[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4334-H4346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS SAFEGUARDS ACT OF 2016


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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 materials on H.R. 4361.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 803 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4361.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1621


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4361) to amend section 3554 of title 44, United States Code, to 
provide for enhanced security of Federal information systems, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page H4335]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here to consider H.R. 4361, the Government 
Reform and Improvement Act of 2016.
  As amended, the bill combines seven good-government bills, each of 
which have been reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform, and I look forward to hearing from some of the bill's sponsors 
as we move this package today.
  Broadly speaking, these bills address three key issues: enhancing 
Federal information technology security, modernizing the Federal 
workforce, and addressing Federal regulatory burdens.
  The first topic, enhancing IT security, is addressed through the 
first title of the bill and is a cause championed by Representative 
Gary Palmer, also the sponsor of the underlying bill that is under 
consideration now.
  Specifically, title I of the bill addresses a Federal Labor Relations 
Authority determination that was based on an incorrect interpretation 
of the Federal Information Security Management Act, or what is widely 
referred to as FISMA.
  The ruling permits Federal employee unions to delay agencies from 
implementing timely and necessary cybersecurity protections, like 
blocking access to potentially dangerous Web sites, until the agencies 
first negotiate with the unions over the changes.
  The second topic, Federal workforce modernization, is covered by 
titles II, III, IV, and V of the legislation.
  Title II includes the text of H.R. 901, a bill introduced by 
Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, and requires the Office 
of Management and Budget to issue guidelines to prohibit access to 
explicit Web sites from Federal Government computers, unless such 
access is necessary for investigative purposes.
  It is kind of ridiculous that we have to legislate this, but it is 
such a pervasive problem in our work on the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee, this is a vital bill that is in that package. We have 
heard numerous examples of this problem. One individual, for instance, 
Mr. Chairman, was at the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
was identified by the inspector general there. This person was watching 
2 to 6 hours per day of explicit material--otherwise known as 
pornography--on the clock and paid for by the American taxpayer.
  Title III includes the text of H.R. 3032, a bill introduced by 
Representative Ken Buck to lengthen the probationary period for Federal 
employees to 2 years after training is completed. Currently, Federal 
employees have a probationary period of just 1 year, which often does 
not give managers sufficient time to evaluate on-the-job performance.
  Title IV includes the text of H.R. 4358, a bill introduced by 
Representative Tim Walberg. It will modernize the Senior Executive 
Service, also known as the SES, the elite administrators within the 
Federal Government.
  Specifically, the bill will increase the probationary period for SES 
members to 2 years and make SES members subject to the same suspension 
authorities for misconduct that are already applied to other civil 
service employees.
  Additionally, agencies will be able to remove SES employees for 
``such cause as would promote the efficiency of the service.'' So what 
we are trying to do is provide more efficiency, and this is an 
appropriate bill.
  Title V includes the text of H.R. 3023, a bill introduced by 
Representative Dennis Ross of Florida to require the Office of 
Personnel Management to release an annual report on the use of official 
time by agencies. Official time is when Federal employees perform 
representational work for a union in lieu of normally assigned work. I 
think it is appropriate that we have some more specificity for Congress 
to understand what is happening here.
  The third topic, addressing regulatory burdens is covered by the 
final two titles of the bill, title VI and title VII. Title VI includes 
the text of H.R. 4612, a bill introduced by Representative Tim Walberg 
of Michigan to prohibit agencies from proposing or finalizing rules in 
the period between the day of a Presidential election and the 
inauguration day of a new President.
  This provision will address a recurring problem where sitting 
Presidents of both parties will rush through the regulations at the end 
of the term which have been come to be known as midnight regulations. 
To counter the problem of midnight regulations, every President since 
Ronald Reagan who has taken over from the opposite party has issued an 
immediate regulatory moratorium to pause the regulatory process until 
it can be reviewed. Rather than forcing incoming Presidents to handle a 
torrent of new regulations advanced by an outgoing President, the bill 
would allow new Presidents to move forward on regulations they deem 
appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, title VII includes the text of H.R. 4921, a bill 
introduced by Representative Mark Walker, also of North Carolina, to 
require the Internal Revenue Service to mirror what the agency requires 
of taxpayers in its own recordkeeping requirements.
  Imagine that--the IRS has to live under the same standards that they 
make the American people live under.
  Specifically, the IRS requires taxpayers to keep their tax year 
information for 3 years after filing. This bill does the same.
  A lot of good bills are wrapped into this package. I urge our Members 
to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which is yet another 
Republican assault on Federal employees and the Obama administration.
  Some Members claim this is a good-government bill. That is simply not 
true. This legislation is a mishmash of several bills that would damage 
employee rights, weaken public health and safety, and do little, if 
anything, to advance government reform.
  Although there are many troublesome provisions, I will focus on the 
more harmful parts of the legislation.
  First, this bill would allow agency heads to fire senior executives 
with little notice. A senior executive would be allowed to appeal an 
agency decision only after removal. The agency decision would be deemed 
final if an administrative law judge failed to issue a decision within 
21 days. This could bind an executive to an agency's decision by 
default rather than by judgment on the merits of his or her case. That 
is simply unfair.
  Almost identical provisions were included in a law enacted in 2014 
affecting the Department of Veterans Affairs. Not surprisingly, they 
are being challenged on constitutional grounds in the Federal circuit 
court of appeals. The Department of Justice has acknowledged some of 
the constitutional infirmities by choosing not to defend some of these 
provisions.
  This bill also would lengthen the probationary period for new 
employees from 1 year to 2 years. By this extended probationary period, 
these workers essentially would be at-will employees. They would have 
minimal due process rights if they are unfairly fired, and they would 
have minimal appeal rights if unwarranted disciplinary action is taken 
against them.

                              {time}  1630

  I understand that this legislation is intended to provide agencies 
with more authority to root out so-called bad apples from the Federal 
workforce. However, I do not believe the solution to getting rid of a 
few bad apples is to attack the due process rights of millions of 
hardworking, dedicated Federal employees who serve the American people 
honorably every single day.
  These provisions would also endanger whistleblowers and make 
employees more vulnerable to retaliation for reporting waste, fraud, 
and abuse. History has shown why these due process protections are so 
necessary.
  I would like to read from a report issued by the Merit Systems 
Protection Board in 2015:
  ``Due process is there for the whistleblower, the employee who 
belongs to the `wrong' political party, the reservist whose periods of 
military service are inconvenient to the boss, the scapegoat, and the 
person who has been misjudged based on faulty information. Due process 
is a constitutional requirement and a small price to pay to ensure the 
American people receive a merit-based civil service rather than a 
corrupt spoils system.''

[[Page H4336]]

  We must remember that Congress put in place these due process 
protections to eliminate this spoils system. Now by trying to move 
Federal employees back to being at-will employees, our Republican 
colleagues would be returning us to that broken and dangerous system.
  Another misguided provision in this bill would block the President 
from finalizing significant regulations during the last months of his 
term, even if those regulations have been in the works for an extended 
period of time. Blocking agencies from finalizing rules they had been 
working on for years just because it is the end of a President's term 
is not good policy and it is certainly not good governing.
  I include in the Record a letter from the American Association for 
Justice, dated February 29, 2016, and a letter from the Coalition for 
Sensible Safeguards, dated March 1, 2016.

                             American Association for Justice,

                                                February 29, 2016.
     Re The Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016 (H.R. 4612).

     Hon. Elijah Cummings,
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Cummings: AAJ urges members of the 
     committee to oppose the Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016 
     (H.R. 4612) which would impose a moratorium on any new 
     proposed or final major regulations during the final months 
     of this and future presidential administrations.
       This misguided bill would jeopardize crucial public 
     protections by blocking regulations based on timing alone. It 
     presumes the regulations which are proposed or finalized 
     during the so-called ``midnight'' rulemaking period are 
     rushed and inadequately vetted. Yet many of the regulations 
     which this moratorium would apply to have been in the 
     regulatory process for years. These regulations were 
     delegated by Congress to agencies in order to protect 
     children from toxic toys, families from tainted food, and 
     consumers from financial exploitation.
       Furthermore, the need to ban such regulations has not been 
     demonstrated. The Administrative Conference of the United 
     States (ACUS) conducted an extensive study of regulations 
     finalized near the end of previous presidential terms and 
     found that found that the majority of the rules are either 
     routine matters or tasks that were initiated before the 
     Presidential transition period or the result of deadlines 
     outside the agency's control (such as year-end statutory or 
     court-ordered deadlines).
       It is also important to consider the varied regulations 
     which could be impacted by this moratorium. One example is 
     the pending Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) 
     regulation on long term care that contains important 
     protections for nursing home residents. This regulation could 
     also offer nursing home residents protection from forced 
     arbitration clauses. This rulemaking is scheduled to be 
     finalized in the fall and has been on the CMS' regulatory 
     agenda for three years. There is no reasonable basis to 
     prevent CMS from implementing important protections for 
     nursing home residents.
       This moratorium could impact a number of meaningful 
     regulations aimed at improving the health, safety and welfare 
     of the American people. Yet the need for such a drastic 
     action is not supported. Under the guise of attacking the 
     regulatory actions of the Obama Administration, this bill 
     guts effective public health and safety measures and should 
     not be tolerated.
       AAJ urges members of the committee to vote no on H.R. 4612, 
     the Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016.
           Sincerely,

                                              Linda A. Lipsen,

                                          Chief Executive Officer,
     American Association for Justice.
                                  ____

                                                     Coalition for


                                          Sensible Safeguards,

                                                    March 1, 2016.
     Re Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016 (H.R. 4612).

     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, House of Representatives, Oversight & Government 
         Reform Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Elijah Cummings,
     Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Oversight & 
         Government Reform Committee, Washington, DC.

       The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), which includes 
     more than 150 diverse labor, consumer, public health, food 
     safety, financial reform, faith, environmental and scientific 
     integrity groups representing millions of Americans, urges 
     members of the committee to oppose the Midnight Rule Relief 
     Act of 2016 (H.R. 4612) which would impose a blanket 
     moratorium on any new proposed or final major regulations 
     during the final months of this and future presidential 
     administrations.
       This bill would jeopardize public protections affecting 
     public health and safety and the environment that often are 
     years, if not decades, in the making. Worse, it would exempt 
     attempts in the final days of an administration, through 
     rulemaking, to ``undo'' or weaken existing regulations.
       The proposed legislation is based on a fatally flawed 
     premise: that regulations proposed or finalized during the 
     so-called ``midnight'' rulemaking period--the period 
     following the election and before the inauguration of the new 
     president--are rushed and inadequately vetted.
       In fact, the very opposite is true. There are currently 
     dozens of public health and safety regulations that have been 
     in the regulatory process for years or decades, including 
     many that date from the Obama Administration's first term or 
     implement laws passed in the first term. Indeed many 
     regulations predate this Administration entirely. Many of 
     these regulations were mandated by Congress and have missed 
     rulemaking deadlines prescribed by Congress. Referring to 
     regulations that have been under consideration by federal 
     agencies for years, and in some instances decades, as 
     ``rushed'' simply is not true.
       A small sampling of long-delayed regulations that could be 
     blocked by this moratorium illustrates the harmful impact of 
     the bill.
       The pending Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
     regulation protecting workers from exposure to the toxic 
     carcinogen silica has been in the regulatory process for 
     nearly twenty years and the current silica standard dates 
     from 1971.
       Critical pipeline safety regulations have yet to be 
     completed under the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, an issue of 
     urgent bipartisan concern given recent pipeline ruptures and 
     leaks.
       The Food and Drug Administration has yet to implement 
     regulations under the 2009 Tobacco Control Act to safeguard 
     the public and particularly young people, from new and 
     potentially dangerous tobacco products such as electronic 
     cigarettes.
       Approximately a quarter of required rulemakings under the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act have yet to be implemented 
     over five and a half years after the law was enacted and 
     nearly eight years since the financial crash. Among those 
     rules are important measures to bring transparency to bank 
     executive compensation and limits on excessive speculation 
     that drive up energy prices for consumers.
       The Interior Department has yet to finalize the ``blowout 
     preventer'' rule that was a primary factor in leading to the 
     massive British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf almost six 
     years ago.
       Prominent administrative law experts have concluded that 
     the concerns regarding these regulations are not borne out by 
     the evidence. For example, in 2012 the Administrative 
     Conference of the United States (ACUS) conducted an extensive 
     study of regulations finalized near the end of previous 
     presidential terms and found that many ``midnight 
     regulations'' either were ``relatively routine matters not 
     implicating new policy initiatives by incumbent 
     administrations,'' or ``the result of finishing tasks that 
     were initiated before the Presidential transition period or 
     the result of deadlines outside the agency's control (such as 
     year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines).'' In the end, 
     ACUS concluded, ``the perception of midnight rulemaking as an 
     unseemly practice is worse than the reality.''
       As the ACUS study points out, there is little to no 
     empirical evidence supporting claims that regulations 
     finalized near the end of presidential terms were rushed or 
     did not involve diligent compliance with mandated rulemaking 
     procedures. In fact, it is likely that compliance with the 
     current and too lengthy regulatory process prevents agencies 
     from finalizing new regulations efficiently, and thus earlier 
     in presidential terms.
       This is because many of the regulations that Congress 
     intended to provide the greatest benefits to the public's 
     health, safety, financial security, and the environment 
     currently take several years, decades in some instances, for 
     agencies to implement due to the extensive and, in many 
     cases, redundant procedural and analytical requirements that 
     comprise the rulemaking process. Indeed, CSS maintains that 
     the inherent inefficiency of the current regulatory process, 
     leading to a broken system of regulatory delays and paralysis 
     across agencies, is the primary area in most of need of 
     urgent attention and reform by this Committee.
       Making matters worse, H.R. 4612 establishes a flagrant and 
     unjustifiable double-standard in the regulatory process by 
     exempting deregulatory rules from the moratorium, thereby 
     prioritizing deregulation over pro-protection measures. The 
     practical effect of this exemption is to ensure that the 
     legislation will only apply to administrations that favor 
     pro-regulatory measures and thus creating a permanent 
     loophole for administrations that favor deregulatory 
     measures. This one-sided application betrays foundational 
     administrative law principles that require regulatory 
     procedural mandates to apply to both deregulatory and pro-
     regulatory actions in a neutral and fair fashion.
       Taking the claims of ``midnight regulation'' critics at 
     face value, there is simply no principled basis for allowing 
     deregulatory measures to be ``rushed'' through the process 
     without ``adequate vetting'' while at the same time 
     preventing agencies finalizing and implementing public 
     protections by falsely claiming that they did not receive 
     adequate consideration.
       This Administration ends on January 20, 2017. It is 
     incumbent on them to do their constitutional duty to 
     implement the laws of Congress until that date.
       CSS urges members of the committee to reject both the 
     Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016 (H.R. 4612) and false and 
     misleading rhetoric that bears no reality to the real

[[Page H4337]]

     problems of excessive and systemic delay in the regulatory 
     process.
           Sincerely,

                                              Robert Weissman,

                                 President, Public Citizen, Chair,
                                Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

  Mr. CUMMINGS. The letter from the American Association from Justice 
states:
  ``This misguided bill would jeopardize crucial public protections by 
blocking regulations based on timing alone. It presumes the regulations 
which are proposed or finalized during the so-called `midnight' 
rulemaking period are rushed and inadequately vetted. Yet many of the 
regulations which this moratorium would apply to have been in the 
regulatory process for years.''
  Contrary to what our Republican colleagues may believe, the President 
is a President until January 20, 2017, according to the Constitution. 
Just as the Republicans are wrong for blocking the President's Supreme 
Court nominee in his last year of his term, this provision is also 
wrong, it is awfully wrong, for attempting to curtail the authority of 
a President of the United States to protect the interests of the 
American people.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4361.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Palmer), the sponsor of the bill under consideration 
today.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government's most important 
responsibility is to protect this Nation and our citizens, particularly 
when it comes to defending against cyber attacks.
  In June and July of last year, 2015, the Office of Personnel 
Management announced the largest government data breach in history. The 
personally identifiable information of over 22 million Americans was 
compromised, including background investigation and fingerprint data.
  The national security impact of the OPM data breach will resonate for 
decades.
  Under the Federal Information Security Management Act, or FISMA, the 
head of each agency is responsible for securing its information systems 
from unauthorized access and other threats posed to our Nation's 
security and economic vitality.
  But under a mistaken interpretation of FISMA, the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority determined Federal employee unions can block 
agencies from taking action to implement cybersecurity protections 
against direct risks until the agencies first negotiate on them.
  Mr. Chairman, the security of Americans' data is nonnegotiable and 
should not be eligible for bargaining. Securing hundreds of millions of 
Americans' data and millions of Federal employees' data is more 
important than the convenience of a few Federal employees in using 
government computer systems for personal use.
  This bill ensures that the head of a Federal agency does not just 
have the responsibility to swiftly secure the agency's networks, but 
also has the authority to do so, and without having to go through 
collective bargaining.
  The next time a Federal agency acts in the interest of securing 
Americans' data, the head of the agency should be confident the action 
will not be challenged because the agency did not engage in bargaining 
over cybersecurity.
  I believe this is an important step that we can take to empower 
Federal agencies to act quickly to secure agency networks and protect 
Americans from cyber attacks.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member from 
Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to another attempt by 
Republicans to undermine due process protections, prevent the President 
from finalizing rules during his last months in office, and override 
collective bargaining rights for Federal employees.
  In fact, this bill, H.R. 4361, eliminates the ability of agencies to 
issue rules toward the end of a President's term, assuming some kind of 
shoddy rulemaking to finalize a rule before a President's term is up. 
This kind of assumption is wrong. There is nothing shoddy going on. The 
Administrative Conference of the United States found most end-of-term 
rules related to routine matters or were issued in response to 
deadlines outside of the agency's control.
  This is nothing more than another effort to reverse the will of the 
American people when they reelected President Obama in 2012 by 
impairing the ability of our government to function in the last months 
of his term.
  Additionally, H.R. 4361 is like Christmas in July for those opposed 
to the labor rights of our fellow Americans, including anti-family 
provisions and provisions of dubious constitutionality.
  Specifically, this bill exempts from collective bargaining 
requirements any action taken by an agency head to limit, restrict, or 
prohibit access to a Web site that the agency head determines presents 
a security risk to the agency's IT systems.
  In practice, this would erode collective bargaining rights by 
excluding ``any impact or implementation'' of such an action from 
collective bargaining requirements, such as reasonable accommodations 
to allow an employee to communicate with family members or schools.
  H.R. 4361 also subjects the members of our Senior Executive Service 
to the political whims of Presidents by stripping them of their ability 
to appeal their termination after a decision by an administrative law 
judge.
  The Department of Justice has declined to defend the 
constitutionality of similar provisions before the court of appeals for 
the Federal circuit.
  H.R. 4361 should have no place in our American laws. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to keep it that way.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who has been integral in making this bill a 
reality. I thank him for his hard work in championing these efforts.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what bill my friends on the other side 
are talking about, but I am glad to be talking about a great bill that 
my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), has introduced. I 
appreciate his work on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to 
craft H.R. 4361, the Government Reform and Improvement Act of 2016. It 
includes a series of good government reforms that will provide more 
accountability and transparency to Federal bureaucracy that is sorely 
lacking each.
  I am proud the legislation includes two of my bills: the Senior 
Executive Service Accountability Act and the Midnight Rule Relief Act. 
The Senior Executive Service Accountability Act brings much-needed 
reform and gives agencies commonsense tools to hold senior leaders more 
accountable for their taxpayer-funded work.
  Specifically, the bill ensures employee performance is measured, 
eliminates loopholes that allow reprimanded officials from keeping 
perks like executive pay, and expedites the removal process for 
individuals who have been found to have engaged in misconduct.
  To be clear, there are many in the Federal workforce, including 
senior executives, who are hardworking public servants. We thank them 
for their hard work. However, as we have seen repeatedly in hearings 
before our committee, there are also bad actors who have grossly abused 
their position, and the Senior Executive Service Accountability Act is 
an important step towards holding these bad actors accountable and 
restoring public trust.

  The underlying bill also contains the Midnight Rule Relief Act. It 
establishes a moratorium period between the Presidential election and 
the inauguration on regulations that result in major costs or price 
increases for consumers and small businesses.
  Pushing costly regulations at the last minute has been an issue with 
previous administrations of both political parties. The Midnight Rule 
Relief Act will hold the current and future outgoing administrations in 
check to ensure small businesses in Michigan and across the country 
aren't faced with a surprise onslaught of excessive regulations that 
stifle wages, job creation, and economic growth.
  I want to, again, commend the work of Mr. Palmer and the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee for

[[Page H4338]]

their great work to ensure a more accountable and transparent Federal 
Government.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4361.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Cummings.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4361.
  Clearly, my colleagues on the other side have good intentions, but 
they need to be informed and corrected and understanding. I served 30 
years as a Federal employee. During that time, I served as an EEO 
investigator. I looked at actions that were made against Federal 
employees that were not in compliance. I understand the undue burden 
that this legislation will put on Federal workers and labor 
organizations. H.R. 4361 combines proposals attacking Federal employees 
with regulatory measures, many of which hinder the performance of one 
of our Nation's largest workforces.
  When we considered this legislation in committee, I offered an 
amendment to strike the provisions in title III of H.R. 3023, and 
require each employing agency to make an affirmative decision in 
writing near the end of an employee's probationary period stating that 
the individual's performance is acceptable, which the Office of 
Personnel Management considers a best practice in managing the 
performance of employees.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of debating legislation that would undermine 
due process provisions, we should be looking at how we can protect our 
citizens through commonsense gun control legislation and maintain 
access to affordable health care for all Americans.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Walker), who has poured his heart and soul into 
this. I am glad that he is participating and joining us here today.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. WALKER. I thank the chairman, and I thank my distinguished 
colleague from Alabama for working so diligently on this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 4921, the Ditto Act. 
The Ditto Act is not just about ensuring that the Internal Revenue 
Service properly maintains its records; it is also about holding the 
government and the powerful to the same standards to which they hold 
American citizens.
  This bill states that, if the IRS requires American citizens to 
maintain their tax records, then the IRS also has to maintain any 
record for at least 3 years.
  Currently, the IRS requests or recommends American citizens maintain 
certain records or tax information for the ``just in case.'' 
Essentially, the IRS says that American citizens have to hold on to 
their information for years at a time in the event that the IRS may 
request information to audit us, to investigate us, or to take some 
similar action. However, current investigations and congressional 
hearings show that the IRS does not hold itself to the same standards, 
and it does not properly maintain its own records.
  This unequal enforcement of the law is part of a bigger problem. 
Continued and recent events, as we have seen recently, point to the 
fact that government agencies, such as the IRS, attempt to play by 
different rules than the rest of us.
  The Ditto Act is another step in ensuring that government bureaucrats 
are held to the same standards as all Americans. If the IRS insists 
that we maintain our records, then the IRS should have to play by the 
same rules and be held similarly accountable for the same information.
  That is why I have introduced this simple piece of legislation. This 
bill provides a level playing field. It tells American citizens that 
their government is operating under the same set of rules that it 
requires all of us to operate under. I hope my colleagues will join me 
in supporting this effort.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4361, which is 
yet another Republican attack on the Federal workforce and labor 
organizations.
  This bill is, essentially, an attempt to micromanage the government. 
The bill is a collection of measures that undermine due process 
protections, that prevent the Obama administration from finalizing 
rules during its last 2 months in office, and that override collective 
bargaining rights for Federal employees.
  The bill would bar most regulations from being finalized by, 
virtually, every Federal department or agency during the last 2 months 
of the Obama administration, regardless of when they were proposed or 
how long they have been in the rulemaking process. Additionally, H.R. 
4361 exempts from civil service collective bargaining requirements any 
agency action limiting access to any Web site the agency determines 
presents a current or a possible future security weakness to its 
information systems.
  The bill's language is unnecessary because current law already 
authorizes Federal agencies to ``ensure that all personnel are held 
accountable for complying with the agency-wide information security 
program.''
  In practice, this provision could allow agencies to cut off Federal 
employees' ability to communicate with childcare providers or to get 
information on a weather emergency in the event of their children's 
schools closing early, with there being no opportunity to negotiate 
alternative arrangements. The provision could also be selectively 
invoked to block access to the official Web sites of Federal unions.
  Under current law, there is no right to bargain over the substance of 
agency information systems decisions, only over appropriate 
arrangements in the event that those decisions create an adverse impact 
on employees. In addition, agencies can take any action without 
bargaining in advance if there is an emergency. Agencies currently have 
broad authority in this area, making any additional limitation on 
employees' ability to have a voice in their working environments 
unnecessary.
  Further burdening Federal workers, H.R. 4361 would extend the 
probationary period for newly hired General Schedule employees from 1 
year to 2 years. For positions requiring formal training, the 2-year 
time period would only commence after the required formal training. 
This is unnecessary as the current 1-year probationary period allows 
sufficient time for agency management to assess and determine whether 
an employee is suitable for most positions and is capable of performing 
his duties.
  In the Statement of Administration Policy, the President's senior 
advisers stated that they would recommend he veto this bill.
  As I said before, this bill is, essentially, an attempt to 
micromanage the government, which is not this body's purpose, and we 
should get on with the business of what Congress is supposed to do.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  Mr. BUCK. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Chair, our Federal Government relies on the contributions of 
civil servants to run Federal agencies and to faithfully execute our 
laws. We place significant responsibility into the hands of these 
executive branch employees. Others still are placed in senior 
management roles where the impacts of their performance and competency 
are felt throughout the agencies and by those citizens who interact 
with them. We expect Federal employees to run the government 
efficiently and fairly; so we should treat them the same way. That is 
what this bill does.
  When a typical employee is hired for the civil service, he begins in 
a probationary period, during which time the employee can be relieved 
of his duties if he fails to perform well. After the probationary 
period, the employee receives greater protection from being fired, even 
if he is underperforming. This bill extends the probationary period of 
employees in both the competitive civil service and the Senior 
Executive Service from 1 year to 2 years. If the employee requires 
training or licensing, the probationary period begins when training and 
licensing are complete.
  This extended probationary period gives us time to assess the skills 
of government employees. If an employee

[[Page H4339]]

isn't up to the task he or she has been assigned, it is unfair to 
everyone else who is working hard or competently in that agency to 
retain the underperforming individual. Moreover, the morale of Federal 
agencies depends on their having strong teams with strong employees. 
Anyone who has run an office knows that one bad apple can drag the 
whole team down.
  That is why this bill is so important. We need strong teams working 
in the Federal Government, and our current Federal employees deserve 
competent team members. Only then will our bureaucracy be more 
efficient and better able to serve the American taxpayer, because, 
ultimately, taxpayers pay the salaries of our Federal employees. For 
the sake of the taxpayer, we must create a culture of accountability 
and fairness in our Federal hiring practices.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. I commend my colleague from Alabama for 
introducing this legislation, which contains a number of bills from the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 4361 contains several excellent provisions to 
increase transparency, to enhance oversight, and to restore good 
governance.
  One of the areas of particular importance to me is the language that 
requires the Office of Personnel Management to submit to Congress 
reports on the use of ``official time'' by Federal employees.
  For those who are unfamiliar with official time, it is the practice 
by which Federal employees are paid by taxpayers to conduct union 
business, while on the clock, instead of performing the normal 
activities and duties of the agencies for which they work. Official 
time allows Federal employees who are with the unions to collectively 
bargain with their agencies, to arbitrate grievances, and to even 
organize or carry out internal union activities, all while being paid 
by the taxpayer.
  It is staggering to me how much official time is used. Over 3 million 
man-hours each year are spent on activities that have nothing to do 
with government business. From 1998 to 2012, which is the last period 
of time that we have of reliable data, the use of official time has 
grown by over a million man-hours per year while the number of Federal 
employees who are represented by unions has actually decreased during 
that period of time.
  In fact, there are several Federal agencies that have many employees 
who do nothing but union activity business in spite of the fact that 
they were hired for something else. For example, the VA and the IRS 
have over 200 employees each who operate exclusively on official time. 
Many of these employees are extremely well paid. The Department of 
Transportation, for example, has 35 employees with an average salary of 
$138,000 who give 100 percent of their time to union activity rather 
than to that for which they were hired.
  For a point of reference, Mr. Chair, the mean household income in my 
district is, approximately, $62,000 a year. Official time, essentially, 
means that American taxpayers are being forced to subsidize the union 
activities of Federal employees. Federal employee union members pay 
union dues, and the taxpayers should not be required to foot the bill.
  There is an unfortunate lack of reporting on this issue, and it is, 
ultimately, unclear exactly how much official time is being used by 
Federal employees. Here in Congress, we are sometimes forced to rely 
upon year-old GAO reports and existing FOIA requests.
  That is why the OPM reporting that is required under this legislation 
is critical. Personally, I am opposed to official time altogether, but 
at least we can agree that reporting is necessary for all of us.
  I urge the support of H.R. 4361.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. I thank my colleague from Alabama for this legislation and 
for this opportunity.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4361, the Government Reform and 
Improvement Act of 2016, and in support of my legislation that is 
included in this package, which requires the Office of Personnel 
Management to submit an annual report to Congress that details the use 
of official time by Federal employees.
  ``Official time'' is defined as any period of time that is used by a 
Federal employee to perform representational or consultative functions 
and during which the employee would otherwise be in a duty status. 
Essentially, this allows Federal employees to perform union activities 
during their official workdays.
  As the former chair of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor 
Policy, I learned firsthand that OPM has very little accountability for 
the use of official time. In fact, the OPM last reported about the use 
of official time in the year 2012, which was 4 years ago.
  My bill would require the OPM to submit a detailed report annually to 
Congress on the use of official time by Federal employees, outlining 
specific types of activities or purposes for which this time was 
granted. For example, in 2012, Federal employees spent, roughly, 3.4 
million hours conducting union business while on duty. This came at a 
cost of $157 million to the taxpayer. The taxpayers have a vested right 
to know.
  At a time when our country is more than $19 trillion in debt, we need 
to ensure that we are better accounting for the use of taxpayer 
dollars. This legislation will bring greater transparency to the 
activities union officials are conducting while being paid by the 
American taxpayer.
  I thank Chairman Chaffetz and my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. 
Hice) for their support on the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the chairman so very much.
  To the manager of the bill on the floor, my good friend who is 
representing the majority, I think not one of us can cite an example in 
which a Federal employee is not engaged in serving this Nation.
  Mr. Chair, over the last couple of months, our focus has been on the 
Transportation Security Officers. As I traveled back to Washington and 
as I interacted with my constituents, many were concerned about airport 
travel and the enhancement of security. I saw TSO officers--government 
workers--on the front lines. We see them all the time as they serve 
this Nation--from homeland security to, certainly, those who are 
working in the health areas now as we face the epidemic of Zika.
  In many places, Federal employees stand in the gap by serving us. We 
look forward to bright young people who are graduating from college and 
who are seeking service in the Federal army, if you will, of civilian 
workers who serve their Nation.
  I can only say that this legislation, H.R. 4361, disappoints me, 
because, first of all, title III would double the probationary period 
for Federal employees, unlike in the private sector, from 1 to 2 years. 
Federal employees would be at will. They wouldn't have benefits, and 
they wouldn't be protected. That is not, certainly, an enticing 
recruitment for young, bright college graduates.
  Another form of the lack of due process is in title IV, which would 
allow senior agency executives to be removed, almost immediately, with 
their having only minimal appeal rights. Executives would have only 7 
days to file appeals.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, what are we saying to those who we call upon for the 
front lines of serving in America--our EPA employees, our Forest 
Rangers, they are all over--we are saying that that kind of experience 
is to be discarded. It sadly disturbs me.
  Lastly, I have never heard of this. I sit on the Judiciary Committee, 
and I wonder how title VI would reduce, in the end of a President's 
term, his or her right to be able to argue for regulations that would 
enhance the American people.

[[Page H4340]]

  Let me say to you that we are facing another uphill battle because 
right now we are trying to pass no fly, no buy and to close the 
loophole to save lives. It is interesting how we are dealing with a 
bill that takes away due process rights, but yet we cannot find a 
compromise, whose opposition is based upon we are denying an individual 
due process.
  Well, I tell you I am looking forward to us being able to vote on the 
gun legislation of no fly, no buy. I know it very well because I had a 
no fly for foreign terrorists. We work on these issues in Homeland 
Security.
  So if I look at an employment bill that is taking away due process 
rights, I am asking for us to come back, give them their rights by not 
supporting this legislation and, as well, giving our rights to the 
minority to vote on legitimate bills that will save lives; no fly, no 
buy, and closing the gun show loophole. I have seen the blood, the 
death that has come about from gun violence. It is time to vote to save 
lives.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
lady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it is a mystery to me why we would want to 
move forward with this bill. I will have amendments to strike portions 
of this bill later. I just want to speak to a couple of the reasons.
  The extension of the probationary period, for example, may not raise 
constitutional issues. A GAO report was done and indicated that the 
problem was not with length of the probationary period, but with the 
use of the probationary period; that supervisors simply weren't using 
it, and that many of them didn't even know when the probationary period 
ends.
  So why would we want to lengthen the probationary period?
  I am not sure who that helps. Does it help the employee or does it 
help the agency?
  In any case, depending, as I do, on an objective source, this section 
is unnecessary.
  To cite another section, the termination of an employee in the SES is 
an absolutely bad way to deal with somebody who is not making it as a 
manager, but was good enough to be promoted to the SES. We have 
invested millions of dollars in an employee by the time that employee 
gets to be a top SES employee and gets promoted to manager. It won't be 
the first time that somebody has been an excellent employee, but when 
he got to managing whole divisions, he was not good.
  Why get rid of that employee instead of demoting that employee, as is 
now done?
  Finally, this bill is replete with due process problems. For example, 
it expedites the removal and appeals process and takes it away entirely 
in some instances. This bill reeks of constitutional infirmities. It 
should not be passed.
  You will find Members on our side who want to sit down and improve 
the process and are ready to do so.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) aware that I have no further speakers and I am 
prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how unnecessary, 
damaging, and constitutionally defective this legislation is.
  You know, as Ms. Jackson Lee was speaking, Mr. Chairman, I could not 
help but think about a young lady that I met at NIH a few years ago 
when the government was shut down. I was talking to her, and I was 
asking her about her job. And one of the things she said was that she 
was very, very upset.
  And I said: ``Well, are you upset that you are going to possibly lose 
money? Or are you upset that you are going to have problems?''
  She said: ``No, I am not so upset about losing my job because I can 
always find a job.'' She said: ``The thing I am upset about is that if 
the government shuts down, that means that there are all kinds of 
research that is going to be stopped and we won't be able to see the 
breakthroughs that I thought we would be able to see.''
  My point is that there are so many Federal employees, just like the 
ones who work for us, who come to work every day and they have 
dedicated their lives to giving to the public. In other words, it is 
about the business of feeding their souls.
  So often what happens, I have noticed, is we have a way of not 
treating them right all the time. And I have been a fierce defender of 
the public employee and the Federal employee because I realize that 
they are the backbone of this Nation.
  Yet, when we look at the negative consequences of this legislation, 
they are truly terrible. The bill would reduce due process protections 
for new Federal employees and senior executives, enable whistleblower 
retaliation. And whistleblower retaliation is something that our 
committee has fought and tried to make clear that we would not tolerate 
under any circumstances, and I am pleased to say that that has always 
been something that both sides of the aisle has been adamant about, and 
we should be.
  This legislation would bar the President from issuing rules to 
protect health and safety during his last months in office. Whether it 
was President Obama or any other President, I want our President to 
serve out every second of his term and I want him or her to be able to 
accomplish the things that the American people elected them to do right 
down to the very last second.
  Another thing that it does, it erodes collective bargaining rights. 
It requires duplicative and burdensome reporting by the Office of 
Personnel Management and agencies. It imposes unnecessary guidelines 
regarding computer usage. And it requires the IRS to establish an 
arbitrary recordkeeping system.
  I would like to remind our colleagues that the Federal circuit court 
of appeals is reviewing the constitutionality of nearly identical 
provisions in the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act 
enacted in 2014. And the Department of Justice has decided not to 
defend the constitutionality of some of these provisions before the 
Federal circuit court.
  Before I conclude, I want to underscore my disapproval of this bill's 
unjustified interference with President Obama's authority to issue 
regulations that are critical to ensuring the safety of the American 
people.
  I would like to quote from a March 1, 2016, letter sent to the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee in opposition to title 6, and 
it says:
  ``Taking the claims of `midnight regulation' critics at face value, 
there is simply no principled basis for allowing deregulatory measures 
to be rushed through the process without `adequate vetting' while at 
the same time preventing agencies finalizing and implementing public 
protections by falsely claiming that they did not receive adequate 
consideration. This Administration ends on January 20, 2017. It is 
incumbent upon them to do their constitutional duty to implement the 
laws of the Congress until that date.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. 
First of all, I thank my colleagues who have spoken in support of this 
legislation and say that this is sensible and responsible legislation 
to increase Federal agencies' ability to protect their data systems 
and, thus, increase the protections offered every Federal employee.
  This bill also increases accountability for Federal employees, and it 
requires the IRS to adhere to the same recordkeeping requirements that 
it imposes on every taxpayer.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill would end the practice of subjecting 
Americans to a barrage of regulations imposed by an outgoing 
administration that can no longer be held accountable.
  I urge adoption of the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, printed in the bill, 
it shall be in order to consider as an

[[Page H4341]]

original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 114-59. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4361

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Government 
     Reform and Improvement Act of 2016''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS SAFEGUARDS

Sec. 101. Agency discretion to secure information technology and 
              information systems.

            TITLE II--ELIMINATING PORNOGRAPHY FROM AGENCIES

Sec. 201. Prohibition on accessing pornographic web sites from federal 
              computers.

    TITLE III--EXTENSION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR CAREER EMPLOYEES

Sec. 301. Extension of probationary period for positions within the 
              competitive service.
Sec. 302. Appeals from adverse actions.

           TITLE IV--SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 401. Biennial justification of Senior Executive Service positions.
Sec. 402. Extension of probationary period for career appointees.
Sec. 403. Modification of pay retention for career appointees removed 
              for under performance.
Sec. 404. Advanced establishment of performance requirements under 
              Senior Executive Service performance appraisal systems.
Sec. 405. Amendments with respect to adverse actions against career 
              appointees.
Sec. 406. Mandatory leave for career appointees subject to removal.
Sec. 407. Expedited removal of career appointees for performance or 
              misconduct.
Sec. 408. Mandatory reassignment of career appointees.

                  TITLE V--OPM REPORT ON OFFICIAL TIME

Sec. 501. Reporting requirement.

                     TITLE VI--MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF

Sec. 601. Moratorium on midnight rules.
Sec. 602. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, and judicial 
              deadlines.
Sec. 603. Exception.
Sec. 604. Judicial review.
Sec. 605. Definitions.

               TITLE VII--REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN RECORDS

Sec. 701. Requirement to maintain records.

            TITLE I--FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS SAFEGUARDS

     SEC. 101. AGENCY DISCRETION TO SECURE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
                   AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out section 3554 of title 44, 
     United States Code, any action taken by the head of an agency 
     that is necessary to limit, restrict, or prohibit access to 
     any website the head of the agency determines to present a 
     current or future security weakness or risk to the 
     information technology or information system under the 
     control of the agency, and any impact or implementation of 
     such action, shall not be subject to chapter 71 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``agency'' and ``information system'' have 
     the meanings given the terms in section 3502 of title 44, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``information technology'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 3552 of title 44, United States 
     Code.

            TITLE II--ELIMINATING PORNOGRAPHY FROM AGENCIES

     SEC. 201. PROHIBITION ON ACCESSING PORNOGRAPHIC WEB SITES 
                   FROM FEDERAL COMPUTERS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall issue guidelines that prohibit the access of a 
     pornographic or other explicit web site from a Federal 
     computer.
       (b) Exception.--The prohibition described in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to any Federal computer that is used for an 
     investigative purpose that requires accessing a pornographic 
     web site.

    TITLE III--EXTENSION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR CAREER EMPLOYEES

     SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR POSITIONS 
                   WITHIN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3321 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The President'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the 
     President'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the length of 
     a probationary period established under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of subsection (a) shall be--
       ``(A) with respect to any position that requires formal 
     training, a period of 2 years beginning on the date that such 
     formal training is completed;
       ``(B) with respect to any position that requires a license, 
     a period of 2 years beginning on the date that such license 
     is granted; and
       ``(C) with respect to any position not covered by 
     subparagraph (A) or (B), not less than 2 years.
       ``(2) The length of a probationary period established under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) in the case of a 
     preference eligible shall be not longer than--
       ``(A) if the appointment (as referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1)) or the initial appointment (as referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2)) is to a position that exists on the 
     effective date of this subsection, the length of the 
     probationary period which applies to such position as of such 
     effective date; or
       ``(B) if the appointment (as referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1)) or the initial appointment (as referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2)) is to a position that does not exist on 
     the effective date of this subsection, such length of time as 
     the President may establish, consistent with the purposes of 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(3) In paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) the term `formal training' means, with respect to any 
     position, a training program required by law, rule, or 
     regulation, or otherwise required by the employing agency, to 
     be completed by the employee before the employee is able to 
     successfully execute the duties of the applicable position; 
     and
       ``(B) the term `license' means a license, certification, or 
     other grant of permission to engage in a particular activity.
       ``(d) The head of each agency shall, in the administration 
     of this section, take appropriate measures to ensure that--
       ``(1) any announcement of a vacant position within such 
     agency and any offer of appointment made to any individual 
     with respect to any such position shall clearly state the 
     terms and conditions of the probationary period applicable to 
     such position;
       ``(2) any individual who is required to complete a 
     probationary period under this section shall receive timely 
     notice of the performance and other requirements which must 
     be met in order to successfully complete the probationary 
     period; and
       ``(3) upon successful completion of a probationary period 
     under this section, certification to that effect shall be 
     made, supported by a brief statement of the basis for that 
     certification, in such form and manner as the President may 
     by regulation prescribe.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 3321(e) of title 5, 
     United States Code (as so redesignated by subsection (a)(2)) 
     is amended by striking ``Subsections (a) and (b)'' and 
     inserting ``Subsections (a) through (d)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section--
       (1) shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; and
       (2) shall apply in the case of any appointment (as referred 
     to in section 3321(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code) and 
     any initial appointment (as referred to in section 3321(a)(2) 
     of such title) taking effect on or after the date on which 
     this section takes effect.

     SEC. 302. APPEALS FROM ADVERSE ACTIONS.

       (a) Subchapter I of Chapter 75 of Title 5.--Section 7501(1) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1 year'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``not less than 2 years''; and
       (2) by striking ``1 year'' the second place it appears and 
     inserting ``2 years''.
       (b) Subchapter II of Chapter 75 of Title 5.--Section 
     7511(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``1 year'' the 
     first place it appears and inserting ``not less than 2 
     years''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``2 years'' the 
     first place it appears and inserting ``not less than 2 
     years''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b)--
       (1) shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; and
       (2) shall apply in the case of any individual whose period 
     of continuous service (as referred to in the provision of law 
     amended by paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b), as the 
     case may be) commences on or after the date on which this 
     section takes effect.

           TITLE IV--SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 401. BIENNIAL JUSTIFICATION OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE 
                   POSITIONS.

       Section 3133(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``positions'' the following: ``, 
     with a justification for each position (by title and 
     organizational location) and the specific result expected 
     from each position, including the impact of such result on 
     the agency mission,''.

     SEC. 402. EXTENSION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR CAREER 
                   APPOINTEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3393(d) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``1-year'' and inserting ``2-
     year''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3592(a)(1) of such title 
     is amended by striking ``1-year'' and inserting ``2-year''.

     SEC. 403. MODIFICATION OF PAY RETENTION FOR CAREER APPOINTEES 
                   REMOVED FOR UNDER PERFORMANCE.

       Section 3594(c)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B)(i) any career appointee placed under subsection (a) 
     or (b)(2) of this section shall be entitled to receive basic 
     pay at the highest of--

[[Page H4342]]

       ``(I) the rate of basic pay in effect for the position in 
     which placed;
       ``(II) the rate of basic pay in effect at the time of the 
     placement for the position the career appointee held in the 
     civil service immediately before being appointed to the 
     Senior Executive Service; or
       ``(III) the rate of basic pay in effect for the career 
     appointee immediately before being placed under subsection 
     (a) or (b) of this section; and
       ``(ii) any career appointee placed under subsection (b)(1) 
     of this section shall be entitled to receive basic pay at the 
     rate of basic pay in effect for the position in which placed; 
     and''.

     SEC. 404. ADVANCED ESTABLISHMENT OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 
                   UNDER SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE PERFORMANCE 
                   APPRAISAL SYSTEMS.

       Section 4312(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``on or'' and inserting ``not later than 30 
     calendar days''; and
       (2) by inserting ``in writing'' after ``communicated''.

     SEC. 405. AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ADVERSE ACTIONS AGAINST 
                   CAREER APPOINTEES.

       (a) Suspension for 14 Days or Less for Senior Executive 
     Service Employee.--Paragraph (1) of Section 7501 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) `employee' means--
       ``(A) an individual in the competitive service who is not 
     serving a probationary period or trial period under an 
     initial appointment or who has completed 1 year of current 
     continuous employment in the same or similar positions under 
     other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less; 
     or
       ``(B) a career appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
     who--
       ``(i) has completed the probationary period prescribed 
     under section 3393(d); or
       ``(ii) was covered by the provisions of subchapter II of 
     this chapter immediately before appointment to the Senior 
     Executive Service; and''.
       (b) Modification of Cause and Procedure for Suspension and 
     Termination.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7543 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``misconduct,'' and 
     inserting ``such cause as would promote the efficiency of the 
     service, misconduct,''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``30'' and inserting 
     ``15''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Subchapter V of chapter 35 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 3593--
       (i) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``misconduct,'' and 
     inserting ``such cause as would promote the efficiency of the 
     service, misconduct,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``misconduct,'' and 
     inserting ``such cause as would promote the efficiency of the 
     service, misconduct,''; and
       (B) in section 3594(a), by striking ``misconduct,'' and 
     inserting ``such cause as would promote the efficiency of the 
     service, misconduct,''.

     SEC. 406. MANDATORY LEAVE FOR CAREER APPOINTEES SUBJECT TO 
                   REMOVAL.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 63 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 6330. Mandatory leave for Senior Executive Service 
       career appointees subject to removal

       ``(a) In this section--
       ``(1) the term `employee' means an employee (as that term 
     is defined in section 7541(1)) who has received written 
     notice of removal from the civil service under subchapter V 
     of chapter 75; and
       ``(2) the term `mandatory leave' means, with respect to an 
     employee, an absence with pay but without duty during which 
     such employee--
       ``(A) shall be charged accrued annual leave for the period 
     of such absence; and
       ``(B) may not accrue any annual leave under section 6303 
     for the period of such absence.
       ``(b) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management, an agency may place an employee on 
     mandatory leave for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, 
     or such cause as would promote the efficiency of the service.
       ``(c) If an agency determines that an employee should be 
     placed on mandatory leave under subsection (b), such leave 
     shall begin no earlier than the date on which the employee 
     received written notice of a removal under subchapter V of 
     chapter 75.
       ``(d) If a final order or decision is issued in favor of 
     such employee with respect to removal under subchapter V of 
     chapter 75 by the agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board, 
     or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit, any annual leave that is charged to an employee by 
     operation of this section shall be restored to the applicable 
     leave account of such employee.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 
     63 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 6328 the following new item:

``6330. Mandatory leave for Senior Executive Service career appointees 
              subject to removal.''.

       (c) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations with respect 
     to the leave provided by the amendment in subsection (a).

     SEC. 407. EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF CAREER APPOINTEES FOR 
                   PERFORMANCE OR MISCONDUCT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

      ``SUBCHAPTER VI--SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE: EXPEDITED REMOVAL

     ``Sec. 7551. Definitions

       ``In this subchapter--
       ``(1) the term `employee' has the meaning given such term 
     in section 7541(1), but does not include any career appointee 
     in the Senior Executive Service within the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; and
       ``(2) the term `misconduct' includes neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or 
     to accompany a position in a transfer of function.

     ``Sec. 7552. Actions covered

       ``This subchapter applies to a removal from the civil 
     service or a transfer from the Senior Executive Service, but 
     does not apply to an action initiated under section 1215, to 
     a removal under section 3592 or 3595, to a suspension under 
     section 7503, to a suspension or removal under section 7532, 
     to a suspension or removal under section 7542, or to a 
     suspension or removal under section 713 of title 38.

     ``Sec. 7553. Cause and procedure

       ``(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management, the head of an agency may remove an 
     employee of the agency from the Senior Executive Service if 
     the head determines that the performance or misconduct of the 
     individual warrants such removal. If the head so removes such 
     an individual, the head may--
       ``(A) remove the individual from the civil service; or
       ``(B) in the case of an employee described in paragraph 
     (2), transfer the employee from the Senior Executive Service 
     to a General Schedule position at any grade of the General 
     Schedule for which the employee is qualified and that the 
     head determines is appropriate.
       ``(2) An employee described in this paragraph is an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) previously occupied a permanent position within the 
     competitive service;
       ``(B) previously occupied a permanent position within the 
     excepted service; or
       ``(C) prior to employment as a career appointee at the 
     agency, did not occupy any position within the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(3) An employee against whom an action is proposed under 
     paragraph (1) is entitled to 5 days' advance written notice.
       ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including section 3594, any employee transferred to a General 
     Schedule position under subsection (a)(1)(B) shall, beginning 
     on the date of such transfer, receive the annual rate of pay 
     applicable to such position.
       ``(2) An employee so transferred may not be placed on 
     administrative leave or any other category of paid leave 
     during the period during which an appeal (if any) under this 
     section is ongoing, and may only receive pay if the 
     individual reports for duty. If an employee so transferred 
     does not report for duty, such employee shall not receive pay 
     or other benefits pursuant to section 7554(e).
       ``(c) Not later than 30 days after removing or transferring 
     an employee under subsection (a), the applicable head of the 
     agency shall submit to Congress notice in writing of such 
     removal or transfer and the reason for such removal or 
     transfer.
       ``(d) Section 3592(b)(1) does not apply to an action to 
     remove or transfer an employee under this section.
       ``(e) Subject to the requirements of section 7554, an 
     employee may appeal a removal or transfer under subsection 
     (a) to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701, 
     but only if such appeal is made not later than seven days 
     after the date of such removal or transfer.

     ``Sec. 7554. Expedited review of appeal

       ``(a) Upon receipt of an appeal under section 7553(d), the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board shall refer such appeal to an 
     administrative judge pursuant to section 7701(b)(1). The 
     administrative judge shall--
       ``(1) expedite any such appeal under such section; and
       ``(2) in any such case, issue a decision not later than 21 
     days after the date of the appeal.
       ``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 
     section 7703, the decision of an administrative judge under 
     subsection (a) shall be final and shall not be subject to any 
     further appeal.
       ``(c) In any case in which the administrative judge cannot 
     issue a decision in accordance with the 21-day requirement 
     under subsection (a)(2), the removal or transfer is final. In 
     such a case, the Merit Systems Protection Board shall, within 
     14 days after the date that such removal or transfer is 
     final, submit to Congress a report that explains the reasons 
     why a decision was not issued in accordance with such 
     requirement.
       ``(d) The Merit Systems Protection Board or administrative 
     judge may not stay any removal or transfer under this 
     section.
       ``(e) During the period beginning on the date on which an 
     employee appeals a removal from the civil service under 
     section 7553(d) and ending on the date that the 
     administrative judge issues a final decision on such appeal, 
     such employee may not receive any pay, awards, bonuses, 
     incentives, allowances, differentials, student loan 
     repayments, special payments, or benefits.''.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter VI of chapter 75 of title 5, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not 
     apply to any personnel action against a career appointee (as 
     that term is defined in section 3132(a)(4) of title 5, United

[[Page H4343]]

     States Code) that was commenced before the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Relation to other authorities.--The authority provided 
     by such subchapter is in addition to the authority provided 
     under section 3592 or subchapter V of chapter 75 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Title 5.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 3592(b)(2)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) any removal under subchapter VI of this title or 
     section 713 of title 38.'';
       (B) in section 3393(g), by striking ``1215,, 3592, 3595, 
     7532, or 7543 of this title'' and inserting ``1215, 3592, 
     3595, 7532, 7543, or 7553 of this title or section 713 of 
     title 38''; and
       (C) in section 7542, by striking ``or to a removal under 
     section 3592 or 3595 of this title'' and inserting ``to a 
     removal under section 3592 or 3595 of this title, to a 
     suspension under section 7503, to a removal or transfer under 
     section 7553, or a removal or transfer under section 713 of 
     title 38''.
       (2) Title 38.--Section 713(f)(1) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``or subchapter V'' and 
     inserting ``, chapter 43, or subchapters V and VI''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 7543 the 
     following:

      ``subchapter vi--senior executive service: expedited removal

       ``7551. Definitions.
       ``7552. Actions covered.
       ``7553. Cause and procedure.
       ``7554. Expedited review of appeal.''.

     SEC. 408. MANDATORY REASSIGNMENT OF CAREER APPOINTEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3395(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) Consistent with the requirements of paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), at least once every five years beginning on the date 
     that a career appointee is initially appointed to the Senior 
     Executive Service, each career appointee at an agency shall 
     be reassigned to another Senior Executive Service position at 
     the agency at a different geographic location that does not 
     include the supervision of the same agency personnel or 
     programs.
       ``(B) The head of an agency may waive the requirement under 
     subparagraph (A) for any career appointee if the head submits 
     notice of the waiver and an explanation of the reasons for 
     the waiver to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3395(a)(1)(A) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``paragraph 
     (2)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

                  TITLE V--OPM REPORT ON OFFICIAL TIME

     SEC. 501. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 7131 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1)(A) Not later than March 31 of each calendar year, 
     the Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the 
     Office of Management and Budget, shall submit to each House 
     of Congress a report on the operation of this section during 
     the fiscal year last ending before the start of such calendar 
     year.
       ``(B) Not later than December 31 of each calendar year, 
     each agency (as defined by section 7103(a)(3)) shall furnish 
     to the Office of Personnel Management the information which 
     such Office requires, with respect to such agency, for 
     purposes of the report which is next due under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(2) Each report by the Office of Personnel Management 
     under this subsection shall include, with respect to the 
     fiscal year described in paragraph (1)(A), at least the 
     following information:
       ``(A) The total amount of official time granted to 
     employees.
       ``(B) The average amount of official time expended per 
     bargaining unit employee.
       ``(C) The specific types of activities or purposes for 
     which official time was granted, and the impact which the 
     granting of such official time for such activities or 
     purposes had on agency operations.
       ``(D) The total number of employees to whom official time 
     was granted, and, of that total, the number who were not 
     engaged in any activities or purposes except activities or 
     purposes involving the use of official time.
       ``(E) The total amount of compensation (including fringe 
     benefits) afforded to employees in connection with activities 
     or purposes for which they were granted official time.
       ``(F) A description of any room or space designated at the 
     agency (or its subcomponent) where official time activities 
     will be conducted, including the square footage of any such 
     room or space.
       ``(3) All information included in a report by the Office of 
     Personnel Management under this subsection with respect to a 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) shall be shown both agency-by-agency and for all 
     agencies; and
       ``(B) shall be accompanied by the corresponding information 
     (submitted by the Office in its report under this subsection) 
     for the fiscal year before the fiscal year to which such 
     report pertains, together with appropriate comparisons and 
     analyses.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `official 
     time' means any period of time, regardless of agency 
     nomenclature--
       ``(A) which may be granted to an employee under this 
     chapter (including a collective bargaining agreement entered 
     into under this chapter) to perform representational or 
     consultative functions; and
       ``(B) during which the employee would otherwise be in a 
     duty status.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective beginning with the report which, under the 
     provisions of such amendment, is first required to be 
     submitted by the Office of Personnel Management to each House 
     of Congress by a date which occurs at least 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

                     TITLE VI--MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF

     SEC. 601. MORATORIUM ON MIDNIGHT RULES.

       Except as provided under sections 603 and 604, during the 
     moratorium period, an agency may not propose or adopt any 
     midnight rule unless the Administrator finds the midnight 
     rule will not result in any of the following:
       (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more.
       (2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
     agencies, or geographic regions.
       (3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
     wages, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
       (4) A significant economic impact on a substantial number 
     of small entities.

     SEC. 602. SPECIAL RULE ON STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND JUDICIAL 
                   DEADLINES.

       (a) In General.--Section 602 shall not apply with respect 
     to any midnight rule required by statute, other regulation, 
     or judicial order to be proposed or adopted by a deadline 
     that--
       (1) was established before the beginning of the moratorium 
     period; and
       (2) occurs during the moratorium period.
       (b) Publication of Deadlines.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the beginning of a moratorium period, the Administrator shall 
     identify and publish in the Federal Register a list of 
     midnight rules covered by subsection (a).

     SEC. 603. EXCEPTION.

       (a) Emergency Exception.--Section 602 shall not apply to a 
     midnight rule if the President determines by Executive order 
     that the midnight rule is--
       (1) necessary because of an emergency;
       (2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
       (3) necessary for the national security of the United 
     States; or
       (4) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 
     international trade agreement.
       (b) Deregulatory Exception.--Section 602 shall not apply to 
     a midnight rule that the Administrator finds is limited to 
     repealing an existing rule and certifies such finding in 
     writing. The certification shall be published in the Federal 
     Register.

     SEC. 604. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       Any person or entity subject to the any midnight rule 
     promulgated in violation of this title is entitled to 
     judicial review.

     SEC. 605. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except 
     such term does not include--
       (A) the Federal Election Commission;
       (B) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
       (C) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; or
       (D) the United States Postal Service.
       (3) Deadline.--The term ``deadline'' means any date certain 
     for fulfilling any obligation or exercising any authority 
     established by or under any Federal statute or rule, or by or 
     under any court order implementing any Federal statute, 
     regulation, or rule.
       (4) Emergency.--The term ``emergency'' means a declaration 
     by the President of a state of emergency.
       (5) Midnight rule.--The term ``midnight rule'' means a rule 
     proposed or adopted during the moratorium period.
       (6) Moratorium period.--The term ``moratorium period'' 
     means the day after the day referred to in section 1 of title 
     3, United States Code, through January 20 of the following 
     year, in which a President is not serving a consecutive term.
       (7) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (8) Small entity.--The term ``small entity'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``small business'' under section 601 
     of title 5, United States Code.

               TITLE VII--REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN RECORDS

     SEC. 701. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN RECORDS.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 31 of title 44, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3108. Requirement to maintain records

       ``(a) In General.--If the Internal Revenue Service obtains 
     a preserved record, the Internal Revenue Service shall 
     preserve for not less than 3 years from the date on which the 
     record was obtained--
       ``(1) the preserved record or a copy of the preserved 
     record; and
       ``(2) all records related to the preserved record.

[[Page H4344]]

       ``(b) Preserved Record Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `preserved record' means any record that is maintained by a 
     person other than the Federal Government pursuant to a rule, 
     guidance, or other directive from the Internal Revenue 
     Service that requires or recommends the person maintain 
     records for a particular period of time on a particular 
     matter.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed as--
       ``(1) limiting the preservation of a preserved record for a 
     longer period of time than is required by this section; or
       ``(2) shortening the period of time a preserved record is 
     otherwise required to be maintained.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 31 of title 44, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3108. Requirement to maintain records.''.

       (c) Effective Date; Applicability.--The amendments made by 
     this section shall take effect as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to any 
     preserved record (as such term is defined in section 3108(b) 
     of title 44, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)) 
     obtained on or after the effective date.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the House Report 
114-666. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed 
in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Palmer

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-666.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 25, line 4, strike ``sections 603 and 604'' and insert 
     ``sections 602 and 603''.
       Page 25, line 22, strike ``Section 602'' and insert 
     ``Section 601''.
       Page 26, line 9, strike ``Section 602'' and insert 
     ``Section 601''.
       Page 26, line 19, strike ``Section 602'' and insert 
     ``Section 601''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes technical changes to 
the bill to reflect the text of H.R. 4612, the Midnight Rule Relief Act 
of 2016, as it was reported out of committee.
  Mr. Chairman, my manager's amendment simply makes a few technical and 
conforming changes to this important legislation. The amendment 
corrects a technical error in the language of title VI, and it also 
fixes references to several other sections within the bill, to reflect 
the obvious intent of the bill text.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the Palmer amendment and 
find that it only makes technical changes to the bill, so I will not 
oppose it. However, it does nothing to improve the bill, which I will 
continue to oppose.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. POSEY

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-666.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, after line 13, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Information Security Protocol.--An agency employee 
     acting in the official capacity of the employee (other than 
     the head of the agency) may not establish, operate, maintain, 
     or otherwise permit the use of information technology that is 
     not certified by the appropriate Federal entity responsible 
     for information security within the agency (either the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of 
     the agency, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Chief 
     Information Officer of the agency, as applicable) as in 
     compliance with the established information security 
     policies, procedures, and programs.
       Page 2, line 14, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.


             Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Posey

  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2 
in House Report 114-666 be modified by the form I have placed at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Posey:

       Page 1, line 3, strike ``(other than the head of the 
     agency)''.
       Page 1, beginning on line 6, strike ``within the agency''.

  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a genuine opportunity 
for us to learn from the failures of former executive officials.
  This amendment will codify a practice of security, accountability, 
and good government, which is already a policy at many of our Federal 
agencies today.
  Quite simply, it will prohibit Federal employees from using private, 
unsecure email servers to conduct official government business in the 
future. This would ensure that the time and taxpayer money invested in 
the security of sensitive information will not be undermined by 
carelessness or misunderstandings.
  By passing this amendment, we will significantly improve the security 
of our government IT.
  It only takes one individual, one click of the mouse, on an insecure 
or unsecure system, to open the door to bad actors who seek to harm our 
Nation. By restricting the use of unsecure IT systems, we will empower 
Federal employees to hold each other accountable and take special care 
to conduct official business responsibly.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment but do not oppose it, as modified by Representative Posey.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, it is not clear what this amendment does or 
what it is intended to do. I agree that there should be accountability 
for IT security, but we have had no hearings or other discussion on 
this issue. The Federal Information Security Management Act already 
ensures that senior agency personnel take responsibility for ensuring 
the agency systems are secure.
  Unfortunately, the amendment does nothing to address the larger 
underlying problem with the bill, which would simply trample on Federal 
employees' due process protections and block the President from issuing 
critical regulatory protections at the end of his term.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, it is vital that the former Secretary of 
State's use of an unsecure email server does not send a message to 
other Federal employees that this is acceptable, that this manner of 
handling sensitive information and conducting government business is 
appropriate. We cannot let another top executive completely trample the 
trust of the American people and potentially endanger American lives by 
mishandling sensitive intelligence.
  This amendment is really simple. It is a responsible step towards 
protecting

[[Page H4345]]

Federal IT systems and ensuring Americans of the transparency and 
security that they want and that they deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Norton

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-666.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 402, 405(b), 406, 407, and 408.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would strike sections 402, 405(b), 406, 407, and 408. 
While some reforms to the Senior Executive Service may well be 
necessary, these sections go too far because they roll back significant 
due process rights for Federal employees and raise potential 
constitutional issues.
  Section 402, which lengthens the probationary period for SES 
employees from 1 year to 2 years, is unnecessary. There is no evidence 
to indicate that such a provision will help agencies deal with poor 
performers in the workplace. In fact, a Federal 2015 GAO report found 
that agencies are already using probationary periods but could be using 
them more effectively. Of the 3,500 Federal employees who were 
dismissed in 2013, the majority were dismissed during the probationary 
period. Instead of extending this period, we should be looking at ways 
to improve its use by agencies and increasing congressional oversight 
to ensure that the Federal workforce is operating at its best.
  Section 405(b) is similarly problematic. This section would allow an 
agency to remove an SES employee from civil service entirely for poor 
performance. Under current law, poor-performing employees, instead, are 
initially downgraded to a GS position, a level at which they could 
perform very well. Even if they were poor performers at the SES level, 
they would not have been promoted in the first place if they had not 
achieved good records, but may not be good managers. This section also 
shortens the notice period from 30 days to 15, making it extremely 
difficult for affected employees to exercise their due process rights.
  Section 406 represents a serious constitutional issue by giving 
agencies the authority to place an SES employee on mandatory leave, 
forcing these employees to use their own accrued leave. This violates 
basic constitutional principles, as it is likely a taking of a vested 
property right or it is a suspension that triggers due process rights. 
This mandatory leave provision has little chance of withstanding 
constitutional scrutiny and should be struck.
  Section 407 further represents an attack on Federal employees' due 
process rights. This provision expedites the removal and appeals 
process and adopts provisions of other Federal law that is currently 
being challenged in the Federal circuit.
  In a Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to this bill, 
the White House has said that the President will veto it if it comes 
across his desk, at least in part because this section ``would raise 
significant constitutional concerns under the Appointments Clause and 
the Due Process Clause.'' It is unlikely that this section could 
withstand constitutional scrutiny and also should be struck now.
  Section 408 requires reassignment of SES employees to different 
geographical locations, which is arbitrary, inflexible, and ignores the 
needs of individual agencies. This provision is unnecessary, given that 
the President signed an executive order in November 2015 that would 
strengthen the Senior Executive Service by requiring agency heads to 
develop a 2-year plan for increasing the mobility of SES employees.
  We may need reform legislation to deal with poor performers, Mr. 
Chairman, but we cannot do so by rolling back due process rights and 
protections for Federal employees who, unlike private employees, are 
protected by the Constitution of the United States. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the proposed 
amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Her amendment would eliminate provisions in the Government Reform and 
Improvement Act that deal with holding members of the Senior Executive 
Service, or SES, accountable.
  For example, the amendment would strike section 402 of the bill, 
which extends the probationary period for individuals appointed to the 
SES from 1 to 2 years. Extending the probationary period allows Federal 
agencies to ensure that senior executives they hire are suitable for 
the job they hold. After the probationary period ends, it becomes much 
harder to remove an SES employee not suited for the position. It is in 
the best interests of the American people that the members of the SES 
be fully vetted before their appointments become final.
  I should also note that section 1105 of the FY 2016 National Defense 
Authorization Act established a 2-year probationary period for new 
civilian hires at the Department of Defense. This good government 
reform is already in place at one of the largest Federal agencies, and 
we should extend it to the rest of the Federal Government as well.
  The amendment in question would also strip provisions that allow SES 
appointees to be removed for such cause as would promote the efficiency 
of the service and to be suspended without pay for less than 2 weeks 
for misconduct. These rules already apply to the vast majority of the 
Federal civil service, and they should apply to SES appointees as well.
  In addition, the gentlewoman's amendment would eliminate a portion of 
the bill that gives agency heads authority to place on mandatory annual 
leave SES appointees facing removal for misconduct and prohibits the 
accumulation of additional leave during this period. It would also 
eliminate a provision that gives agency heads the authority to seek 
removal or transfer of senior executives based on poor performance or 
misconduct, and that would provide an expedited appeal process for the 
aggrieved employee.
  The American people deserve an accountable Senior Executive Service 
that plays by the same rules as other Federal civil service workers. 
They also deserve an SES staffed with highly qualified employees who 
can be efficient and effective in their jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman that SES employees 
already have fewer rights than other employees because they are 
management and that we have invested millions of dollars in them. We 
have gotten them into the SES, a very competitive service, in the first 
place, so this off-with-your-head approach punishes the American people 
who may have perfectly fine employees at the SES level. But, for 
example, to indicate one of my amendments might downgrade them rather 
than getting rid of them, there are other provisions here that would 
doubtlessly not survive constitutional scrutiny.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the

[[Page H4346]]

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 4 will not be offered.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Watson Coleman

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 114-666.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 26, after line 23, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Regulatory Flexibility Agenda Exception.--Section 601 
     shall not apply to a midnight rule that is published in the 
     regulatory flexibility agenda pursuant to section 602 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and that has been included in 
     the Unified Regulatory Agenda submitted pursuant to Executive 
     Order 12886 (5 U.S.C. 601 note; relating to regulatory 
     planning and review) for at least one year.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise to offer an amendment that would exempt from the bill's 
moratorium any rule that an agency has included in its regulatory plan 
for at least a year.
  Some proponents have said that the moratorium on rulemaking is 
intended to address rules that have been rushed through the process. My 
amendment would address that concern by keeping in place the proposed 
moratorium on the rules that have truly been rushed. However, it would 
allow rules that have been under consideration for at least a year to 
move forward.
  During the time between election day and Inauguration Day, the 
executive branch cannot take a break from fulfilling its constitutional 
and statutory responsibilities. Just as this Congress will meet to pass 
legislation in November and December of this year, the executive branch 
must be allowed to continue doing its job of implementing crucial 
regulations to protect the environment and our constituents' health and 
safety.
  For example, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration has been working to implement crucial pipeline safety 
regulations since 2011, with extensive input from numerous groups. Just 
last month, this Congress passed the PIPES Act, which included 
provisions reflecting our bipartisan concern that these pipeline safety 
rules need to be implemented soon to protect our constituents from the 
dangers of pipeline leaks.
  Without my amendment, certain pipeline safety rules could have to be 
delayed until a new administration, even though these rules have been 
under consideration for years, leaving the public safety at risk. In 
order to ensure important rules like these can be finalized, I urge my 
colleagues to adopt my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment fundamentally misunderstands 
the purpose of this bill. It creates a loophole in the moratorium 
period for midnight regulations. The bill establishes a regulation 
moratorium period between election day and the start of a new 
President's term to allow a new administration to start with a clean 
slate.
  This amendment would undermine that principle by allowing outgoing 
Presidents to simply put a marker down a year before the end of the 
term to circumvent the moratorium entirely. Further, pushing 
regulations out the door at the last minute reduces the effectiveness 
of regulatory review at the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs regardless of whether the public is aware that an agency is 
working on the regulation.
  The unified regulatory agenda, while very important for notice and 
transparency, does not provide details on the regulation or the 
expected impact on the economy and small businesses. Simply notifying 
the public that an agency is considering regulating in a particular 
area is insufficient to ensure that regulatory analysis at the agency 
and at OIRA has been thoroughly evaluated. Agencies can simply wait 
until the start of the next President's term to issue regulations, 
giving everyone more time to make sure they have gotten it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Jersey has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment offered by one 
of the freshman stars of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 
Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman.
  This amendment would exempt from the bill rulemakings that agencies 
have included in their regulatory plans for a year or more. Agencies 
are required to submit to OMB twice a year a plan for rulemakings they 
plan to pursue. OMB publishes those plans twice a year as part of what 
is called the Unified Agenda.
  This amendment would still block any rule an agency tries to rush 
through the process. This amendment would not, however, block rules 
that have been through the proper procedures just because they happen 
to be finalized during the last months of the administration.
  This amendment allows the focus to be on true so-called midnight 
regulations. If those rules are truly the target of this bill, then the 
House should adopt this amendment.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Jersey has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that, yet again, 
some in this Congress refuse to accept that a President's term is a 
full 4 years long.
  Passing this legislation would unnecessarily impose new restrictions 
on the ability of Presidents to finish the work of their 
administration.
  Adopting my amendment would help ensure that well-vetted, necessary 
regulations to protect health and safety are not blocked, while not 
undermining the stated purpose of this bill.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Lummis) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4361) to amend 
section 3554 of title 44, United States Code, to provide for enhanced 
security of Federal information systems, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________