Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is H.R. 1132, the Political Appointee Burrowing Prevention Act, as amended.

I want to thank my friends on the majority for working with us to improve this bill since its consideration by the committee. Because of the improvements we have been able to make, I support moving this bill forward in the legislative process; however, I continue to believe that some further changes may be needed.

The bill would make it very difficult to hire former political appointees into career positions in the Federal Government. It would prohibit hiring a former political appointee into a career position for 2 years after that individual held a political position.

It would also add significant hurdles for agencies seeking to hire an applicant to a career position who separated from a political appointment in the last 5 years. The agency would be required to certify to the Office of Personnel Management that the appointment is ``necessary to the agency's ability to meet its mission.''

There are several controls already in place to ensure that the process used to hire former political appointees into career positions is fair, open, and based on merit. For example, the Office of Personnel Management must ensure, right now, that the appointment process was free from political influence and report the results of its reviews to Congress.

A February 2017 report found that OPM reviewed just 16 requests by agencies to hire former political appointees from October 1, 2016, through January 20, 2017, and did not find any reason to deny any of those requests.

We all want the best people in the Federal service, and there should be no undue favoritism in the hiring process.

In comments on this bill, OPM suggested that certain provisions may conflict with the merit system principles that have formed the basis of the Federal civil service for over a century. That issue should be clarified before this bill becomes enacted into law.

Nonetheless, we support the spirit with which the bill is offered us today, and we have no objections to the legislation in front of us.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do support the bill in the spirit in which this bill is offered. I think we want to make sure we preserve the integrity of the civil service system that we have worked so hard to build in this country, where we build in integrity and we avoid nepotism and favoritism and political connections over merit.

One caveat, though, as I mentioned: once in a while, there may be a political appointee who is the best thing since sliced bread, who brings a level of expertise that we need, and we don't want to make it harder to look at those credentials on their merits. I know that is not the intention of the bill, but it may be one of the unintended consequences, and that is what we want to just make sure we are not doing as we move forward, but with that, I support the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is long overdue and recognizes the internet world in which we live and operate.

This bill would require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to issue a report to Congress on the use of social media checks in background investigations for security clearances.

In recent years, a number of agencies have begun pilot programs to help develop the best methods of incorporating social media into those background checks. For example, the Army initiated a pilot program that found that while checking social media is a

valuable tool, it can be costly and may raise some legal issues.

This bill would require that OPM conduct a comprehensive study on those issues and report back to the Congress. This one-time report would describe the current uses of social media postings for investigative purposes and any legal concerns or impediments that may arise. In addition, the report would summarize the results of any pilot programs on the use of social media conducted to date and provide cost estimates for implementing their widespread use in background investigative processes.

The report would greatly assist Congress, I believe, in determining whether further legislative action is needed when it comes to the Federal Government's use of social media in background investigations.

This bill was approved without opposition by our committee, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, last year, and I certainly commend it to our colleagues today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Lynch for their leadership on what I think is a commonsense measure that will actually improve the process.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we think this is a commonsense bill. I agree with the sentiments just expressed by our friend from Florida that, in today's day and age, we can't not take cognizance of social media, and it can be a useful tool in evaluating someone's security clearance application.

We also understand it could be a tool that is used to invade people's privacy, and we want to avoid that. That is why what this bill does is call for a report looking at all of the legal ramifications and the practicality of utilizing this tool to get to a better outcome in the process of security clearances.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and commend it to our colleagues.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the need for this bill comes into recent focus just today with reports, maybe unconfirmed, that one of the Trump Cabinet members is engaged in a witch hunt against a whistleblower. We need this kind of protection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4043, the Whistleblower Protection Extension Act.

Representative Blum and Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Elijah Cummings introduced this bill to extend the pilot program that requires every inspector general's office to have a liaison dedicated to assisting whistleblowers.

Under this legislation, the whistleblower protection coordinator would help educate agency employees about whistleblower protection laws. This bill would help employees who want to blow the whistle know their rights, and it would put agency management on notice that it is against the law to retaliate against whistleblowers.

This bill would require whistleblower protection coordinators to provide whistleblowers who have suffered retaliation information about options available to them to have their allegations evaluated.

No matter how strong we make our whistleblower protection laws, they will not help if whistleblowers do not know how to exercise their rights under those laws.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan measure to strengthen whistleblower protections. I urge passage of this commonsense bill, this good government bill coming out of our committee. I thank my friend from Iowa for collaborating with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) on this commonsense piece of legislation, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

This is a sad day in the swamp, to eliminate oil paintings of men and women who consider themselves very important, to make sure that taxpayer funds are never used for such a thing; sad day for the swamp in Washington.

One can come to the Capitol and look at oil paintings that bestride every corridor and wall, in hearing rooms here in the Capitol, and not know most of these people. We haven't got a clue who most of them are. We recognize John Adams, but when we go to committee hearing rooms, one or two chairmen past, we often don't know who they are.

I guess it was an attempt to achieve immortality, but it really is an act of ego that is a little embarrassing, even for Washington, D.C.

This is an important bill, a commonsense bill, that brings us all back to Earth; that none of us is expendable and that, frankly, we make our contribution and we move on.

This bill strikes at the uncontrolled egos and, I hope, sends a message to those narcissists among us that they can stay that way if they wish, but the taxpayer is not going to pay for their oil painting.

I thank my friend from Iowa for bringing up the bill. I support the bill, and urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Iowa, with whom I share a dry sense of humor. I will remind him, being Irish, that leprechauns are always on the shoulder, especially this time of year.

Mr. Speaker, I like this bill. I think most taxpayers are going to like this bill. I think it is high time we acted on this kind of improvement and injected a sense of humility and humanity into our enterprise here in the United States Capitol. I urge passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I represent Virginia's 11th District, which has the third largest population of federal employees.

Government shutdowns have a devastating effect on people's lives.

It is shameful that the President and Republicans have inflicted this shutdown on the American public.

This shutdown has created enormous uncertainty and anxiety for families who are trying to be good public servants.

Furloughed federal employees across the country have had to deal with the stress and uncertainty of not knowing when they will be able to return to work, whether they will be paid, and how they will be able to pay their mortgage and provide for their families.

While this three-week continuing resolution ensures back pay for federal employees, it does not address the timing of pay for those who have been furloughed or have had to work without pay for up to three days.

I urge Federal agencies to take the necessary steps to ensure that their employees are made whole on the next regular pay date.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an anti-human trafficking amendment to the World Bank Accountability Act.

The chairman of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies is already required by law to submit to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the President of the United States an annual report on the effectiveness and operations of international financial institutions as well as other goals for development assistance and financing already specified by Congress.

The base text of the World Bank Accountability Act already includes several additions to the chairman's annual report. This amendment would make one addition to that report. The amendment would require the chairman to report on the detailed actions undertaken by the World Bank to institute certain protections for G-5 nonimmigrant visa holders and inform these individuals of the rights afforded to them by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. That legislation was sponsored by my good friend and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman.

G-5 nonimmigrant visas are reserved for foreign domestic employees of diplomats and international organizations, such as the World Bank.

Prior to the enactment of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, these foreign domestic employees had very few protections.

However, the bill enacted several important reforms on how we prevent abuse and trafficking of foreign domestic employees in the United States on G-5 nonimmigrant visas.

The law mandated that all such visa holders have an employer-employee contract that includes, inter alia:

One, an agreement by the employer to abide by all Federal, State, and local laws;

Two, information on the frequency and form of payment, work duties, weekly work hours, holidays, sick days, and vacation days; and

Three, have an agreement by the employer not to withhold the passport, employment contract, or other personal property and documents of the employee.

Among other things, the law also permits these foreign domestic employees to remain legally and work in the United States while seeking legal redress against their employers, as required.

As a Representative for Northern Virginia, I count among the residents of my district many of the hardworking and dedicated employees of the World Bank who work in offices throughout the D.C. metropolitan area. As a result, I also represent the foreign domestic employees of those who work in the World Bank and such institutions. Unfortunately, sometimes, some of these individuals have been subject to abuse by their employers.

Since 2010, there have been at least five Federal civil trafficking cases in the United States involving the World Bank, and a majority of those cases were filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. All of these cases resulted in either a settlement, a default judgment for the plaintiff, or a guilty plea--all of them.

According to the GAO report on household workers for foreign diplomats, ``The people who come to the United States on G-5 visas are among the most vulnerable who enter our borders legally. They are often poor, uneducated, and unfamiliar with their rights under United States law. If they find themselves in an abusive situation, their ability to hold their employers accountable can be limited, particularly if their employers hold full diplomatic immunity and inviolability.''

According to a 2017 survey, 85 percent of domestic worker trafficking survivors report having pay withheld or being paid well below minimum wage, in violation of our own domestic laws. Seventy-eight percent have had employers threaten to report them for deportation if they complained. Sixty-two percent report having their passports or other identification documents taken away or withheld illegally by their employers.

We must empower all individuals who find themselves victims of abuse or human trafficking and provide them with a way out. Too often their plight is obscured by their vulnerability and their susceptibility to these kinds of threats.

I hope this amendment helps shed more light on one corner of this problem and offers victims currently suffering under an abusive employer a way out of the shadows. This is a matter of human decency, human freedom, and a reaffirmation of human autonomy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption. I thank the chairman and his staff and the ranking member and her staff for their cooperation fashioning this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, 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?

Will the gentleman yield?

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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, you can put all the lipstick you want on this pig, and it is still a pig.

Let's be honest, this isn't tax reform. This is a cut on taxes for corporate America, the corporate friends and my friends on the other side of the aisle, and they had to squeeze all kinds of things in to justify it and pay for it. That is why the middle class is going to suffer. That is why their kids in college are going to start losing their ability to deduct interest on student loans, and they are going to pay taxes on waived tuition when they get a teaching assistant position or a benefit from the university.

That is why your local municipalities are going to lose tax exemption for private activity bonds that fund tens of billions of dollars of public improvements all over the United States.

That is why 8.8 million Americans are going to lose the ability to deduct medical costs. Good luck to families who have to put people in nursing homes for long-term care, patients suffering dementia. How will they work that financing out when they lose this deduction, and how will they feel when they know the reason they are losing this deduction is to finance a corporate tax rate?

What about homeowners losing the ability to deduct mortgage interest or to have it capped artificially so corporate America can get the biggest tax cut in history?

And, by the way, they get to continue to deduct State and local taxes and other kinds of financial interest-related expenses, but not you, not you the middle class.

It adds $1.5 trillion, and that is with dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring is another way of saying: We kind of fudged the real number. It is more than that, at least $200 billion more than that.

I thought my friends on the other side of the aisle were fiscal hawks dedicated to making sure we didn't have deficits.

This is an inconsistent bill. This is going to harm middle class America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, and let's start over in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Fairfax County History Commission and to congratulate the recipients of the 2017 Achievement Awards.

The Fairfax County History Commission was established in 1969 to help identify, document, record, and preserve the county's rich historic past. Fairfax County was founded in 1742 by Lord Thomas Fairfax and his cousin, William Fairfax and is celebrating its 275th anniversary. Earlier this year, the current Lord and Lady Fairfax traveled from the United Kingdom to participate in the celebration of this milestone. Each year the Commission bestows awards to local residents or organizations that have contributed to the preservation of our history. It is my honor to include in the Record the names of the following 2017 award recipients:

The 2017 Distinguished Service Award is being presented to Melanie Manikas and Mary Ellen Zavaleta in recognition of their efforts in preserving, researching and maintaining the history of Burke, Virginia by involving the Cherry Run Elementary School fourth grade classes of 2015 in creating, composing and executing a video on this topic. The documentation and preservation of this information in an enlightening and entertaining video will be helpful for historians, students and the general citizenry of Fairfax County for generations to come.

The Nan Netherton Achievement Award is being presented to Nathaniel Lee for his research, documentation, authoring and chronicling of the history of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad in his book, ``The Iron Road of Franconia''. This railroad connected the area of Franconia, Virginia to the remainder of Virginia and Washington. Its existence encouraged connections to multiple areas outside Northern Virginia--allowing the growth of commerce, dissemination of communication and passenger travel to points beyond Fairfax County.

The Mary Fehringer Award is being presented to the Bull Run Civil War Round Table (BRCWRT) for their 25th Silver Anniversary Commemorative Publication. This fine catalogue documents their twenty-five years of educational contributions to Fairfax County and beyond via their monthly, well-attended (100+ guests) meetings. In addition, the Bull Run Civil War Round Table has been host to over 293 lectures and 128 tours, and has assisted in the placement of over 70 historical marker/ kiosk panels, which were supported by BRCWRT or authored by its membership.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in commending the Fairfax County History Commission for their extraordinary efforts to preserve and protect the history of Fairfax County and in congratulating the recipients of the 2017 achievement awards. Their dedication will ensure that the history of Fairfax County is available for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to include in the Record an Op-Ed by Angel Cabrera, president of George Mason University, John J. DeGioia, president of Georgetown University, DeRionne P. Pollard, president of Montgomery College, and Scott Ralls, president of Northern Virginia Community College. I am proud to represent George Mason University and Northern Virginia Community College. This important and eloquent piece, titled ``College presidents: Protect our students, pass the Dream Act,'' was published in the Hill on October 16, 2017:

``One month ago, the lives of 800,000 young people around

our nation were put in jeopardy, with the decision by the

White House to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals (DACA) program. This decision fails to understand

the overwhelmingly positive impact that the DACA program has

had for so many students, and the devastating consequences

that rescinding it will have on them, their families, our

schools, our communities and our country.

We cannot set aside the invaluable contributions of these

students and their passion and commitment to the work of our

colleges and our country.

We cannot forget the impact of their contributions to our

economy--estimated at $460 billion over the next decade.

We cannot ignore the joy they bring to our communities and

the degree to which we are strengthened by their presence.

We believe, as presidents of colleges and universities, it

is imperative that we protect these young people through the

passage of the Dream Act. They have grown up here in America.

They've gone to grade school, middle school and high school

with our children. They are student body presidents, medical

students and doctoral candidates. Some serve in high school

ROTC and volunteer in their churches. Others help single

parents raising younger siblings and tutor their peers as

they prepare for college. They are members of our

communities. They have done all the things we expect of our

young people, and for their efforts so many have been able to

earn places on our college campuses. They want--and deserve--

the chance to continue learning and living in America without

the constant fear of deportation.

We have seen the contributions that these extraordinary

young people make to our campuses and our communities.

Colleges and universities are about opportunity and the

pursuit of each and every student's version of the American

dream. No matter who they are--or where they came from--every

student deserves an equal shot at success. We take

responsibility for fostering academic and social environments

that give every student the means and opportunity to pursue a

better future.

Across our nation, our higher education community is coming

together in support of our Dreamers. This week, the American

Council on Education and colleges and universities around the

country are contributing their voices to a national campaign:

``Higher Education Week'' in support of Protecting Dreamers.

To launch this week, our institutions--which represent public

and private as well as two- and four-year institutions in

Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.--have come together

to reflect on the invaluable presence of these students on

our campuses. Our region has approximately 23,000 DACA

recipients and we know that almost half of all DACA

recipients are in school or pursuing a college degree.

These young people belong here. They have played by our

rules since the day they arrived as minors with their

parents. They have done everything we could expect of them.

They have earned their places on our campuses. They are

poised to contribute to the future of our nation. We have the

capacity, and responsibility, as a nation to provide a

permanent bipartisan legislative solution.

We call upon Congress to pass the bipartisan DREAM Act so

that these talented and hardworking students, brought here as

children by parents who only wished for a better life, are

able to get the shot at success and the American dream that

they so rightfully deserve.''

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with Presidents Cabrera, DeGioia, Pollard, and Ralls. I invite my colleagues to read their thoughtful piece, and I urge them to take its message to heart.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Literacy Council of Northern Virginia (LCNV) and to congratulate the volunteers, instructors, students, community partners, and others who will be recognized at the 2017 LCNV Recognition Celebration.

The mission of LCNV is to teach adults the basic skills of reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English in order to empower them to participate more fully and confidently in their communities. LCNV serves low-literacy and limited English language proficient adults with a selection of low-cost, moderately intensive courses to help them transition into the workforce or other educational opportunities. LCNV provides the crucial first steps of language and literacy learning for workplace, citizenship, and community integration to help adults make measurable improvements in their lives.

Each year LCNV gathers at its Annandale headquarters to recognize students and members of the community who have achieved exceptional milestones. I am proud to include in the Record the following 2017 LCNV honorees.

Community Partnership Awards: Accenture Consulting, Crestwood Elementary School, Paul M. Engell Family Foundation.

Volunteers of the Year: Liz Castillo, Alexandra Roncal, Valerie Sutter.

I would also like to give special recognition to Patricia Donnelly, who is retiring from her role as Executive Director of LCNV after leading the organization for more than 15 years. She has three decades of experience in the nonprofit sector, most of which has been in education and the performing arts. In addition to her role as Executive Director of LCNV, Patti serves on the Board of the Virginia Literacy Foundation, the Virginia Adult and Continuing Education Board and WETA's Community Advisory Council. Her selfless efforts on behalf of others were recognized when she received the 2007 Nancy Jiranek Award for Leadership Excellence in Literacy. Though she may be retiring from her role as Executive Director, I am confident that she will continue to be engaged in our community and in the causes that are dear to her.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Patricia Donnelly for her service to our community and in congratulating each of the honorees of the 2017 LCNV Recognition Celebration. I wish all of them great success in all their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my constituents in celebrating the 100th birthday of Mrs. Thelma Kouzes, a truly remarkable woman and a beloved member of the Northern Virginia community. Mrs. Kouzes was born Thelma Virginia Loss on July 26, 1917 in Audubon, Iowa. She proudly says she is a first-generation American, the daughter of immigrants whose parents came to the United States from Denmark. She grew up in Iowa, was raised by hardworking parents, and experienced the hardships of the Great Depression. She moved to Washington, D.C. in 1938 to work for President Roosevelt's Administration. There she met her late husband Thomas Kouzes--also a first-generation American whose parents came to the U.S. from Greece.

Mrs. Kouzes has led an amazing life. Shortly after she moved to D.C., she experienced culture shock when she attended a segregated religious service. Because of experiences like this she became a proud and passionate civil rights activist. She remained steadfast in her commitment to justice and equality--including marching alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963--even when others in her community criticized her efforts. She was an active member of the

American Field Service, UNICEF, the UN, the American Cancer Society, and American Mothers. She is proud to say that she helped to save the public schools in Virginia during the period of desegregation, along with hundreds of Northern Virginian mothers.

She and her late husband hosted 174 international students from 34 different countries between 1960 and 2004. She also placed more than 400 international students with American families. After her husband died, she continued her devotion to hosting international students.

Mrs. Kouzes was elected the 53rd National Mother by the American Mothers organization, chosen by a jury composed of representatives from local government as well as religious and educational leaders.

These are just a few examples of the many accomplishments of her life.

Mrs. Kouzes has been part of our great American story, lending her voice to the vibrancy of our community and offering her experience and wisdom to those around her. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mrs. Kouzes for her decades of contribution to the Northern Virginia area, and in wishing her a happy and healthy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Asian-American Chamber of Commerce and the recipients of the 2017 Excellence Awards.

The Asian-American Chamber of Commerce (AACC) is dedicated to improving economic development opportunities for Asian Pacific American-owned businesses in the Washington, DC, region. Northern Virginia has a robust international business community and is home to the largest concentration of minority-owned technology firms in the nation.

The AACC and its members contribute greatly to our regional culture as well as to our economic strength and stability. In fact, Asian- American businesses generate more than 52 percent of total revenues generated by all minority owned businesses in this region. In Fairfax County, approximately 25,000 businesses are Asian-owned and generate approximately $9 billion in annual revenue, creating 54,000 jobs.

Each year, the AACC recognizes individuals, businesses and non- profit organizations that have made extraordinary contributions to the Metropolitan Washington community and economy. I am pleased to include in the Record the names of the following recipients of the 2017 Excellence Awards:

Member of the Year: Stephanie Shei.

Business of the Year: University of North America, State Farm.

Young Professional of the Year: Jhenileen Libongco.

Citizen/Company of the Year: Jon Peterson, The Peterson Company.

Non-Profit of the Year: AAPIVote.

Asian-American Business Leader: Dr. James S.C. Chao, The Foremost Group.

New Business of the Year: Logos Briosystems.

Chamber Partner: Central Intelligence Agency, Corner Media, MGM.

Mentorship Award: Dr. Gary Jones, Youth for Tomorrow.

Community Leader: Christina Chang, Chiling Tong.

Entrepreneurship of the Year: Terry Hsaio, Hook Mobile, Inc.

Chairman and President's Award: Haiwen Mackleer, Capital Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the recipients of the 2017 Excellence Awards and in commending the AACC for its work to support all Asian-American owned businesses throughout our region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Annandale Christian Community for Action (ACCA) on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. In 1967, Fred and Emily Ruffing realized that there was a great need for childcare services for low-income and working poor families who did not qualify for subsidized daycare. They decided that they needed to take action to address this problem so they organized a meeting with representatives from eight local churches to set up a day care center and ACCA was born.

Since 1967, ACCA has continued to grow not only in size but in the number of services provided. What began as a group of eight churches 50 years ago has grown to 26 member congregations. ACCA has also partnered with the Fairfax County Department of Neighborhood and Community Services (NCS) and its services and programs as well as the model of faith community and government partnership begun by ACCA has been replicated all throughout Fairfax County.

ACCA gives back to the community in a variety of ways. The Child Development Center (CDC) provides both developmental childcare and early childhood education to over 200 toddlers, preschoolers and infants. The ACCA Pantry collects from churches, schools, community groups and local businesses and delivers food and other necessities on an emergency basis to area households. ACCA's Emergency Assistance program handles financial emergencies such as payment for rent, utilities, prescription drugs, and minor car repairs for low-income families who have few resources to fall back on in a time of crisis.

The 26 partner ministries provide a safety net while the families recover stability. Furniture ministry volunteers collect and distribute gently used furniture to needy recipients, while volunteers from the Transportation ministry provide rides to medical appointments. Meals on Wheels volunteers deliver meals every weekday to elderly residents who cannot fend for themselves. ACCA volunteers also spend a Saturday in April repairing houses--more than 110 homes have been repaired or rehabilitated since 1990. With the exception of the CDC, all of these services are provided by volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the staff and volunteers of ACCA and in congratulating them on this incredible milestone. Civic engagement is the foundation of a healthy community, and Fairfax County residents enjoy an exceptional quality of life due in part to the efforts of these individuals. Their contributions have been a great benefit to our community and truly merit our highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize someone who has had a profound impact on the Northern Virginia community, Ms. Mary Beth Coya. I have been proud to partner with Mary Beth on many issues of importance to the residents of Northern Virginia and the quality of life we enjoy, and I consider her a good friend. This year marks 30 years since Mary Beth Coya began her career with the Northern Virginia Association of Realtors (NVAR), beginning in 1987 as a Legislative Assistant. During her career, she has steadily advanced and currently serves as the Senior Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for NVAR.

Prior to joining NVAR, Mary Beth began her career as a staff member with the Virginia House of Delegates Appropriations Committee in Richmond. From there she took her passion for advocacy to the private sector, where she lobbied at both the state and federal levels for a variety of associations and companies. Throughout her career, Mary Beth has used her knowledge and experience to advocate for policies that would improve the lives of the members of her community. This has perhaps most been felt in the area of transportation, where she serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance (NVTA), a business-citizen coalition focused on advancing highway and transit projects of major importance to the region.

I have worked with Mary Beth and the NVTA on efforts to construct the Silver Line Metrorail extension and the establishment of the Virginia Railway Express commuter rail system. In fact, NVTA was the first private sector organization to call for a dedicated funding source for Metro, which is a goal that I share.

Mary Beth's career with NVAR and her role as a Board Member for the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance are inextricably intertwined. At NVAR, she has been an experienced and expert advocate for the advancement of major legislation in the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was instrumental in obtaining dedicated regional and statewide transportation funding and has a passion for protecting the real estate industry. Due to her strong relationships with elected leaders at all levels of government and her extensive historical knowledge of the region, she has been an effective voice in ensuring that Northern Virginia remains one of the best places in the country in which to live, work, play, and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mary Beth Coya on the occasion of her 30th Anniversary with the Northern Virginia Association of Realtors and in commending her for her dedication to the betterment of our region. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to partner with her and NVAR on numerous issues and I look forward to continuing to work with her going forward.