Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills.

The first piece of legislation, H.R. 3017, is a bipartisan compromise to extend the EPA's brownfields program. The successful brownfields program assists communities across this country in cleaning up contaminated sites to reduce pollution and health risks and spur economic development.

Although funding for this program has enjoyed broad support over the years, its authorization lapsed in 2006; 11 years ago. It is certainly long past time for this important program to be reauthorized. I appreciate the work of Republicans and Democrats on both the Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees in coming together to produce this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is how the process is supposed to work. There was a hearing, and there was a markup. I should

say, for the Record, the majority could have issued an open rule, instead of a closed rule. But I am not even going to criticize that today, Mr. Speaker, because experts on this issue came together to negotiate it in a bipartisan manner, and the result is a good piece of legislation that I look forward to voting for later this week.

I commend Mr. McKinley, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Pallone, and all those who worked together, and I just want to say for the Record, as one who routinely gets up here and criticizes the majority for issuing closed rules and structured rules all the time, I do so not just as a knee- jerk reaction to what they produce in the Rules Committee. I do it because usually they do closed rules and structured rules to basically stifle a deliberative process. They do it to shut off debate and to shut out other people's opinions. Quite frankly, the majority's record on rules is abysmal.

In this case, what we are doing is bringing forward something that represents a bipartisan process. I wish this wasn't an anomaly. I wish that the majority would understand that, in the House of Representatives, the views of Democrats are just as important as the views of Republicans. If you want to get things done, you need to come together in the spirit of compromise and work together for the good of the American people, not just for the good of one political party, not just so you can issue a press release, not just so you can play gotcha games, but actually produce things that are meaningful.

If the Republican leadership would drop their all-or-nothing approach to governing more often, support genuine bipartisan negotiations and compromise, and open up the process on all pieces of legislation, both minor and substantial, we might be able to get something done around here. Maybe we could have more than 12 bills of any sort of real significance signed into law.

This rule also brings to the floor legislation, I am sad to say, that would do irreparable harm to our federally protected land by allowing a foreign company the ability to use a half-century-old lease to mine right next door to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

H.R. 3905 would allow a Chilean mining company, which is facing tens of millions of dollars in fines from the Chilean Government for their failure to protect nearby water resources, the ability to mine just upstream of pristine U.S.-protected land.

This is all based on a 50-year-old lease--a lease that didn't go through any environmental review because NEPA didn't exist yet. There are Members of this Chamber who weren't even born when this lease was signed.

My colleagues in the majority will claim that this bill will help create jobs, but what about the 22,000 jobs that the local protected land already supports?

What will happen to those jobs when the water is so polluted that no one can visit the recreational area around the mine?

The truth is, this isn't about jobs. It is about helping a few rich owners of mining companies line their pockets at the expense of the environment. In fact, the recipient of this Republican handout is a subsidiary of a Chilean company, Antofagasta, which is controlled by Chilean billionaire Andronico Luksic Craig. And get this: he just happens to be the landlord of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, President Trump's daughter and son-in-law and senior advisers to the Trump White House.

You cannot make this stuff up. This is part of a pattern of sketchy deals and questionable business contacts involving the President and his family and their closest advisers.

Earlier this month, we learned that President Trump and his family made millions through a hotel in Panama financed by Colombian drug cartels and the Russian Mafia. We still don't even know how these new deals will boost President Trump's income or how his family profits off of the Presidency, because we are 312 days into his Presidency, and we still haven't seen his tax returns.

Imagine if this were Hillary Clinton. Imagine if this were Barack Obama. Imagine the screams on the other side of the aisle demanding transparency and an open process. But when it comes to covering up all these sketchy deals on behalf of this President of the United States, there is silence.

President Trump promised to drain the swamp, but, instead, he has created a cesspool. There are so many conflicts of interest, this administration is on a collision course with corruption.

Mr. Speaker, we have only 6 legislative days left before the government runs out of money, but the Speaker of the House thinks another corporate handout, this time to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's landlord, is the most pressing issue that needs to be resolved in Congress this week.

If the Speaker wants some suggestions as things we ought to focus on this week, I know Democrats in this Chamber have a few. I can give you an example.

Democrats think we should be debating a funding bill to avert the coming shutdown on December 8, when the temporary spending bill expires.

Democrats want to debate and pass the Dream Act, ending the turmoil this President has caused by upending the lives of 800,000 young immigrant DREAMers and their families.

Democrats want to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, and community health centers, whose authorization expired 2 months ago.

Democrats think we ought to debate flood insurance reauthorization, which expires on December 8.

Democrats want to pass additional hurricane relief to help those who are still recovering from devastating hurricanes in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico.

Democrats want to address funding for the Veterans Choice Program, which is set to run out of money before the end of the year.

But instead, here we are, considering yet another ridiculous, extreme antienvironment bill.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle love talking about returning this country to the way it used to be. I have seen the Make America Great Again stickers on many of their cars.

I can think of no pastime more important or more significant to our national heritage and identity than our wilderness and protected areas. My friends and colleagues who have spent time in the Boundary Waters tell me how stunning it is. They say it is one of the most beautiful places in our country. And we are going to risk polluting this national treasure with copper-sulfide acid drainage running into the streams that feed the Boundary Waters?

Worse yet, this bill makes these mining leases impossible to ever overturn, even should the Bureau of Land Management conclude its environmental assessment and rule against further mining in this protected national forest.

This is a slippery slope. If we continue to allow corporations to pillage our federally protected wilderness areas, we are opening the door to irreversible damage. What is next? Clear-cutting in Yellowstone Forest? Oil drilling off the coast of Acadia National Park?

Mr. Speaker, I beg my Republican friends to drop this assault on our public lands and urge the leadership of this House to bring up the urgent bills and priorities that we need to deal with before adjourning in less than 3 weeks' time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose efforts that will further degrade our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my colleague from Wyoming, you know, when she raised the issue of why our Democratic leaders didn't show up to the meeting at the White House. Maybe she didn't catch the President's tweet in which the President made it very clear he didn't see a deal.

I am glad our leaders didn't show up because they are not props, and we in the minority are not props either to be rolled out, to give the appearance of bipartisanship or give the appearance that somehow you are working with us when, in fact, you are not.

The President showed his hand. He had no interest in a deal, no interest in working with us. And I would say that is one of the problems in this House of Representatives, that the reason why we are not more productive in getting things done and producing real legislation to help the American people is because there is no bipartisanship, very little. I made one exception to the issue on this brownfields legislation, but on the big bills, nothing.

The gentlewoman brought up the Affordable Care Act. You know, what was her solution to the Affordable Care Act? What was the Republican majority's solution to making the Affordable Care Act better? I mean, bringing a bill to the floor under the most closed process that you can possibly imagine, a bill that would throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance, what are my friends thinking?

When people talk about healthcare reform and improving the Affordable Care Act, they talk about lowering prices; they talk about more accessibility; they talk about more people getting coverage. What the Republicans brought to the floor was a bill that would throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance. That is their solution. That would take away essential benefits protection for people who desperately need health insurance to deal with this opiate crisis and a whole bunch of other things.

So we don't want any lectures about what is extreme and what is ridiculous in this House of Representatives. The way the majority conducts business in this House is extreme and ridiculous. The legislation, whether it is their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act or even this tax bill that is a giveaway to corporate special interests and is going to raise taxes on people earning $100,000, that is extreme, that is wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my Republican friends, again, you know, if you want to get things done, if you want to work with us, you have got to treat us as more than just props. You have to enter into good faith negotiations. And I would say, if you did that, we actually might get some things done around here that might improve the quality of life for everybody in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again respond to my colleague from Wyoming when she again raised the issue as to why our leaders didn't show up to the White House. It is not because they have a fragile ego. It is because they didn't want to waste their time. It is because they didn't want to be a prop or just be there for a photo op. It is because they are actually focused on trying to do the people's business, and they are tired of the gamesmanship.

If the gentlewoman wants to talk about fragile egos, I would suggest that she observe the behavior of the man who is in the Oval Office. I mean, this is a guy who will get into a Twitter war with a basketball player's father.

I would say that, and I would just respectfully urge my Republican colleagues, now is the time for an intervention because we have serious business to deal with in this country: there are issues of war and peace; there are issues of domestic security; there are issues of economic security that we have to deal with; and instead, we are dealing with constant nonsense coming out of the White House. So it is time for the Republican majority to intervene and to say to the President, ``Enough is enough.''

Mr. Speaker, you know, for weeks, tax experts have been reporting that the Republican tax plans would raise taxes on millions of middle class families in order to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Their proposed legislation may directly benefit President Trump and his family members to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, according to independent analyses. President Trump has denied this, stating that he would be a bigger loser if the House GOP tax bill is approved.

Well, without his tax returns, we simply have no way of knowing exactly how much President Trump stands to gain from the tax bill. The American people deserve to know whether or not our President is directly benefiting from legislation that would hurt millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

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.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, there are so many conflicts of interest in this administration, and especially with this President. This administration is on a collision course with corruption. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to stand up and to be united and to demand a little sunshine on what the reality is.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Wyoming talks about this great tax bill that the Republicans have proposed. I would call her attention to an article in Politico/Morning Consult today, which said that 8 percent of Americans believe that the Senate should take the Republican House- passed tax bill and enact it as-is--8 percent. I don't know how much lower you can get.

I thought my friend's healthcare bill had terrible ratings. I think it was like 17 percent of the American people supported it. I don't know how she can walk around and be proud of what she is trying to do here when the vast majority of the people don't want what you are selling. They believe that these policies will be harmful.

We are supposed to be the House of Representatives--the people's House--not the House of corporations, to give out special deals to mining companies, or to pass tax bills that benefit corporations at the expense of middle class families, or to pass healthcare reform that is a giveaway to insurance companies and rips away health coverage from millions and millions of people. I mean, come on.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we believe in transparency on this side of the aisle, and we need to know what is behind some of these proposes in this tax bill, to find out who is benefiting and who is not. We know a lot of middle class families will not benefit. They are going to see their taxes increase. But we would like to know whether or not this President is going to benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton in opposition to H.R. 3905.

State of Minnesota,

Office of Governor Mark Dayton,

Saint Paul, MN, November 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: I write in strong opposition to HR3905,

which I understand has passed out of Committee and is being

reviewed by House Majority Leadership for a floor vote. I

implore you not to schedule a vote on this bill without a

full vetting of the serious risks to the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area Wilderness from adjacent copper-nickel mining, the

status of the two-year federal study currently underway, and

the wishes of the majority of Minnesotans, who oppose copper-

nickel mining in the immediate vicinity of the Boundary

Waters.

HR3905 is a bill, ``To require congressional approval of

any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the

National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to

provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such

lands, and for other purposes.'' HR3905 was introduced in

response to the desires of a foreign mining company to use

Congress to circumvent the deliberations of the U.S.

Departments of Interior and Agriculture and their agencies,

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS), to determine whether copper-nickel mining can

be conducted safely in this ecologically sensitive part of

Minnesota.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BCWAW) is

America's most popular national Wilderness Area, drawing

visitors from all over the world to Northeastern Minnesota to

fish, hunt, and experience its interconnected pristine lakes,

rivers and streams. Additionally, the BWCAW contributes

enormously to Minnesota's social and economic well-being.

In January, 2017, the BLM and the USFS began a

comprehensive two-year study to determine whether copper-

nickel mining, with its toxic by-product, sulfide ore, is

appropriate within the watershed and immediate vicinity of

the BWCA. Specifically, this environmental review will

determine whether the Superior National Forest lands next to

the BWCAW should be removed from the federal mining program

to protect the Wilderness from pollution and other

environmental degradation caused by the resulting sulfide

ore. The study considers a wide variety of factors, including

scientific evidence, public input, economic considerations,

ecological characteristics, and recreational value, among

others.

I respectfully ask that you allow the completion of this

important review process. Over 126,000 Americans have

submitted public comments as part of it. Many attended three

public meetings conducted earlier this year by the BLM and

USFS. Moving HR3905 forward at this time would disregard the

input of all Americans, who have participated in the process,

as well as the views of the 79 percent of Minnesotans, who

favor the two-year pause and environmental review of

potential impacts to the BWCAW.

The BWCAW is crucially important to our state, and I

believe strongly that future federal and state decisions

about its future should be made only after the most careful

and objective scientific review. I urge you to reject the

attempts by a foreign mining corporation to short-circuit the

review process underway, and to affirm the importance of a

careful, objective analysis under the existing federal legal

framework.

Continuing this review process is the best way to allow for

well-informed federal and state decisions, which will affect

many future generations of Americans. Industry should not

dictate the stewardship of taxpayer-owned public lands, nor

use Congress to short-circuit sound decision-making--

especially regarding pristine Wilderness Areas like the

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters in opposition to the bill; a letter from the National Parks Conservation Association; and a letter from the Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines in opposition to this bill.

Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters,

Ely, MN, November 29, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members

and supporters, we urge

you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the so-called ``Minnesota's Economic

Rights in the Superior National Forest Act'' when it is

considered on the House floor.

Simply put, H.R. 3905 is a bill to allow sulfide-ore mining

at the edge of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness

(BWCAW), directly threatening one of America's most

accessible and most-visited wilderness areas. At 1.1 million

acres in size, the BWCAW is the largest wilderness east of

the Rockies and north of the Everglades. This interconnected

system of lakes, rivers, and streams provides unparalleled

opportunities for solitude, recreation, hunting and fishing.

The connections between Northern Minnesota's national

forests, Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs

National Park, and Quetico Provincial Park makes this entire

trans boundary area extremely susceptible to the threat of

pollution from sulfide-ore mining, one of the most toxic

industries in America, according to the EPA.

H.R. 3905 would require congressional approval of any

mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving National

Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and would

provide for the perpetual renewal of federal mineral leases

in Minnesota, including two that were denied by the Forest

Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The bill

undermines the Antiquities Act, National Environmental Policy

Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Boundary Waters

Wilderness Act, and other laws regulating mineral leasing in

Minnesota's national forests.

Contrary to the bill's title, H.R. 3905 would do more harm

than good for the economy of Northern Minnesota. Economic

analysis by Key-Log Economics LLC shows that sulfide-ore

mining on Superior National Forest lands in the watershed of

the Boundary Waters could lead to the loss of nearly 5,000

jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 22,000 jobs in the rest of the

economy, a $1.6 billion loss in annual income, and a $500

million reduction in private property values.

Specifically, we urge opposition to this bill because it

would:

Renew two expired and undeveloped mineral leases on

Superior National Forest lands next to the Boundary Waters

and along lakes and rivers that flow directly into the

Wilderness, advancing a foreign mining company's interests at

the expense of beloved American public lands.

Void the December 2016 record of decision by the Forest

Service withholding its consent to two mineral lease renewal

requests in the Superior National Forest due to the

unacceptable risks to this watershed, which according to the

Forest Service holds 20 percent of the National Forest

System's fresh water supply.

Undermine the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting

review of these two mineral leases to a 30-day environmental

assessment. Contrary to the bill language, there is no

`pending EA.' However, this section would override the

ongoing two-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

initiated by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

to carefully consider the potential impacts of sulfide-ore

mining on the Boundary Waters watershed. The ongoing EIS is

strongly supported by Minnesota's Governor Dayton and by the

citizens of Minnesota. More than 79% of Minnesota voters

support the study, while more than 126,000 citizens submitted

comments during the scoping phase.

Amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by mandating Congressional

approval for any national monument designations in

Minnesota's national forests. The Antiquities Act is a

bipartisan conservation law, which has been used by

Presidents of both parties, to protect irreplaceable federal

lands from potential threats. Monument designation under the

Antiquities Act have provided protections for areas including

the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and Olympic

National Parks. Quite simply, this attack on the Antiquities

Act is an attack against our national parks and monuments.

Amend the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA) by mandating Congressional approval for mineral

withdrawals in Minnesota's national forests. Additionally,

FLPMA intentionally left intact the presidential power to

protect public lands as monuments.

Bar the Forest Service from complying with its legal

obligations under the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act. In

this Act Congress requires the Forest Service to maintain the

high-water quality of the Boundary Waters and a Mining

Protection Area within the Superior National Forest. The

Forest Service concluded that sulfide-ore mining near the

Boundary Waters would be ``contrary to Congress'

determination that it is necessary to `protect the special

qualities of the [BWCAW] as a natural forest-lakeland

wilderness ecosystem of major esthetic, scientific,

recreational and educational value to the Nation.' ''

Make all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests

essentially perpetual. The `perpetual' nature of these leases

is material change in long-standing mineral leasing law and

policy. The bill would also override the two laws (1946 and

1950) on mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests that

require Forest Service consent to any mining.

Ignore the request of the International Joint Commission

that environmental review of impacts on trans boundary water

quality and cumulative effects be studied and the requests of

four tribal entities (the area is Ceded Territory).

Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to

adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,

Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's public lands,

and bedrock environmental laws like the Antiquities Act and

the National Environmental Policy Act, we urge you to OPPOSE

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why many of us are opposed to H.R. 3905 is because we see it as a corporate giveaway that puts treasured public lands in the hands of a Chilean mining conglomerate.

So much of what comes out of this Congress is about rewarding those who are well-connected and well-off, rewarding corporations at the expense of average citizens.

I will go back to our previous question, which would force a vote. Everything would still move forward, but it would force a vote on a bill that was introduced by Ms. Eshoo that would require Presidents and Presidential nominees to release their tax returns.

It is not just the connections between the Trump family and this mining company that we have concerns about; it is the connections between this President and his administration and the tax bill that is being proposed that we know would raise taxes on millions and millions of middle class families and basically give a big tax cut to the wealthiest individuals and to corporate special interests and to corporations. We think that is all backwards, but I think the American people deserve to know who benefits and who doesn't.

Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why so many of my Republican friends have circled the wagons in opposition to transparency, in opposition to letting the American people know where this President's conflicts of interests are, and basically protect what I think may very well be multiple conflicts of interest and maybe conflicts of interest that lead directly into a collision course with corruption. This is a big deal.

All this legislation that we are talking about here today, there is a good piece of legislation, the brownfields legislation; a bad piece, that is this mining bill. This still goes forward, but vote with us to defeat the previous question so that we can bring up this other bill.

Now, my Republican colleague from Wyoming may say: Well, that is not what we are talking about here today. The Democrats are just trying to muddy up the discussion.

The reason why we have to resort to a procedural motion to bring up this bill to force the President and Presidential nominees to release their tax

returns is because the Rules Committee shuts everything down that this leadership doesn't want to see come to the floor. We can't bring this bill to the floor to require the President to release his tax returns under regular order and our normal process. They won't let us. We can't offer it as an amendment. They won't let us. This is the only way we can do it.

I would urge my Republican friends to stop defending the indefensible here.

This thing would apply not just to Donald Trump, it would apply to every President. We have never had to do this before because every other President has released their tax returns. This President, for some reason, doesn't think it is anybody's business.

Given the nature of the legislation coming out of this House of Representatives, I think the American people need to know and have a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to H.R. 3905 signed by virtually every major environmental organization in the country.

November 8, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members

and supporters, we urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the

``Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest

Act'' scheduled for mark-up in House Natural Resources on

Wednesday. Section 3 of this radical bill, which would

require Congressional approval of any monument extension or

designation involving National Forest lands in Minnesota,

represents yet another direct attack on one of our nation's

bedrock conservation laws, and flatly ignores the

overwhelming public support for protecting unique and

sensitive federal lands and ocean areas through national

monument designations.

We urge the committee to consider the following during

markup of H.R. 3905 this week:

Contrary to the Intent of the Law--The Antiquities Act was

designed to allow for swift and necessary action, including

when Congress is either unable or unwilling to act, to

protect irreplaceable resources from potential threats. Not

only has the law successfully protected some of our nation's

most remarkable historical, cultural and natural treasures

for a century, Congress intentionally left this presidential

power intact when passing the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976 (signed into law by President Ford).

A Vote Against our Parks--Supporting any bill that would

undermine the Antiquities Act is a vote against parks. Nearly

half of America's national parks began as national monuments

including the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and

Olympic National Parks; and over two-thirds of our national

monuments are managed by the National Park Service. Quite

simply, a vote against the Antiquities Act is a vote against

our national parks and monuments.

Federal Lands Belong to All Americans--The Antiquities Act

is used only to protect federal lands already owned by the

American public. By carving out an exception for national

forest lands within Minnesota, Section 3 of H.R. 3905 flies

in the face of our nation's shared public heritage and

disregards how dearly the public values iconic public lands

and waters, like Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and

Voyageurs National Park.

Bipartisan History--A signature achievement of President

Theodore Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16

presidents since its inception--8 Republicans and 8

Democrats.

Out of Step with the Public--This bill is wildly out of

step with the American public's support for our national

parks and monuments. Just this summer, a vast majority of the

2.8 million people who submitted comments on the issue raised

their voices in support of keeping our national monuments

protected just as they are. These voices made Secretary

Zinke's national monuments public comment period the largest

public comment period in the history of the Interior

Department. Across the West, public support for protecting

our national monuments has proven strong, and a significant

majority of Western voters oppose more mining and drilling on

public lands. According to Colorado College's Conservation in

the West Poll, 80% of western voters support ``future

presidents continuing to protect existing public lands as

national monuments.'' This poll reinforces other surveys that

document widespread public opposition to congressional

attacks on new parks. Americans want more protected public

lands, not less!

Opposed by Diverse List of Hundreds of Organizations--As

demonstrated by this letter as well as the attached letter

signed by nearly 200 organizations, a diverse array of local

and national organizations representing sportsmen, outdoor

recreation businesses, local chambers of commerce, cultural

heritage, historic preservation and conservation have

consistently opposed efforts to undermine the Antiquities Act

in any form.

Disregards Local Economies--Economic research shows that

national monuments support the growth of local economies,

bringing in tourism and recreation dollars and boosting the

quality of life. The Outdoor Industry Association reported

this year that public lands like our national monuments help

support 7.6 million jobs in America, and $887 billion in

outdoor recreation activity.

Monuments Protect our Shared History and Culture--In

response to broad community input, sites honoring America's

military and outdoor heritage, as well as those expanding the

diversity of our national park system to better recognize the

contributions and histories of Native Americans, Hispanics

and African-Americans have been designated under the

Antiquities Act. These monuments include Fort Ord, Fort

Monroe, Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers, Harriet Tubman

Underground Railroad, Chimney Rock, Organ Mountains-Desert

Peaks, Cesar E. Chavez and many more.

Recent attacks on national monuments, from President

Trump's executive order, to Interior Secretary Zinke's hasty

and arbitrary review of these magnificent places, to

legislative proposals like H.R. 3905 are a smokescreen for

other uses of these special places.

Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to

adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,

Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's shared public

resources, we urge you to vote no on H.R. 3905.

Sincerely,

American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Boundary Waters

Trust, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Lands

Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks,

Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,

Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection

Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Hip Hop Caucus,

League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation

Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeastern

Minnesotans for Wilderness, Sierra Club, Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance, Tuleyome, The Wilderness Society,

Wilderness Watch.

Mr. Speaker, we oppose the overall rule, but I will say to the gentlewoman that we would have no problem even with the closed rule on the brownfields bill, which is one of the bills that I think has bipartisan support and reflects a legitimate process.

What we have a problem with is H.R. 3905, which we think is a corporate giveaway that puts treasured public lands in the hands of a Chilean mining conglomerate, and we think that is wrong.

I agree with the gentlewoman that we ought to be doing important business here, but I would argue that, rather than rewarding some Chilean mining conglomerate, the more important business would be making sure we keep the government open, because we have a government shutdown fast approaching on December 8.

I would say to the gentlewoman that we have got to pass the Dream Act and help 800,000 people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil because of this President.

We ought to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program. We ought to debate flood insurance. We ought to pass additional hurricane relief. We ought to address funding for the Vets Choice Program. That is more important, that is more vital to the national interest than basically rewarding some Chilean mining conglomerate.

Finally, I would say to my colleagues here that we will ask you to vote to defeat the previous question. We will ask you to defeat the previous question so we can bring up and have a vote on a bill that will require this President and all Presidents and all party nominees to release their taxes.

I think the American people have a right to know where the conflicts of interest are with this White House. I think they have a right to know who benefits from this tax bill that we know is a giveaway to corporations that will raise taxes on millions of middle class families. They have a right to know who benefits from this.

I am astounded that the bar keeps on getting lower and lower and lower for my Republican friends. I mean, we have daily offensive tweets. We have irrational statements that come out of this White House on a daily basis, and there is silence.

When it comes to transparency, when it comes to making sure that there are no conflicts of interest, my Republican colleagues will not even allow us to have a vote on basically requiring this President and all Presidents to release their tax returns. That is not passing judgment on this President. It would be a requirement of all Presidents and nominees.

Basically, it is saying, let the sunshine in. Let us make sure that there are no conflicts of interest. That ought to matter, because everything that comes out of this House seems to be directed at helping those who are well-off and well-connected.

Every corporation is cheering when this House comes up with legislation, whether it is on tax reform or whether it is on helping mining companies, because it always seems to benefit those who are the most well-off.

Well, it is about time we put people first. It is about time the American people know what is going on in this government. Let the sunshine in. There is nothing wrong with that. We are doing it this way because it is the only avenue available for us to bring this to a vote, because the Rules Committee and the leadership in this House shuts off debate on issues that they find uncomfortable.

This is supposed to be the people's House, not the Russia House. We ought to be a place where we have deliberative engagements, where we discuss important issues, where we do things that benefit the American people.

I would say to my colleagues again, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have this debate. If you want to help the President cover up his tax returns, fine. You can vote ``no,'' but we ought to have a vote.

I don't know why this is so controversial. It, to me, is a no- brainer. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act. This bill potentially weakens the Federal civil service by increasing the probationary period for career civil servants and those in the Senior Executive Service from 1 year to 2 years.

I might add, almost no private sector company I know of would have a 2-year probationary period because they know it would make it hard to recruit talented employees.

Unlike what has just been said in terms of protections that remain in place, during the probationary period, Federal employees have very little due process or appeal rights if disciplinary action is taken against them, and the action we would take today would be to extend those diluted rights instead of providing them with robust rights of every civil servant beyond the probationary period. They can be fired without notice. They have limited rights to an attorney or representative, and they generally may not appeal their removal.

Due process protections are critical to ensuring the integrity of the Federal civil service. In fact, that is the very heart of having a professional civil service.

These protections help prevent the politicalization of the workforce and protect whistleblowers from retaliation, which our committee, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has passionately documented as a very real danger in the past.

The Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act is a solution in search of a problem. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has not held one single hearing to determine whether extending the probationary period an additional year for every single Federal job in the competitive and Senior Executive Service is something that agencies need or want to help them better manage their workforce. Not a single hearing, and this would have a profound impact on every Federal agency.

In February of 2016, the Government Accountability Office issued a report which my friend from Kentucky cited at the request of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The request asked GAO to examine the rules and trends relating to the review and dismissal of employees for poor performance. Now supporters of this bill are using this report as a basis for extending the probationary periods of Federal civil service employees; however, nothing in this report calls for doing that. In fact, the title of the report is ``Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance.'' The focus ought to be, the GAO says, on improving the supervision of the probationary period we have in place.

In conducting its study, GAO found that supervisors do not always have the skills necessary to do that and help address employee performance issues during the probationary period. GAO also found that supervisors sometimes do not even use the probationary period to make performance-related decisions about an employee's ability to do their job and may not always know when the probationary period even ends.

The report's recommendations were mainly focused on ensuring qualified supervisors have the training and skills they need to deal with poor performers

and making better use of the existing probation period for all new employees.

Instead of focusing on addressing the gaps identified by GAO and encouraging agencies to implement the recommendations made in that report, Congress is now attacking Federal employees and the merit-based system.

I am especially concerned about the bill's impact on recruiting the workforce of the future. Currently, 40 percent of the current Federal workforce is either eligible for retirement or soon will be--40 percent. Federal agencies need to be able to recruit their replacements and get the requisite skill sets we need for these challenging jobs, just like the private sector is challenged with that.

Extending the probationary period to 2 years, governmentwide, creates a climate of more uncertainty, less protection, and diminishes, clearly, the attraction of Federal service for many people, especially those whom we want to be attracted to the civil service, especially millennials.

Some of my colleagues have referenced the 2-year probationary period for Department of Defense civilian employees enacted in the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act of last fiscal year. They argue that it should serve as precedent for the rest of the Federal Government.

There are a few things I need to point out about that. First, the Department of Defense did not request an extension of the probationary period or even indicate a need for it. Second, now that the 2-year probationary period for civilian defense employees has been enacted, the Department isn't even making use of this new authority.

According to the former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Peter Levine, who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March of this year on civilian personnel reform, ``the Department has done little to take advantage of that legislation.''

Mr. Levine also warned that changing the law to address a small number of problem employees could hurt recruitment and retention and worker productivity. He stated: ``If legislation that is intended to address a problem with 1 percent of the workforce is perceived as threatening and hostile by the other 99 percent, it may undermine morale and reduce the Department's ability to attract and retain the capable employees that it needs. The civilian workforce will not become more productive if problems with a small number of poor performers is addressed with measures that are perceived as a declaration of war on all employees.''

In closing, 2 weeks ago, Congress passed legislation that would pave the way toward evidence-based policymaking, and we all supported that. For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, ought we not see the evidence of whether lengthening the probationary period is materially different and what impacts, both positive and negative, it would have for Federal agencies and employees?

Absent such evidence and careful study, I certainly am not willing to take the risk that this bill will not do more harm to both agencies' ability to recruit and retain qualified employees and that it would not be used to arbitrarily punish hardworking Federal employees.

However, if the GAO studies the impact of this policy at DOD and finds that this new policy has been wonderful for morale and has indeed improved employee performance and helps employee recruitment, then sign me up. But I do think we ought to rely on data and hearings before the requisite committee when making such a major change to how we manage our Federal workforce.

I plan on offering an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that would arm us with the information we need to make an evidence-based decision regarding an extension of the probationary period of the Federal workforce, which is what we ought to be doing before consideration of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record statements in opposition or expressing deep concern about this legislation from the American Federation of Government Employees; the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers; the National Treasury Employees Union; and a group of organizations, including the Government Accountability Project, the Liberty Coalition, the Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, November 28, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), which represents

approximately 700,000 federal and District of Columbia

employees, in more than 70 agencies across the nation, I

strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 4182, the ``Ensuring a

Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017,'' introduced by

Representative James Comer (R-KY) when it comes to the floor

this week. If enacted, this legislation would arbitrarily

extend the probation period for a minimum of two years for

newly hired federal employees. AFGE opposes this legislation

as it does not address any issues surrounding employee

performance evaluation or management's ability to properly

evaluate employees during the probation period. Instead, all

it will do is penalize federal workers and weaken their due

process rights.

The extension of probation periods for competitive service

federal employees from one year to two years is unnecessary

and damaging to due process and the merit system. Candidates

for federal jobs are put through an extensive selection

process prior to being hired and one year is sufficient time

for a competent manager to determine if a new employee has

the ability to accomplish the duties for which he or she was

hired.

Specifically, H.R. 4182 would extend the probation period

to a minimum of two years after completion of a ``formal

training'' program or after the date on which a required

license is granted. Such a change could leave employees in

probation limbo for many years. For example, government

agencies require initial training for prolonged periods of

time that could result in employees serving three to five

year probation periods, or longer. Employees should not be

subject to an almost perpetual state of probation because of

comprehensive agency training, certification or licensing

programs.

Additionally, extending the probation period reduces the

due process rights of employees. While on probation,

employees have few civil service protections and almost no

appeal rights in the event of an adverse action. Civil

service protections and the merit system exist to protect the

government from politicization. Without these rights,

employees on probation will have little to no protection

against discrimination and employer retaliation and more

exposure to termination not based on cause, but rather

arbitrary and unjust reasons.

Extending the probation period does not solve any problems

regarding poor performance. Supervisors should be responsible

and held accountable for identifying and addressing issues of

poor performance of new employees quickly and efficiently.

Supervisors need better training to manage new employees.

Extending the probation period does nothing to better train

supervisors nor does it provide any accountability for

supervisors to effectively manage new employees.

Please Vote NO on H.R. 4182, ``Ensuring a Qualified Civil

Service Act of 2017.''

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Kahn,

Director, Legislative Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is my dear friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is a perspicacious member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, someone who grasps these issues fundamentally, and is my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair the schedule on the amendments.

I thank the Chair for that clarification.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), who is a professor and a very able member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Will the gentleman yield?

Did my colleague just say there was not a single hearing on a bill that affects the entire Federal Government?

Did we act on evidence-based policymaking? Were there studies and data that showed how successful extending the probationary would be for all of these Federal agencies?

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, as indicated, I appreciate the intent of my friend from Montana, but this is a bad bill. We ought to be studying the effect of the existing pilot program at the Department of Defense to see how it works, and we ought to be adopting the GAO recommendation of better training for supervisors whom the GAO found, frankly, were ill-equipped to evaluate employees during a 1- or 2-year probationary period.

We ought to have a hearing, and my friend from Montana might even agree with this, since he is the newest Member, one of the newest Members of our committee. Our committee is the locus for government- wide initiatives such as this.

We have not had a single hearing on this bill, or, frankly, on this subject, and I think that is a huge mistake. We are putting the cart before the horse; so I think we ought to return to a more empirical- based policymaking, especially when it is a policy that will affect every future Federal employee, and those numbers are huge, given the baby boom bulge ready to retire. That is 40 percent of the workforce, and it has to be replaced.

So while I very much appreciate the intent of my friend from Montana, it is in that context I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 4182, the probationary period for all Federal employees is extended for an additional year, regardless of the job they are hired to do. All new employees are punished equally, and supervisors are given no new tools to improve their use of the existing probationary period.

In February 2016, as I have mentioned before, the GAO reports studying the rules and trends relating to review and dismissal of employees for poor performance, suggests that the Office of Personnel Management look into whether there are certain occupations, due to the nature or complexity of the position, in which the probationary period should be extended beyond 1 year or not.

We heard testimony before the Rules Committee from a number of colleagues who represent areas with big Federal concentration, Federal employee concentrations with specialized agencies, such as the weather service in Oklahoma and CDC in Atlanta where a 2-year probationary period may very well impede the ability to hire the skilled workers we need.

The report goes on to say that it is something that should be looked into. It does not call for a government-wide extension of the probationary period. That is why I filed this amendment to require the GAO to conduct a study on the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies that have used this tool, a 2-year probationary period.

A 2-year probationary period for civilian employees at DOD was enacted in 2016, and as the largest Federal agency, this extension would provide a good case study on the potential impacts: good, bad, and indifferent on the legislation before us. It is a study we ought to do before we adopt a bill.

Some of my colleagues believe that since extending the probationary period has been working out so well, it ought to be extended across the entire Federal Government. There are a few things I need to point out for us. This policy only affected those who were hired after November 25, 2015, the day the law went into effect.

Secondly, the former Under Secretary of Defense, as I mentioned in earlier statements, Peter Levine, testified before the Armed Services Committee that the Department has done little to take advantage of that legislation. That is his testimony. Therefore, there are only a small number of employees who have completed the 2-year probationary period, and it is too soon to declare it a success or failure.

That is why my amendment would have the GAO give us guidance. How has it worked? Has it helped? Has it hurt? Are there some things we haven't anticipated that we need to address?

The study would also look into whether extending the probationary period has any effect on the ability of an agency to recruit and retain. And, again, I pointed out 40 percent of the existing workforce is eligible for retirement now or in the next few years. That is a huge number of people. And we have got to worry about recruitment.

Gathering the data is a necessary first step, not a last step or an afterthought, before deciding to change a law with such profound impact on Federal agencies. This bill, as I said to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), may yet prove to be a good idea, but we don't know. There remain a lot of questions about the efficacy of this proposal. It is risky, and it can have terrible negative consequences that we haven't even foreseen and some of which we can predict today.

Two weeks ago, this body adopted a policy of evidence-based policymaking, so let's put it into implementation with this bill. Let's look for some evidence, empirical evidence, systematically done to justify the adoption of such a sweeping bill.

Mr. Chairman, I call for the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 material on H.R. 4182.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, highly skilled Federal employees are essential to a government that serves its citizens. Skilled Federal workers ensure that functions of government, from delivering mail to protecting the homeland, are carried out successfully.

Federal jobs and the skills required to perform them vary significantly across government. Some employees review patents, some work in human resources, and others work in law enforcement.

While the jobs, skills, and training required may be different from job to job, the expectation that the Federal Government hires qualified candidates is universal.

One tool agencies and managers have to ensure a qualified workforce is the probationary period--a period of time used to evaluate whether a new hire

can effectively perform the duties of the position.

Under current law, most new hires are required to complete a probationary period of 1 year before receiving full employment status. Most new employees complete the probationary period and are hired as permanent employees.

New employees who fail to demonstrate that they are a good fit for the position, however, are transitioned out of government during the probationary period, but the current 1-year trial period is not sufficient for complex Federal occupations. Potential employees deserve ample time to learn about the job and demonstrate they are able to perform all critical aspects of a Federal position, and supervisors deserve ample time to evaluate new hires.

What is a manager supposed to do in this case? Does the supervisor take a gamble and offer permanent status to an untested employee or risk missing out on a potentially skilled employee? This is a real dilemma. Supervisors throughout the Federal workforce have described this exact scenario in their advocacy for this bill.

According to the Government Managers Coalition, managers tend to err on the side of releasing borderline employees in cases like this, and it can be a very frustrating decision for them to make. They have already devoted a significant amount of time and resources into training the new hire.

However, managers would rather not risk hiring an employee who is on the fence at the end of a probationary period. This is because a manager is pretty much stuck with an employee after the probationary period. It is difficult to remove a permanent employee for poor performance or misconduct.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the procedural hurdles to removing a permanent employee can take from 6 months to 1 year. The evidence is clear, the probationary period needs to be extended.

In 2015, the GAO reported that chief human capital officers throughout the Federal Government would benefit from an extension of the probationary period, especially in occupations which are complex or difficult to assess. Federal manager groups have been asking for a longer probationary period for years.

In congressional testimony earlier this year, the national president of the Federal Managers Association, Renee Johnson said: ``FMA advocates extending the probationary period. This would benefit both the government and employees by allowing supervisors to make decisions based on the employees' performance as fully trained employees--not just guessing at how they will perform after the training is completed.''

The Government Managers Coalition, a group of five organizations that represent the interests of over 200,000 supervisors, managers, and executives serving throughout the Federal Government, supports an extension of the probationary period.

I include in the Record a letter of support from the Government Managers Coalition signed by the heads of the FAA Managers Association, Federal Managers Association, Professional Managers Association, National Council of Social Security Management Associations, and Senior Executives Association; and a letter from the Professional Managers Association.

Government Managers Coalition,

November 29, 2017.

United States Congress,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Government

Managers Coalition (GMC), which is comprised of five major

federal sector professional associations collectively

representing the interests of over 200,000 supervisors,

managers, and executives serving throughout the federal

government.

Our coalition is supportive of H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a

Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017 (the EQUALS Act),

introduced by Representative James Comer. We appreciate Rep.

Comer's efforts to take the lead on this important

legislation and the consideration earlier this month by the

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The GMC has

advocated for an extended probationary period for over a

decade. We encourage you to support the measure when it comes

to the floor later this week.

The EQUALS Act would grant agencies the authority to extend

the probationary period for competitive service appointments

and supervisors. In addition, this legislation would align

appointments under competitive and senior executive service

with the two-year trial period served under excepted service

appointments, bringing consistency to hiring throughout

government.

Extension of the probationary period is supported by a 2015

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, GAO-15-191.

Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) commented to GAO that

often supervisors within federal departments and agencies are

not given sufficient time to accurately review performance

before the probationary period is complete. The CHCO

recommended an extension of the probationary period to the

GAO in order to accurately assess an employee's abilities in

the federal workforce. In addition, Congress has already

approved a two-year probationary period for employees at the

Department of Defense, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), P.L. 114-92.

The GMC's mission is to promote good government initiatives

that foster effectiveness and efficiency throughout the

federal government. We believe that this legislation will

allow employees sufficient time on the job to demonstrate

their abilities as well as allow for proper assessment. The

measure will also ensure that supervisors have the

opportunity and authority to fulfill their performance

management responsibilities that may not be feasible under

the current one-year probationary period.

The current one-year probationary period is often

insufficient to assess an employee's performance in more

technical and complex jobs, of which there are many in the

federal government, and may in fact place an employee at risk

of termination before having had the opportunity to

effectively demonstrate their abilities. The reality is that

many technical jobs require agency classroom training,

mentoring and on-the-job training for employees to become

proficient. Often, the supervisor does not see the employee

during those times, and is unable to observe the employee's

performance. In front-line public service roles, such as with

the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), employees must not only learn

material, but also need to be able to effectively interact

with citizens. The EQUALS Act would ensure that employees are

provided with the opportunity to not only receive training,

but also to effectively demonstrate their abilities.

Extending the probationary period will in no way penalize an

employee who is performing well and progressing in their

training and responsibilities.

The GMC would appreciate your support of this legislation.

In light of ongoing agency reorganization efforts, it is now

more important than ever to ensure federal managers making

personnel decisions have a comprehensive toolset available

that represents both flexibility for agencies and fairness

for affected federal employees. We look forward to passage of

this legislation, as well as other commonsense federal

workforce reform bills resulting in an improved federal

government that can better serve the American public. Should

you require additional information or want to discuss this

issue further, please contact Rachel A. Emmons with the

National Council of Social Security Management Associations

(NCSSMA).

Sincerely,

Andy Taylor,

President, FAA Managers Association.

Renee M. Johnson,

President, Federal Managers Association.

Thomas R. Burger,

Executive Director, Professional Managers Association.

Christopher Detzler,

President, National Council of Social Security, Management

Association.

Bill Valdez,

President, Senior Executives Association.

In the letter, the coalition members write that they have ``advocated for an extended probationary period for over a decade,'' and that this legislation will allow employees sufficient time on the job to demonstrate their abilities as well as allow for proper assessment.

The individuals they represent see the difficulties associated with the current system in their day-to-day lives. They understand the problems associated with the arbitrary nature of the current 1-year probationary period.

The EQUALS Act addresses these problems and moves toward a system better suited for the modern workforce. The bill will extend the probationary period for new hires in the competitive service and initial appointments for managers to 2 years after the completion of formal training or licensure.

The concept of a 2-year probationary period is not new. Congress extended the probationary period for new hires at the Department of Defense to 2 years in 2015. This bill brings the rest of the government in line with the Department of Defense standards. The EQUALS Act also recognizes the variety of positions and training requirements throughout the Federal Government. The EQUALS Act requires the 2-year period to begin upon the conclusion of the formal training or licensure process.

This is important, because under current law, time spent in training counts against the probationary period. This means that a Federal job with long training, by the time a probationary employee completes the training, the supervisor often has little or no time to evaluate the employee's performance.

For example, training for new hires at the Internal Revenue Service takes 1 year. By the time a new IRS employee completes training, the manager has to make a decision whether to keep the employee without having seen the employee do the job.

As Ms. Johnson testified before Congress: ``New employees must often master broad and complex policies and procedures to meet their agencies' missions, necessitating several months of formal training followed by long periods of on-the-job instruction. In occupations where training takes substantial time, supervisors may only have a few months of work to judge employees' performance.''

According to data from the Office of Personnel Management, most formal training programs last less than 1 month. For those positions, the inclusion of formal training in the probationary period does not do any harm.

However, for those positions that have long training periods, the EQUALS Act will make a big difference. The EQUALS Act also helps ensure managers are doing their jobs. Under the bill, agencies must notify supervisors prior to the completion of a probationary period so that the supervisor is reminded to make a decision about a probationary employee.

The bill also requires agencies to certify that an employee has successfully completed a probationary period and to provide justification for that decision.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to make sure we are clear about what the EQUALS Act does and does not do. The EQUALS Act does not remove or change any due process rights for probationary period employees. Probationary employees will still have due process protections. Probationary employees have access to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Office of Special Counsel. Each of those offices are empowered to hear appeals from probationary employees, and that will not change when H.R. 4182 becomes law.

This bill is a much-needed fix to the Federal hiring process. It will allow the Federal Government to select the best and brightest civil servants to serve the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I think it is important to define what the probationary period is and what it is not.

According to the MSPB, the probationary period is the final step in the employee screening process when an individual must demonstrate ``why it is

in the public interest for the government to finalize an appointment to the civil service.''

This is not a punitive measure. It is an opportunity for a prospective employee to prove they are qualified to serve the American people through a position in the civil service. These are critically important jobs and we need the best and brightest to fill them. A longer probationary period gives all new hires time to complete their training, learn on the job, and demonstrate that they can perform the role they were hired to do. This is good for our government, good for Federal employees, and good for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not create an exception for alumni of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service programs. It puts them at a disadvantage.

They would have less time than other new hires to prove themselves before managers make a decision whether to keep them or let them go. This could mean fewer Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service alumni are retained at the end of the probationary period.

Under the current 1-year system, supervisors often do not have enough time to determine whether a potential employee is a good fit for the job. Managers tend to err on the side of releasing an employee who is on the fence at the end of a probationary period.

New hires to the Federal Government deserve ample time to demonstrate they are able to perform all critical aspects of the job. H.R. 4182 gives them more time.

This amendment would actually put certain groups at a disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the Federal workforce. Alumni of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other programs would have 1 year to demonstrate the skills and core competencies required for the

Federal job they are seeking. Their colleagues would have 2 years.

The spirit of this amendment is admirable, but the unintended consequence of adopting it will be that the very people the amendment is meant to benefit would be at a disadvantage.

The probationary period is not a punishment. It is an extension of the hiring process and a tool to help ensure a qualified civil service. This amendment would create additional classes of Federal employees and unnecessarily add complexity to an already complex system.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, extending the probationary period is not a new idea. Federal manager groups have advocated for an extended probationary period for more than a decade.

The Government Accountability Office completed a study on the probationary period in February of 2015. In that study, chief human capital officers told GAO a longer probationary period could help supervisors make a performance assessment for those occupations that are particularly complex or difficult to assess. GAO also recommended considering, ``extending the supervisory probationary period beyond 1 year to include at least 1 full employee appraisal cycle.''

As far back as 2005, the Merit Systems Protection Board completed a study and recommended longer probationary periods when an agency deems it necessary to fully evaluate a probationer. It is not necessary to wait for more studies on this issue.

This amendment strikes the entire bill, meaning the current probationary period would remain the same and the problems that GAO and others have identified would persist. This amendment undermines the entire purpose of the bill, which is to allow managers' employees more time to conduct a fair and complete assessment of probationary Federal employees.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 631 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 631, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3017, Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017; and a structured rule for H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act.

Mr. Speaker, brownfield refers normally to abandoned or closed commercial or industrial properties that may be contaminated because of their prior use. These sites often represent a tremendous amount of untapped economic potential. However, developing that potential is complicated by the presence of hazardous substances or contaminants.

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that there are more than 50,000 brownfields in the United States. The brownfields program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support and has been critical in converting these vacant sites into tax-generating properties and, eventually, well-paying jobs for American citizens.

As of May 1, 2017, the program has assessed 26,722 sites, and they have leveraged over 124,760 jobs. On average, Mr. Speaker, over $16 is leveraged for every EPA brownfields dollar spent, and 8.5 jobs are leveraged per $100,000 of EPA brownfields funds.

States all over the country have benefited from this grant program. In my home State of Wyoming, we put brownfield grants to use in cities like Casper, Cheyenne, Sheridan, Evanston, Kemmerer, Laramie, and Dubois.

Brownfield sites have been revitalized using these funds in places like the Minute Maid Park in Houston, Texas; development in the neighborhoods around Danville, Illinois; and the Grijalva Park at Santiago Creek in Orange, California.

The brownfields program has been expired, Mr. Speaker, since 2006, and it is high time we reauthorize this critically important grant program.

The brownfields program has enabled local communities to clean up and repurpose vacated sites, utilizing them for meaningful economic development, while responsibly cleaning up hazardous sites. This is an important step in maintaining and improving what has been a demonstrably effective program.

Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider today also provides for consideration of a very important bill, H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, which was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

H.R. 3905 requires congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and provides for the renewal of certain mineral leases in those lands.

This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because in the final hours of the Obama administration, the administration withdrew hundreds of thousands of acres in Minnesota from mineral development and improperly terminated two Federal mineral leases.

The effect of this decision halted potential mining projects in Minnesota, robbing the region of 650 direct and 1,300 indirect jobs, as well as the tax revenue the mining operation would bring.

Mining jobs, Mr. Speaker, are good, high-paying jobs. The average mining wage in Minnesota is roughly $25,000 a year higher than the average wage in the State.

Coming from a State where we mine more coal than any State in the Nation, I understand and appreciate the economic development mining projects can bring to a region. We also understand the burden that can be imposed by working with the Federal Government on these projects in Wyoming.

Roughly half my State, Mr. Speaker, is comprised of Federal lands. Receiving the appropriate authorizations to drill or mine on these lands can be a lengthy and cumbersome process that delays projects for many years.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we must improve our Federal regulatory process so we can better harness the vast natural resources we have in our country, while still protecting and conserving our environment.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be clear about exactly what H.R. 3905 does.

H.R. 3905 does not eliminate environmental requirements. In fact, it will only allow mining as long as those strict environmental requirements are met. What it does do is allow Minnesota itself to advance its State and local economies.

I applaud my colleague from Massachusetts' commitment and dedication to working together to try and come up with solutions about things like, for example, funding the government. I will just point out that if Democrats were, in fact, so dedicated to working with Republicans to fund the government and to begin to come to a solution, to come to an agreement, perhaps

their leadership would have shown up yesterday at the White House to have meetings and discussions about funding the government. It is awfully hard to claim that you are very dedicated and committed to that concept if you don't have leaders who show up to the key meetings.

I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has called our bills and our process here ridiculous and extreme.

I can't help but note that what is truly ridiculous and extreme, Mr. Speaker, are the massive increases in ObamaCare premiums that my constituents all across Wyoming are now facing.

My constituents are now facing a situation, because of ObamaCare, because of this health plan that was supposed to provide coverage for everybody, low-cost coverage for everybody, that was supposed to guarantee access, guarantee if you liked your doctor, you could keep him or her, guarantee that you would be able to afford healthcare, my constituents are now facing premiums that will bankrupt them.

They are now receiving bills that demonstrate that their premiums next year, for example, for a retired married couple of two, the lowest amount that they can pay under the ObamaCare Bronze Plan is $2,700 a month. Now, that is absolutely unsustainable, and that is what is ridiculous and extreme.

What we are doing today is making sure that we pass legislation that reauthorizes the important brownfields program that restores rights to the State of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the sponsor of H.R. 3017.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note, in response to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, that if the gentleman's leaders are so fragile that they are scared off by a tweet, then probably they need some new leaders. And I don't suspect that his argument really is they couldn't go to the meeting because they were scared because of a tweet.

We do need to work together to get things done. We are hard at work doing that.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, who oversaw this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a very tough job. They have to argue for policies that have failed and argue for policies that we have actually had to live through the failure of those policies over the last 8 years.

My colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), asked us to imagine if Hillary Clinton were President, and imagine if Barack Obama were President. Mr. Speaker, we don't have to imagine. We lived through Barack Obama's Presidency. We know that we would be, today, living through completely stagnant growth, a strangled military unable to meet its commitments around the world, out-of- control Federal agencies, a Federal Government that believed it had an obligation to run every aspect of people's lives across this country, and, at the same time, the Federal Government telling people that they were forced to purchase insurance they didn't want and they didn't need.

We know that has failed. We know that the whole system that the Democrats believed would work, in terms of bringing healthcare costs down, fundamentally failed. You cannot force people into the insurance pools. The concept was, if you forced the young, healthy people in, you would drop costs down for everybody. That is not what happened.

I have sympathy for them because it is a tough job that they are undertaking, but it is very important that we argue based on the facts on this floor, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the tax bill that I hope will come back from the Senate--the tax bill that we passed out of the House, and one that we will take to conference--reduces taxes for the middle class, reduces taxes for families all across this country, doubles the standard deduction, and takes steps towards making real what we know to be true, which is taxpayer dollars don't belong to the government, Mr. Speaker, taxpayer dollars belong to the American people.

If we allow people to keep more of their own money, they will invest that money, they will grow our economy, and they will create jobs. That is how we are going to get this economy growing and continue the expansion and economic growth that we have seen just since this President came into office.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the sponsor of H.R. 3905.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just, once again, point out that we have important work that we are trying to get done here, we have important work we have got to do on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, elections have consequences, and we have an obligation to do what our constituents sent us here to do, and that includes a whole range of things that we have been very effective at doing, historically effective in this body since January in terms of deregulation, in terms of passing the repeal of ObamaCare, in terms of moving forward on tax cuts in terms of actually passing the legislation to cut taxes, and importantly also, Mr. Speaker, moving forward to provide the resources that our military needs.

We all watched just over the course of the last 24 hours as the North Koreans launched yet again another ICBM. We live in a dangerous world. It is increasingly dangerous, historically dangerous.

Those are the issues that we are focused on as Republicans and as Members of this House. Those are the issues that we need to focus our attention on.

Again, I think we have grown to expect, no matter what the rule is, no matter what the underlying bill is, we are going to hear the same thing from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, not addressing the substance of these issues, not addressing the substance of the things the American people sent us here to do. I am very proud to stand here today doing exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McKinley and Mr. Emmer, for their work on these important bills. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern. I am glad to hear him say that they want to put people first.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing; whether we are talking about our tax bill, which is going to put money back in people's pockets; whether we are talking about repealing and replacing ObamaCare, which we have passed through this House; whether we are talking about defense spending that is going to protect the people of this Nation.

All across Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, I know my constituents are very grateful that we are now suddenly putting people first after years of putting the government first. We are not doing that anymore, Mr. Speaker.

It is true, this is the people's House. And in this House, Mr. Speaker, we ought to always live by and remember the rules of Alexander Hamilton: ``Here, sir, the people govern.''

In this House, Mr. Speaker, we are charged with carrying out the obligations of the people who elected us. The bills and the rule that we are debating today do just that. Both of these bills are absolutely critical for spurring economic development across our country.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and of these underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call up the bill (H.R. 3017) to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to reauthorize and improve the brownfields program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3017.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3017, the Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017. This legislation has broad bipartisan support, and I would like to thank Chairman Walden and Ranking Members Pallone and Tonko.

I would also like to specifically thank a few of my colleagues who have exhibited leadership and commitment on this issue, Congressman David McKinley, my fellow Energy and Commerce Committee member, who introduced this important bill, and my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman John Katko and Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty who guided a similar bill through their committee.

We have been working closely with our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee over these past few months, and the bill that we will vote on today reflects compromise on both sides.

The bill takes a very important step in reauthorizing the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program for the first time since the law was enacted, and so I would like to also thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership and support as we move forward.

The bill we are voting on today makes several important changes to the brownfields law that will result in more contaminated sites being cleaned up and returned to productive use, such as the creation of multipurpose grants, which will allow communities to use grant funds for both assessment and remediation, as well as allow communities to clean up more than one site in a designated area.

The bill also provides liability relief to States and municipalities who voluntarily acquire brownfields property through their authority as a sovereign, which will allow local units of government to address contamination on property they acquire through tax delinquency, bankruptcy, and/or abandonment.

The bill expands grant eligibility for nonprofit organizations and for publicly owned brownfields sites that acquired the property prior to January 11, 2002, which will put more parties into the mix of persons eligible for grant funding, which will result in more sites being assessed and cleaned up.

The legislation increases the limit for remediation grants from $200,000 to $500,000. As we learned from witnesses at our hearings, this will result in more brownfields sites being cleaned up because many of the sites that remain to be addressed are more complicated and, therefore, more expensive.

The bill provides for a limited amount of grant funds to be used for administrative costs, which will allow small and rural communities to be able to receive and utilize grant funds, and it carves out grant money to assist Indian Tribes in small, rural, and disadvantaged communities as they work to assess and clean up contaminated properties.

The EPA brownfields program is critical to States and local communities as they address contaminated industrial and commercial properties and return them to productive use. Cleaning up these sites is great for the economy because brownfields grants can be directly leveraged into jobs, additional redevelopment funds, and increased residential and commercial property values.

In fact, the brownfields program, on average, leverages over $16 in private investment for every Federal dollar spent and leverages 8\1/2\ jobs for every $100,000 of brownfields funds expended on assessment and cleanup.

The brownfields program is a proven results-driven program that has changed the way contaminated property is perceived, addressed, and managed. A visible, national example of the brownfields program at work was the Houston Astros and the Los Angeles Dodgers facing off in game three of the World Series at Minute Maid Park in Houston, Texas. Minute Maid Park sits on a former brownfields site that the city of Houston redeveloped and obviously returned to a very productive reuse, especially for the Astros.

The EPA brownfields program is uniquely positioned to protect the environment and spur the economy. You can tell, from the broad bipartisan support that H.R. 3017 enjoys, the support for the EPA brownfields program is unqualified. The program has strong support from local and State governments, private developers, and all sectors of the economy.

Because brownfields funding is so important to States and local communities across the country, I want to encourage my colleagues on the appropriations committee to fully fund this important and successful program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, November 9, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

I write concerning H.R. 3017, the Brownfields Enhancement,

Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017. This

legislation includes matters that fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure will forego action on the

bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual

understanding that foregoing consideration of the bill does

not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment

of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation

that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, this is conditional on our understanding that

mutually agreed upon changes to the legislation will be

incorporated into the bill prior to floor consideration.

Lastly, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I

request your support for the appointment of conferees from

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure during any

House-Senate conference convened on this or related

legislation.

I would ask that a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest as well as the

mutually agreed upon changes to be incorporated into the bill

be included in the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor, to memorialize our

understanding.

I look forward to working with the Committee on Energy and

Commerce as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), a cosponsor of the legislation and also a major leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), who is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

(Mr. FASO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are voting on today makes several important changes to the brownfields law that will result in more contaminated sites being cleaned up.

The changes we are making also bring more parties into the process by clarifying their eligibility to receive funding under the brownfields program, including making nonprofit entities eligible to receive all forms of brownfields funding.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency provided us technical assistance a week ago, telling us that the definition we used for how to delineate which nonprofit organizations should be included was too limited, and would exclude a number of important organizations that the EPA currently provides funding to through the brownfields program, including the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, commonly known as ASTSWMO, and other entities organized under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code that are involved in the cleanup of brownfields sites around the country.

We need to address this issue as this process moves forward. We need to figure out how to ensure that these organizations do not lose the funding that they rely on to make significant contributions to the brownfields program.

Does the gentleman agree?

I thank the gentleman for his courtesies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am just going to sum up, too, with thanking my ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone; obviously, my ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko; the associated staffs on both that had been mentioned numerous times. They did a lot of work in this process. It was good to get to know the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee a little bit better, and we look forward to working with them more.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the time to the gentleman. They tell me what to do sometimes, also, even on that side of the

aisle; so, happy to yield. I just want to thank them.

Mr. Speaker, everybody has examples of brownfields in their district throughout the State. They are all pretty good stories about returning them to productive use.

I have one produced by the EPA from Danville, Illinois. There are eight sites. We can go through them.

The point is, here is a successful program that we have authorized. Our appropriators helped appropriate money that really leverages a little bit of Federal dollars with private or local community dollars to bring these locations back to productive use. It is a good effort.

Mr. Speaker, we have got other things on the horizon to work together on. I enjoyed the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, I ask them to vote yes on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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