lower productivity of newer and less skilled officers) is high and the effect on the workforce which carries the screening workload in absence of a full TSO cohort is significant. If TSA can retain Officers beyond the first three years, turnover reduces to a much more manageable level. Turnover among longer term employees may be driven by the stability of employment and benefits TSOs receive. Although TSA operates outside of the general government pay and classification statutes found in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, the agency offers the same or better benefits as other agencies and provides greater job security than many private sector employers. As a result, if TSA can address pay, leadership, and turnover issues, the Panel believes the agency will see reduced costs, better morale, and a more stable workforce. This report includes recommendations to address TSO pay and advancement, and other critical issues for the TSO workforce. Although we often find that pay is a secondary issue for employees and other leadership issues tend to drive turnover, Focus Group findings highlight pay as the greatest issue driving turnover. The Panel acknowledges that TSA recognizes the pay issues and is seeking ways to address them. The scale of TSA operations means that even small across-the-board pay increases can cost tens of millions of dollars. The Panel recommends targeted pay raises, rather than across-the-board increases that might consume precious salary dollars to raise pay in locations where pay is not a problem. Although TSOs identify pay as the key driver of turnover, the Panel believes other problematic issues must be addressed as well. If pay problems are reduced, the other issues will continue to affect morale and turnover. Other key recommendations address the hiring process, which the Panel believes should be significantly modernized, and leader selection and development, which is essential to address many of the morale issues that are contributors to morale problems and turnover. The Panel also recommends changes to the promotion process and support for Information Technology improvements that can simultaneously increase operational efficiency and transparency, likely reducing concerns of favoritism expressed by the TSO workforce. One recommendation the Panel heard repeatedly from employees was moving TSA into the General Schedule (GS). The Panel does not agree. The General Schedule is a 70 year-old classification and compensation system from the last century and is the subject of countless studies and recommendations from good government organizations who consistently find it is too inflexible to meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. A better course of action is to use existing ATSA flexibility to improve the TSA pay system so that it operates at a level superior to the GS system. This Report provides a high-level roadmap for changes to TSA's Human Capital policies and processes, which if adopted, should have a significant positive impact on TSA workforce and mission operations. Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, third, some benefits currently available to the screener workforce under ATSA would not be possible if this bill were to become law. The bill does not fix the morale problem. The bill does not guarantee additional pay or benefits for TSOs. It may actually make situations worse. The bill eliminates the authority TSA has to pay TSOs more than other Federal employees under title 5. It also eliminates several benefits, such as the broadest application of veterans' hiring preference in the Federal Government, meaning that veterans may not get the same preference that they do now; shift trades between employees; voluntary leave transfers; partial overtime pay as compensation for schedule changes; and career progression bonuses of up to 5 percent of a screener's salary. Fourth, we have yet to receive a CBO score. However, TSA estimates the bill will cost $1.2 billion over the next 5 years. To cover the cost, funding for security priorities would be reduced. The bill does not even have a specific authorization of appropriations or means of paying for moving these employees under title 5. The fifth reason I have a concern on this bill, H.R. 1140, amounts to a forced unionization of the TSA workforce and a forced designation of the union that will represent that same workforce. It does not allow for an intervening election for TSA screeners to choose their labor representation. As such, this bill benefits one specific union, the American Federation of Government Employees. The bill does not provide for an intervening election to give screeners the right to choose which union they want to represent them. In 2011, AFGE was recognized by the Obama administration to represent the screener workforce after two elections. Approximately 8,900 screeners voted for the union. However, today, there are approximately 45,000 screeners subject to this bill. While TSA employees did select AFGE as their bargaining agent in 2011, it is remarkable that this bill specifically dictates which union will be representing TSA employees without a more recent vote or all employees voting. Sixth, this bill, once again, is a partisan messaging bill that will not become law. We know that because I highly doubt the Senate is going to hear this bill. Yet again, the majority refuses to work with the minority to move viable legislation to address real problems. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as expected, we have heard that eliminating the unique personnel management tools that were initially afforded to the TSA is somehow going to undermine the organization, but this ignores the reality that those tools are no longer needed nor effective. The record is replete with evidence that we need to reform the way the TSA is managed in order to address very, very serious issues of recruitment, retention, and training. What is posited here is a false choice between workers' rights and national security, and we reject that choice. We were given an example of gross sexual misconduct as a reason why workers shouldn't have organizational rights. But under title 5's rule, which would apply under this bill, agencies can expedite personnel actions against employees accused of criminal activity, and they also can be removed from their duty post for potential harm to themselves or to others. Again, this is a false choice between workers' rights and national security, or just plain old management. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Rules Committee, for her leadership. I thank the minority's representative, as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enthusiastically support H.R. 1140. I am very proud to be an enthusiastic cosponsor of this legislation and to explain to my colleagues and the American people how we started the Committee on Homeland Security, as a founding [[Page H1482]] member, if you will, being here during the heinous terrorist acts of 9/ 11 and knowing that the Nation needed to put together quickly a Homeland Security Department, second in size to the Department of Defense, I believe. We organized the Transportation Security Administration fast and in a way that the Administrator would, really, have all powers--all powers. In doing so, we failed to give them Federal civil service protection. So, this legislation is legislation that is crucial because the TSA workforce is among the lowest paid in the Federal Government and lacks basic workplace protection afforded to most other government workers. As a result, TSA struggles with low morale and high attrition. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1140, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020, is nothing that has been previously described-- nothing like that. It is an opportunity to maintain a professional force of individuals who every day protect Americans. It is unfortunate that, as we go through our normal life and we see TSO officers, and we see them in their blue shirts and their dark pants, we take them for granted, quite frankly. As a former chair of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, I was intimately engaged in knowing just what the work was that they did. Do we understand the numbers of weapons that are found every day? I am saying it generically because some of this is classified. The number of incidences that are thwarted, if you will, by TSO officers--do we realize that one of our great officers lost his life in Los Angeles, and his family suffers? This bill would provide reasonable protection. It would give gradations of salaries. It will allow us to keep a professional staff. We attempted to put a Band-Aid on this by providing for professional development training in Georgia, where other Federal law enforcement academies were. That was not enough. In fact, they had to change it for these individuals who work for a period of time before they went to the academy because they were losing people after they went to the academy because they were not earning the compensation that they should. There was no promotion. Just the other day, a very fine young woman, excellent, who was respected and had come up to headquarters, she left us for another Federal agency because there was no advancement or opportunity. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ruiz). The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, these are fine Americans. Many of them are former military, and they support their families. To give them the opportunity to, first of all, have a right to grievance, to ensure that they have nonreduction on pay and compensation, that they have preservation of their civil rights--there is no right to strike. But it is a right to have the ability to engage their employer and to be able to be respected. Mr. Speaker, I am enthusiastic about this. Names like Bill and Patrick and Alfred, other men and women of the Transportation Security Administration, the TSOs' names, I am sure, that we could call in our respective airports, the people we know every day, our neighbors. They do a great and fine job. We must pass this bill, and I hope we pass it in a bipartisan way. Think about not paying those who are saving your lives every single day in the Nation's airports. Think about how you are treating them. Think about the low pay. Think about the compensation that does not allow them to have high morale. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the show of support for passing this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it. Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, too, support increasing pay for our TSOs. I am the ranking member, Republican member, on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security, so we have had hearings on this. I do believe that they need to get a pay increase. It is a tough job. The ones I go through, in the Phoenix and Washington DCA airports, do a good job. So I am not opposed to that at all, and I am hoping I can work together with my Democratic colleagues on the budget so we can try to increase the budget so that they can increase pay for good TSOs who are doing a good job. But what I do know is that I don't like this bill. I already said the reasons why I don't like this bill, but one of them is specifically about the case I talked about where a bad TSO officer, someone who did a bad thing--sexually assaulted a woman--that then they wouldn't be removed immediately if this bill came into law. My colleague, Representative Scanlon, said: Well, under title 5 rules, they could be removed from their post. Well, that is good, but they are still getting paid. And I can tell you what, I bet if I went out on the street right now and I said: Do you think it is fine if a TSO officer sexually assaulted a woman on an elevator under false pretenses, do you think that Federal employee should still be getting paid? They would say absolutely not. They would be outraged. That is one of my major concerns on this bill. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will bring to the floor H.R. 5595, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Arizona? There was no objection. Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, commonly known as BDS, is anti-Israel, anti-peace, and damaging to U.S. interests. This bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to prohibit boycotts or requests for boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations against Israel. This will protect American companies from being forced to give information to international organizations for the furthering of boycotts against Israel. This bill establishes Congress' opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and establishes that Congress considers the United Nations Human Rights Council's creation of a database of companies doing business in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights in March 2016 to be an act of BDS. {time} 1300 We cannot be quiet when it comes to combating anti-Semitism and anti- Israel mentalities. We need to work together in Congress and pass commonsense legislation on this issue. H.R. 5595 does just that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend. Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the House may take up H.R. 5595, the Israel Anti- Boycott Act, that would help fight back against the BDS movement. This bill would prohibit boycotts or requests for boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations against Israel and would protect American companies from being coerced to provide information to those organizations for the purpose of furthering boycotts against Israel. This bill holds individuals who attempt to violate this protection accountable. Additionally, it establishes Congress' opposition to the BDS movement and condemns the United Nations' Human Rights Council's creation of a blacklist of companies doing business in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights as an act of BDS. This legislation does not impede the right of any individual American to boycott or criticize Israel. It is okay to have reasonable, legitimate concerns with any government, including our own and allies like Israel, but this hate-fueled movement is not all about affirming the rights of Palestinians. The BDS movement has fueled anti-Semitism across college campuses and in our country's politics. I hear from Jewish students on college campuses across America who are being subjected to blatant anti- Semitism under the guise of BDS. For example, at Syracuse University, they are granting internship school credit to students interning with pro-BDS organizations [[Page H1483]] after a slew of anti-Semitic graffiti vandalized the school. The founder of BDS was blatantly anti-Semitic, and this movement is being pushed by many people who support a one-state solution that would end Israel, our Nation's greatest ally. BDS tries to delegitimize Israel by turning it into a pariah state cut off from all trade, tourism, military, diplomatic, and cultural ties with the rest of the world. Last month, the U.N. did it again and published a blacklist of companies doing business in the West Bank. We must forcefully condemn this. This House, last year, passed H. Res. 246, a resolution to condemn the BDS movement. Making a statement was a start, but now it is time to do something about it and pass legislation with teeth. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and defeat the previous question. Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I want to urge my Democratic colleagues to vote against this rule and H.R. 1140 and the previous question so we can assert my anti-BDS amendment. The bill, as I stated, would eliminate TSA's ability to immediately fire employees for serious misconduct, like what happened in California. The bill would also take away TSA's ability to give the TSOs many of the benefits that they currently get, such as bonuses and overtime pay. I really think we need to work together to ensure TSA employees are happy and enjoy their work, and that is why I said I am supportive of increasing their pay, especially that of good and productive TSOs. We need to provide incentives to help bring good morale to these hardworking employees, not the opposite. Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. H.R. 1140 is a pro-security and pro-Federal worker piece of legislation. The TSA is no longer a startup agency requiring maximum flexibility during a period of national emergency, and Congress, in previous administrations, has taken actions to reflect that. Ten years after its creation, in 2011, TSA employees were given labor union representation. This was a good step forward. However, the time is now to provide the 60,000 TSA employees the same worker rights and protections afforded to other Federal workers under the U.S. Code. It is a sad and shameful day for the government when anyone is forced to turn to food pantries to feed their family, employed or not, but it is unacceptable that Federal workers who work to protect and serve all Americans would be without a paycheck for weeks at a time--over the holidays, no less. Working people all over the United States are sacrificing more and earning less. This is a systemic problem that will not be solved by this bill. But, in order to rebuild the middle class that got so many of us into this body where we are today, we need to value Federal workers for the job they do and the services they provide to all of us. There are times and places for cutting costs and reducing expenses, but I do not believe that we as a body should do so in a way that negatively impacts national security or does so to the detriment of the men and women who keep us safe. I believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to responsibly pay its Federal workers. The hundreds of thousands of civil servants in this country do not belong to one political party or all subscribe to the same political beliefs. No, they do their jobs because they are in service to this Nation, and, in return, they deserve reasonable wages and rights in the workplace. I do not think that this is too much to ask. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question. The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 877 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5595) to impose additional prohibitions relating to foreign boycotts under Export Control Reform Act of 2018, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5595. Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, nays 194, not voting 16, as follows: [Roll No. 83] YEAS--219 Adams Aguilar Allred Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Boyle, Brendan F. Brindisi Brown (MD) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson (IN) Cartwright Case Casten (IL) Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu, Judy Cicilline Cisneros Clark (MA) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Cox (CA) Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Cunningham Davids (KS) Davis (CA) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doyle, Michael F. Engel Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Finkenauer Fletcher Foster Frankel Fudge Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gonzalez (TX) Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Heck Higgins (NY) Himes Horn, Kendra S. Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim Kind Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster (NH) Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu, Ted Lipinski Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Matsui McAdams McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore Morelle Moulton Mucarsel-Powell Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Peterson Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Richmond Rose (NY) Rouda Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Serrano Sewell (AL) Shalala Sherrill Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stanton Stevens Suozzi Swalwell (CA) Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres Small (NM) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Vela Velazquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Wilson (FL) Yarmuth NAYS--194 Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bergman Biggs [[Page H1484]] Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Bishop (UT) Bost Brady Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Cole Collins (GA) Comer Conaway Cook Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson (OH) Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Duncan Dunn Emmer Estes Ferguson Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flores Fortenberry Foxx (NC) Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Gianforte Gibbs Gohmert Gonzalez (OH) Gooden Gosar Granger Graves (GA) Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Hartzler Hern, Kevin Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Holding Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Hurd (TX) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger Kustoff (TN) LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Marchant Marshall Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley Meadows Meuser Miller Mitchell Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Murphy (NC) Newhouse Norman Nunes Olson Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Riggleman Roby Rodgers (WA) Roe, David P. Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rouzer Roy Rutherford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Shimkus Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spano Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Thompson (PA) Thornberry Timmons Tipton Turner Upton Van Drew Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Waltz Watkins Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Wright Yoho Young Zeldin NOT VOTING--16 Byrne Clarke (NY) Doggett Gomez Grijalva Johnson (TX) Lewis Ratcliffe Rooney (FL) Rose, John W. Roybal-Allard Scott, David Sherman Sires Veasey Waters {time} 1335 Mr. RASKIN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the previous question was ordered. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated for: Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 83. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, nays 192, not voting 17, as follows: [Roll No. 84] YEAS--220 Adams Aguilar Allred Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Boyle, Brendan F. Brindisi Brown (MD) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson (IN) Cartwright Case Casten (IL) Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu, Judy Cicilline Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Cox (CA) Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Cunningham Davids (KS) Davis (CA) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doyle, Michael F. Engel Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Finkenauer Fletcher Foster Frankel Fudge Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gonzalez (TX) Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Heck Higgins (NY) Himes Horn, Kendra S. Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim Kind Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster (NH) Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu, Ted Lipinski Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Matsui McAdams McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore Morelle Moulton Mucarsel-Powell Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Peterson Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Richmond Rose (NY) Rouda Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Serrano Sewell (AL) Shalala Sherrill Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stanton Stevens Suozzi Swalwell (CA) Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres Small (NM) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Vela Velazquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Wilson (FL) Yarmuth NAYS--192 Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bergman Biggs Bishop (NC) Bishop (UT) Bost Brady Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Cole Collins (GA) Comer Conaway Cook Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson (OH) Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Duncan Dunn Emmer Estes Ferguson Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flores Fortenberry Foxx (NC) Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Gianforte Gibbs Gohmert Gonzalez (OH) Gooden Gosar Granger Graves (GA) Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Hartzler Hern, Kevin Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Holding Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Hurd (TX) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger Kustoff (TN) LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Marchant Marshall Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley Meadows Meuser Miller Mitchell Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Murphy (NC) Newhouse Norman Nunes Olson Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Riggleman Roby Rodgers (WA) Roe, David P. Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rouzer Roy Rutherford Scalise Schweikert Sensenbrenner Shimkus Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spano Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Thompson (PA) Thornberry Timmons Tipton Turner Upton Van Drew Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Waltz Watkins Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Wright Yoho Young Zeldin NOT VOTING--17 Bilirakis Byrne Doggett Gomez Grijalva Johnson (TX) Lewis Ratcliffe Rooney (FL) Rose, John W. Roybal-Allard Scott, Austin Scott, David Sherman Sires Veasey Waters {time} 1344 So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Stated against: Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay`` on rollcall No. 84. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 83 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 84. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev32 of 81Next