EQUALS Act of 2017

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 635 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I just had a chance to visit with my colleague from New York. We were talking about, well, the same thing all Members talk about when they get together: those things they have in common, those things that make their day a little bit better, those things they are struggling with that make their day a little bit worse.

I regret that so often we come to the House floor and the debate that we are having seems like we just have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. I am sure it has been your experience. I think you can ask any freshman Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker, ``What is the biggest surprise you have had in your first year in Congress?'' and they will say, ``I am surprised at how hardworking and conscientious and diligent and committed absolutely every single one of my colleagues is, because I was reading in the local paper back home, and it sounded like it was a big cesspool there in Washington, D.C. I am pleasantly surprised at how sincere my colleagues are at working for their 700,000 to 800,000 constituents back home.''

Mr. Speaker, we have two bills that this rule makes in order for debate today, and they are two bills that I will tell you are incredibly well intentioned. I plan to support them. I plan to enthusiastically support them, but they are on issues that are hard in their minutia.

The first bill that is made in order today under a closed rule, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 1699. It is the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. We had testimony in the committee yesterday, and the discussion was how do we protect buyers of manufactured housing from being exploited while still enabling those Americans who don't have other avenues for purchasing housing to get into that most affordable of housing, manufactured housing. We have common goals to protect people and to empower people, but how do we get that done?

This bill was worked through committee. I believe it is a good compromise. We didn't allow any amendments to this. There were no germane amendments presented in committee, so that is coming under a closed rule today.

This rule also would make in order a structured rule for H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017.

Again, Mr. Speaker, when you go and read the headlines, it makes it sound like every discussion on Capitol Hill is among a bunch of partisan hacks. It is just not true.

The civil service, an incredibly important part of American Government, has dedicated men and women who show up every day to institute the laws that you and I pass, to be the interpreters of the bridge between the laws that we pass and the way they hit folks on the ground. We all want those employees to be protected from the swinging pendulum of partisanship.

I don't want a Republican President to get elected and fire all the Democrats serving in government. There are some bright-minded scientists, some great folks in law enforcement, some really talented people in education. I don't want them to lose their jobs because of the partisanship of a President.

Similarly, I don't want to see a Democratic President get elected and fire all the folks who are Republicans. There are some fantastic Republican minds in our Department of Agriculture helping our farmers to succeed, our Department of Labor helping our workers to succeed. You go right on down the list, there are strong men and women helping folks to succeed.

But we are also facing a reality that that same civil service system that seeks to protect those hardworking, those exceptional workers trying to serve America, that same system that works to protect them also protects folks who are completely derelict in their responsibilities.

We had that discussion as a conference, as a House. In fact, in a bicameral discussion, it went to the President's desk for his signature, as it came to the VA, to say: Can't we do more to reform a civil service system, to reform Federal labor union provisions so that folks who need the protection, because they are exceptional, continue to be protected; but those folks who are failing our veterans, that those folks cease to be protected from a system that seeks to require accountability? We passed that together. We did that together here, Mr. Speaker. We sent it to the Senate. They did it together. The President signed it into law.

This Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act does one thing and one thing only: it extends the probationary period of a new civil service worker from the current 1 year to 2 years.

The Department of Defense has done this already, and it has been working exceedingly well for them. The concern is: Have I been able to adequately assess an employee's ability to perform in a 12-month period?

We are committed to trying to train people up, Mr. Speaker. Nobody is trying to run folks out before they have had a chance to learn their job. The question is: Is a year long enough to uncover the flaws in an employee or is 2 years a wider window?

You will hear folks on the other side say: Rob, why in the world can't you all figure out if an employee is talented in year one?

That is fair.

They will say: Rob, if you are going to train somebody up, why couldn't you get it done in year one?

That is fair.

But as the GAO has looked at this issue, what they found is managers aren't getting that done in year one. Whether it is because they are ineffective as managers or whether it is because they keep trying to give people a second chance and get them trained up is an open question. This bill mandates nothing, but it allows this 2-year window so that managers can give their new employees a good first, second, and third look.

The data suggests that once folks get fully protected by the civil service system, it is very difficult to move underperforming employees out. That work should be done during this probationary period. This bill aims to lengthen that probationary period to 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, reasonable men and women can disagree on these measures. I believe they are important steps in the right direction. But what gives me so much pleasure to come to the floor to bring this rule to you today is the earnestness with which these two bills were presented.

These are common challenges: How do we ensure the very best staff for the American people? How do we ensure access to homes and protection for home buyers for the American people? These are sincere concerns, legitimate disagreements.

If we pass this rule today, we will enable a debating period. We will bring these bills to the floor so that we can air our concerns and challenge our assumptions. I hope, at the end of the day, my colleagues will decide to support this rule and to support the two underlying pieces of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to let my colleagues know that this bill passed out of committee by more than a 2-1 margin, a big bipartisan vote out of committee to reform manufactured housing to provide more access.

Mr. Speaker, I don't profess to be an expert on that, so I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), one of my colleagues from the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a good friend and authority on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would share with the gentlewoman from New York that I have no further speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raises a lot of important points. I am absolutely concerned about funding the United States Government, but, sadly, in a way that has become systemic as we talk about who we are as a people, Mr. Speaker, we can either be glasses half full or we can be glasses half empty.

Is it true that the number of days we have left in this continuing resolution are limited?

It is.

Is it also true that this House has fully funded the government ahead of schedule for the first time since the good people of the Seventh District elected me to Congress?

It is.

This House has nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, this House should be shouting it from the rooftops:

The United States Constitution gives the United States

Congress a job to do. The House has done its. Senate, get to

work.

This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that we have been able to fund all the appropriations bills--there are 12 of them--before the end of the fiscal year since I was elected in 2011. The Senate has passed, I believe, zero appropriations bills so far this year.

Mr. Speaker, let's not give anybody a pass on getting the good work done. Let's do hold people accountable, but let's not chastise ourselves and create an atmosphere of failure.

Success begets success. We succeeded together for the first time in a long time. Let's not waste that opportunity to get that bill across the floor of the Senate.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about civil service protections today. There is not a man or a woman in this Chamber who doesn't want the absolute best Federal workforce that we could find; not one.

The question today is: Do we lock you in and give you all of those ironclad protections that every American knows the civil service system offers?

We all know that it is hard to get fired from a government job. We all know that.

Should we extend the probationary period where folks can be monitored, trained up, disciplined, worked with from 1 year to 2 years?

If that gets us a better Federal workforce to serve the American people, the answer should be a unanimous yes.

I say to my friends who oppose this bill: If it doesn't end up in that result, I will vote with you to repeal it. But I believe it will end up with a more highly qualified workforce, that it will end up with an American taxpayer who feels like they are getting their money's worth.

I will tell you the best thing we can do for our civil service employees is to end the narrative that civil service is a place of failure instead of a place of success, it is to end the narrative that substandard people work for the Federal Government as opposed to exceptional people work for the Federal Government.

I represent employees of the CDC in my part of the world, Mr. Speaker. The Centers for Disease Control is second to no one in the intellectual firepower that they assemble to serve the American people. Those men and women put themselves in harm's way to battle those pandemics that scare the bejesus out of the rest of us. They do it as an act of service, and they should be praised for it.

The best thing we can do for them is to make sure folks don't slip through the cracks and they get saddled with a substandard partner. We want them to have access to an exceptional partner. This bill would do that.

Mr. Speaker, as to access to manufactured housing, the bill from my friend from Kentucky, it is absolutely true that every man and woman in this Chamber wants to protect the American consumer from predatory lending. That is undisputed. But as my friend in Kentucky stated, when do we protect someone right out of the opportunity to have a home? In the name of protecting people, when do we fail those very same people?

We had testimony in the committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, presented credit union after credit union after credit union that would no longer loan money to its members to purchase a manufactured home. They wouldn't do it. They couldn't do it.

Talk about predatory lending if you want to; it is not your local credit union that is doing it. Talk about big Wall Street banks exploiting people if you want to; it is not your local credit union who is doing it.

Talk about people who want to build your community; it is your local credit union.

Yet credit union after credit union said: The men and women whom we strive to serve, we will no longer help access the American Dream. We can't. Why? Because of the regulations coming out of Washington, D.C.

Do we want to protect the American consumer? We do, and we can, but we can't protect them right out of home ownership. We shouldn't, yet we have.

Passing this bill today that my friend from Kentucky brings forward corrects that mistake, puts us back on track for protecting consumers and enabling consumers.

Mr. Speaker, you can pick any day of the week on Capitol Hill, and you can find a way to describe everything that goes on as nefarious, as misguided, as contrived. But, Mr. Speaker, you can also look at days on Capitol Hill and see the earnestness with which men and women work together to move this country forward. That is the day we have today. I hope it is the day we have tomorrow and the next day and the next day.

I urge my friends, support this rule. Support bringing this bill to the floor for manufactured housing. Support bringing this bill to the floor to improve the civil service system.

We can do that with a vote right now, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act was enacted in 1994 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act. It is designed to address predatory lending practices in refinancing and home equity loans with high interest rates or fees.

Loans that meet these high-cost triggers are subject to disclosure requirements and limitations on the loan terms. Borrowers are also provided enhanced remedies if it is violated.

Now, the first bill before us, H.R. 1699, would amend the Truth in Lending Act by exempting manufactured home retailers from being defined as mortgage originators. In the process, it would exempt these retailers from important consumer protection rules. That would perpetuate conflicts of interest and restore incentives for these retailers to steer customers into loans with high costs and fees. These are precisely the type of loans that are more profitable for the retailer even though they are bad deals for the customer.

My good friend from Georgia asked what could be wrong with this; how can we protect those customers? I submit: You may not protect those consumers by taking all regulation off for them. Obviously, it was there for a reason, and we will see how it turns out.

Those may seem like arcane changes to existing law, but let me put the issue in better perspective.

According to the Manufactured Housing Institute, 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes today. That is equal to the entire State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, why in the world is the majority prioritizing a bill that would undermine consumer protections for tens of millions of Americans. We know the legislation would create more access to affordable housing. It would only make the incredibly profitable manufacturing housing industry even more money through predatory lending.

Those who rely on manufactured housing as an affordable option deserve the same antipredatory lending standards as every other family. This bill fails that test. In fact, it was written specifically to take the protections away from the housing industry.

The second measure before us today, H.R. 4182, is completely unnecessary. It would extend the probationary period for members of the Senior Executive Service and members of the competitive service from 1 year to 2. That would double the time that new civil servants are essentially at-will employees without any employee protections or due process rights.

There is no evidence to support the need for doubling the probationary period for Federal employees. The bill would simply serve to delay employees' access to worker protection laws that ensure that they are treated fairly on the job. It would also undermine whistleblower rights and prevent them from coming forward.

These are the people who are essential to getting to the bottom of legal violations and waste and fraud in government agencies. Standing up for their rights used to be a bipartisan priority, but the majority is now prioritizing a bill that would undermine their rights and put the integrity of our Federal civil service at risk.

This comes on the heels of the majority bringing a separate bill, H.R. 3441, to the floor recently. That legislation threatened collective bargaining rights for employees and allows employers to evade liability for wage theft or even child labor violations. And just like the bill before us today, it chips away at workers' ability to do their job without retaliation or unfair treatment.

Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here. The majority is bringing bills to the House floor that threaten worker protections while they work to advance a procorporate agenda at the same time.

There is perhaps no bigger giveaway on the agenda right now than their tax bill. Under the guise of so-called reform, the majority on the other side of the Capitol is crafting a tax bill that is nothing but a giveaway to the rich and powerful.

And, please, don't take my word for it. On Monday, The New York Times published a piece entitled: ``Senators Scramble to Advance Tax Bill That Increasingly Rewards Wealthy.'' The very first line of the piece gives away the majority's game plan. It said: ``The Republican tax bill hurtling through Congress is increasingly tilting the United States Tax Code to benefit wealthy Americans. . . .''

I believe that is beyond dispute by now. In fact, I think every major economist and publication have told us that that is exactly what it is. The scam will raise taxes on tens of millions of middle class families in order to hand deficit-exploding giveaways to the wealthy and corporations that ship jobs overseas. In fact, I heard an economist last night, Jared Bernstein, saying that he thinks this bill encourages moving jobs overseas.

The Republican plan eliminates the alternative minimum tax, which is designed to prevent the very rich from gaming the system. And the bill passed by the Chamber eliminates the estate tax, which will benefit the wealthy, certainly--and very few of them, though, are even liable for paying that tax.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, under the Republican plan, persons making $40,000 to $50,000 a year would pay an additional $5.3 billion in taxes, combined, over the next decade. At the same time, those earning $1 million or more a year would see a $5.8 billion tax cut.

Note, please, the similarity of those figures. If that isn't taking money from the poor to give to the rich, I don't know of anything that could describe it any better.

This is the third time America has tried trickle-down theory. It didn't work with President Reagan; it didn't work under President Bush; and, certainly, it did not work in Kansas. There is a word for doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That word is ``insanity.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

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, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, funding for the government expires on December 8. That is 8 days from now. We wonder why we are wasting time on unnecessary bills before us today and running us toward another shutdown.

Let me remind everyone watching here today about the last shutdown in 2013. The majority shut down the government rather than fund the Affordable Care Act, which was then and remains today the law of the land. The shutdown lasted 16 days. In just that short time, it cost our economy an estimated $24 billion. The shutdown cost the government $24 billion.

Federal facilities were not opened. The mom-and-pop stores and little restaurants in Federal buildings all closed. The processing of veterans' disability claims was stalled. Head Start grantees that serve an estimated 6,300 children were forced to close their doors for 9 days until some private philanthropists stepped in. Hundreds of patients were unable to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health.

Ninety-eight percent of the employees at the National Science Foundation, nearly 75 percent of the employees at the National Institutes of Health, and two-thirds of the employees at the Centers for Disease Control were furloughed. That brought new Federal research to a standstill.

An estimated $4 billion in tax refunds were delayed, denying middle class families the money they expected and planned for. Even the National Transportation Safety Board was impacted, unable to investigate 59 plane accidents as swiftly.

Another shutdown will be devastating, but I am afraid that is what we are headed for under the leadership here.

The President recently tweeted that he doesn't see a deal on the horizon. This comes after he tweeted earlier this year that our country needs a ``good shutdown.''

Instead of doing anything about that here today, we are frittering away precious legislative time on bills that are, at best, not urgent and, at worst, completely unnecessary and even damaging.

The greatest Nation on Earth will be struggling to keep the lights on. This is no way to run the United States.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully include in the Record my intended votes for November 28 through December 1, 2017. I was feeling under the weather, and at the advice of my doctor I was told to rest and avoid air travel for the duration of the week.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

H.R. 2768--Fowler and Boskoff Peaks Designation Act (Sponsored by Rep. Scott Tipton/Natural Resources Committee)--This legislation would designate two mountain peaks in the Uncompahgre National Forest in Colorado as ``Fowler Peak'' and ``Boskoff Peak'' in honor of two philanthropists--Charlie Fowler and Christine Boskoff--whom supported athletic schools, women's education, global literacy, and gender equality. They passed away when an avalanche struck while they were attempting to climb Genyen Peak in Tibet in November 2006. Roll no. 638--Yes

H.R. 3115--Superior National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2017 (Sponsored by Rep. Rick Nolan/Natural Resources Committee). This legislation would facilitate a land exchange between the United States Forest Service (USFS) and a private entity--6,650 acres of federal land in the Superior National Forest would be exchanged for 6,690 acres of private land in the same forest. The proposal has been under strict review by the National Environmental Policy Act for seven years, and requires permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Minnesota after the bill's enactment. Roll no. 639--Yes

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 631--Procedural vote on the combined rule providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3017-- Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017, and of the bill, H.R. 3905--Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act. Roll no. 640--Yes

Adoption of H. Res. 631--Procedural vote on the combined rule providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 3017--Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017, and of the bill, H.R. 3905--Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act. Roll no. 641--Yes

Thursday, November 30, 2017

H.Amdt. 487 to H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, Grijalva (D-AZ) Amendment--Increases the royalty rate by 16.66 percent for mineral leases in the Superior National Forest. Roll no. 642--No

Passage of H.R. 3905--Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act (Sponsored by Rep. Tom Emmer/Natural Resources Committee)--This bill restores mineral rights in Minnesota, and opens the permitting process for mining in the state. Roll no. 643--Yes

Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 635--Procedural vote on the combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4182-- Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017 and of the bill H.R. 1699--Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017. Roll no. 644--Yes

Adoption of H. Res. 635--Procedural vote on the combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4182--Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017 and of the bill H.R. 1699--Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017. Roll no. 645--Yes

H.Amdt. 489 to H.R. 4182, Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017, Hastings (D-FL) Amendment--Exempts alumni of the PeaceCorps, AmeriCorps, and other national service programs under the Corporation for National and Community Service from the two-year probationary period. Roll no. 646--No

H.Amdt. 491 to H.R. 4182, Connolly (D-VA) Substitute Amendment-- Strikes the provisions of the bill and replaces it with a study and report by the Comptroller General of the United States. The study and report will be on those agencies that have lengthened the employee probationary period from 1 to 2 years, and any impact of an existing two-year probationary period at the agency. Roll no. 647--No

Passage of H.R. 4182--Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017--This legislation would extend the probationary period for new federal employees (civil service) from one year to two years. The bill addresses the findings from a 2015 GAO report which found that supervisors often do not utilize the probationary period for its intended purpose, and need more time to complete a full assessment of work performance. Roll no. 648--Yes

Passage of H.R. 3017--Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Sponsored by Rep. David McKinley/Energy and Commerce Committee)--This bill reauthorizes the Brownfields Program to provide grants and technical assistance to communities, states, and tribes to assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse contaminated properties. There are more than 450,000 brownfields in the United States, and each of these sites has the potential to encourage economic development with federal assistance. Roll no. 649--Yes

Friday, December 1, 2017

Democrat Motion to Recommit on H.R. 1699--Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017 (Sponsored by Rep. Andy Barr/Financial Services Committee)--Roll no. 650--No

Passage of H.R. 1699--Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017 (Sponsored by Rep. Andy Barr/Financial Services Committee)-- This bill would help low-income families gain access to banks loans to purchase mobile homes. Roll no. 651--Yes

Approval of the Journal Roll no. 652--Yes