[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 195 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9529-H9535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4182, ENSURING A QUALIFIED CIVIL 
  SERVICE ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1699, 
         PRESERVING ACCESS TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACT OF 2017

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 635 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H9530]]

  


                              H. Res. 635

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4182) to amend title 5, United States Code, to 
     modify probationary periods with respect to positions within 
     the competitive service and the Senior Executive Service, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1699) to amend 
     the Truth in Lending Act to modify the definitions of a 
     mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage, to amend the 
     Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 
     2008 to modify the definition of a loan originator, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     115-42 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marshall). The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I just had a chance to visit with my 
colleague from New York. We were talking about, well, the same thing 
all Members talk about when they get together: those things they have 
in common, those things that make their day a little bit better, those 
things they are struggling with that make their day a little bit worse.
  I regret that so often we come to the House floor and the debate that 
we are having seems like we just have absolutely nothing in common 
whatsoever. I am sure it has been your experience. I think you can ask 
any freshman Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker, ``What is the 
biggest surprise you have had in your first year in Congress?'' and 
they will say, ``I am surprised at how hardworking and conscientious 
and diligent and committed absolutely every single one of my colleagues 
is, because I was reading in the local paper back home, and it sounded 
like it was a big cesspool there in Washington, D.C. I am pleasantly 
surprised at how sincere my colleagues are at working for their 700,000 
to 800,000 constituents back home.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have two bills that this rule makes in order for 
debate today, and they are two bills that I will tell you are 
incredibly well intentioned. I plan to support them. I plan to 
enthusiastically support them, but they are on issues that are hard in 
their minutia.
  The first bill that is made in order today under a closed rule, Mr. 
Speaker, is H.R. 1699. It is the Preserving Access to Manufactured 
Housing Act. We had testimony in the committee yesterday, and the 
discussion was how do we protect buyers of manufactured housing from 
being exploited while still enabling those Americans who don't have 
other avenues for purchasing housing to get into that most affordable 
of housing, manufactured housing. We have common goals to protect 
people and to empower people, but how do we get that done?
  This bill was worked through committee. I believe it is a good 
compromise. We didn't allow any amendments to this. There were no 
germane amendments presented in committee, so that is coming under a 
closed rule today.
  This rule also would make in order a structured rule for H.R. 4182, 
the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, when you go and read the headlines, it makes it 
sound like every discussion on Capitol Hill is among a bunch of 
partisan hacks. It is just not true.
  The civil service, an incredibly important part of American 
Government, has dedicated men and women who show up every day to 
institute the laws that you and I pass, to be the interpreters of the 
bridge between the laws that we pass and the way they hit folks on the 
ground. We all want those employees to be protected from the swinging 
pendulum of partisanship.
  I don't want a Republican President to get elected and fire all the 
Democrats serving in government. There are some bright-minded 
scientists, some great folks in law enforcement, some really talented 
people in education. I don't want them to lose their jobs because of 
the partisanship of a President.
  Similarly, I don't want to see a Democratic President get elected and 
fire all the folks who are Republicans. There are some fantastic 
Republican minds in our Department of Agriculture helping our farmers 
to succeed, our Department of Labor helping our workers to succeed. You 
go right on down the list, there are strong men and women helping folks 
to succeed.
  But we are also facing a reality that that same civil service system 
that seeks to protect those hardworking, those exceptional workers 
trying to serve America, that same system that works to protect them 
also protects folks who are completely derelict in their 
responsibilities.
  We had that discussion as a conference, as a House. In fact, in a 
bicameral discussion, it went to the President's desk for his 
signature, as it came to the VA, to say: Can't we do more to reform a 
civil service system, to reform Federal labor union provisions so that 
folks who need the protection, because they are exceptional, continue 
to be protected; but those folks who are failing our veterans, that 
those folks cease to be protected from a system that seeks to require 
accountability? We passed that together. We did that together here, Mr. 
Speaker. We sent it to the Senate. They did it together. The President 
signed it into law.
  This Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act does one thing and one 
thing only: it extends the probationary period of a new civil service 
worker from the current 1 year to 2 years.
  The Department of Defense has done this already, and it has been 
working exceedingly well for them. The concern is: Have I been able to 
adequately assess an employee's ability to perform in a 12-month 
period?
  We are committed to trying to train people up, Mr. Speaker. Nobody is 
trying to run folks out before they have had a chance to learn their 
job. The question is: Is a year long enough to uncover the flaws in an 
employee or is 2 years a wider window?
  You will hear folks on the other side say: Rob, why in the world 
can't you all figure out if an employee is talented in year one?
  That is fair.
  They will say: Rob, if you are going to train somebody up, why 
couldn't you get it done in year one?

[[Page H9531]]

  That is fair.
  But as the GAO has looked at this issue, what they found is managers 
aren't getting that done in year one. Whether it is because they are 
ineffective as managers or whether it is because they keep trying to 
give people a second chance and get them trained up is an open 
question. This bill mandates nothing, but it allows this 2-year window 
so that managers can give their new employees a good first, second, and 
third look.
  The data suggests that once folks get fully protected by the civil 
service system, it is very difficult to move underperforming employees 
out. That work should be done during this probationary period. This 
bill aims to lengthen that probationary period to 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, reasonable men and women can disagree on these measures. 
I believe they are important steps in the right direction. But what 
gives me so much pleasure to come to the floor to bring this rule to 
you today is the earnestness with which these two bills were presented.
  These are common challenges: How do we ensure the very best staff for 
the American people? How do we ensure access to homes and protection 
for home buyers for the American people? These are sincere concerns, 
legitimate disagreements.
  If we pass this rule today, we will enable a debating period. We will 
bring these bills to the floor so that we can air our concerns and 
challenge our assumptions. I hope, at the end of the day, my colleagues 
will decide to support this rule and to support the two underlying 
pieces of legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act was enacted 
in 1994 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act. It is designed to 
address predatory lending practices in refinancing and home equity 
loans with high interest rates or fees.
  Loans that meet these high-cost triggers are subject to disclosure 
requirements and limitations on the loan terms. Borrowers are also 
provided enhanced remedies if it is violated.
  Now, the first bill before us, H.R. 1699, would amend the Truth in 
Lending Act by exempting manufactured home retailers from being defined 
as mortgage originators. In the process, it would exempt these 
retailers from important consumer protection rules. That would 
perpetuate conflicts of interest and restore incentives for these 
retailers to steer customers into loans with high costs and fees. These 
are precisely the type of loans that are more profitable for the 
retailer even though they are bad deals for the customer.
  My good friend from Georgia asked what could be wrong with this; how 
can we protect those customers? I submit: You may not protect those 
consumers by taking all regulation off for them. Obviously, it was 
there for a reason, and we will see how it turns out.
  Those may seem like arcane changes to existing law, but let me put 
the issue in better perspective.
  According to the Manufactured Housing Institute, 22 million Americans 
live in manufactured homes today. That is equal to the entire State of 
Florida.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, why in the world is the majority prioritizing a bill 
that would undermine consumer protections for tens of millions of 
Americans. We know the legislation would create more access to 
affordable housing. It would only make the incredibly profitable 
manufacturing housing industry even more money through predatory 
lending.
  Those who rely on manufactured housing as an affordable option 
deserve the same antipredatory lending standards as every other family. 
This bill fails that test. In fact, it was written specifically to take 
the protections away from the housing industry.
  The second measure before us today, H.R. 4182, is completely 
unnecessary. It would extend the probationary period for members of the 
Senior Executive Service and members of the competitive service from 1 
year to 2. That would double the time that new civil servants are 
essentially at-will employees without any employee protections or due 
process rights.
  There is no evidence to support the need for doubling the 
probationary period for Federal employees. The bill would simply serve 
to delay employees' access to worker protection laws that ensure that 
they are treated fairly on the job. It would also undermine 
whistleblower rights and prevent them from coming forward.
  These are the people who are essential to getting to the bottom of 
legal violations and waste and fraud in government agencies. Standing 
up for their rights used to be a bipartisan priority, but the majority 
is now prioritizing a bill that would undermine their rights and put 
the integrity of our Federal civil service at risk.
  This comes on the heels of the majority bringing a separate bill, 
H.R. 3441, to the floor recently. That legislation threatened 
collective bargaining rights for employees and allows employers to 
evade liability for wage theft or even child labor violations. And just 
like the bill before us today, it chips away at workers' ability to do 
their job without retaliation or unfair treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here. The majority is bringing bills 
to the House floor that threaten worker protections while they work to 
advance a procorporate agenda at the same time.
  There is perhaps no bigger giveaway on the agenda right now than 
their tax bill. Under the guise of so-called reform, the majority on 
the other side of the Capitol is crafting a tax bill that is nothing 
but a giveaway to the rich and powerful.
  And, please, don't take my word for it. On Monday, The New York Times 
published a piece entitled: ``Senators Scramble to Advance Tax Bill 
That Increasingly Rewards Wealthy.'' The very first line of the piece 
gives away the majority's game plan. It said: ``The Republican tax bill 
hurtling through Congress is increasingly tilting the United States Tax 
Code to benefit wealthy Americans. . . .''
  I believe that is beyond dispute by now. In fact, I think every major 
economist and publication have told us that that is exactly what it is. 
The scam will raise taxes on tens of millions of middle class families 
in order to hand deficit-exploding giveaways to the wealthy and 
corporations that ship jobs overseas. In fact, I heard an economist 
last night, Jared Bernstein, saying that he thinks this bill encourages 
moving jobs overseas.
  The Republican plan eliminates the alternative minimum tax, which is 
designed to prevent the very rich from gaming the system. And the bill 
passed by the Chamber eliminates the estate tax, which will benefit the 
wealthy, certainly--and very few of them, though, are even liable for 
paying that tax.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional 
Budget Office, under the Republican plan, persons making $40,000 to 
$50,000 a year would pay an additional $5.3 billion in taxes, combined, 
over the next decade. At the same time, those earning $1 million or 
more a year would see a $5.8 billion tax cut.
  Note, please, the similarity of those figures. If that isn't taking 
money from the poor to give to the rich, I don't know of anything that 
could describe it any better.
  This is the third time America has tried trickle-down theory. It 
didn't work with President Reagan; it didn't work under President Bush; 
and, certainly, it did not work in Kansas. There is a word for doing 
the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. 
That word is ``insanity.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to let my 
colleagues know that this bill passed out of committee by more than a 
2-1 margin, a big bipartisan vote out of committee to reform 
manufactured housing to provide more access.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't profess to be an expert on that, so I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), one of my colleagues 
from the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of this rule that would allow the 
House of Representatives to debate legislation I introduced, H.R. 1699, 
the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act.

[[Page H9532]]

  Homeownership, for many, is part of the American Dream; however, 
overbroad and burdensome regulations arising out of the Dodd-Frank 
financial control law are limiting the ability of Americans to realize 
this dream.
  Specifically, a one-size-fits-all regulation issued by the 
unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau makes it harder for 
lenders to offer mortgages to hardworking Americans who simply want to 
buy a manufactured home. By expanding the range of loan products 
considered ``high cost'' under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection 
Act, the CFPB has failed to recognize the unique nature of manufactured 
housing loans. Because of the increased legal liabilities and stigma 
associated with making a so-called high-cost mortgage, some lenders 
have simply stopped making these loans.
  According to recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, data that is 
submitted to the government, the number of manufactured homes of 
$75,000 or less has plummeted by 22 percent since this regulation went 
into effect. As a result, the CFPB's overzealous regulation harms lower 
and moderate-income families, particularly in rural areas, who just 
want to purchase a manufactured home but, now, cannot access the 
necessary financing. In addition, existing homeowners are harmed 
because they won't be able to sell their homes.

  These rules are hitting Americans in rural and suburban areas and 
those with modest means the hardest. Take, for example, the hospital 
worker, in Kentucky, who applied for a loan of $38,500 to finance a 
manufactured home. He had an 8 percent downpayment. His monthly income 
was $2,200 per month, plenty to cover the all-in housing costs of $670 
per month. The payment he would have been investing in his own home 
would have been less than what he was spending on rent, but he was 
unable to get financing. He contacted local banks and credit unions, 
but they no longer finance manufactured homes.
  The reason for this crippling lack of lending is the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau and its so-called high-cost loan 
regulations and the definitions of ``mortgage originator'' and ``loan 
originator'' established in Dodd-Frank. These regulations fail to take 
into account the unique circumstances associated with manufactured 
housing and the fixed costs associated with any home purchase, large or 
small. They fail to recognize the simple mathematical fact that fixed 
costs on smaller loans translate into higher percentages of the total 
loan.
  Even if interest payments on manufactured homes are more than your 
average home, the payments are still more affordable than the all-in 
cost of a site-built home--or even rent, in many markets. That is not 
predatory lending. That is actually getting people into more affordable 
housing. This is especially the case when you consider that purchasing 
a manufactured home, as opposed to renting, allows the owners to build 
equity, leading to financial stability for those Americans.
  The Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act recognizes the 
unique nature of the manufactured housing industry, and it fixes these 
government-caused problems by modifying the definition of ``loan 
originators'' and ``mortgage originators'' to exclude manufactured 
housing retailers and sellers from the definition of ``loan 
originator'' so long as they are only receiving compensation for the 
sale of the home and not engaged in the financing of the loans.
  The legislation also increases the thresholds for high-cost loans to 
accommodate manufactured home purchases of up to $75,000 while still 
retaining tough restrictions on lenders to prevent any borrowers from 
being taken advantage of.
  As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to protect the American 
people from regulations that harm their ability to purchase affordable 
homes for themselves and their families. We need to end government 
policies that are issued under the guise of consumer protection when 
those policies actually are protecting Americans right out of 
homeownership. Again, that is not consumer protection.
  So, for these reasons and the fact that about 40 different 
proconsumer and probusiness trade associations support this 
legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.
  This is not the only reason why we should vote for the rule. The 
other legislation, introduced by my friend from Kentucky, the Ensuring 
a Qualified Civil Service Act, is another piece of legislation that 
will help ensure that the U.S. Federal Government has a competent 
workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Comer for his hard work on this 
issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
distinguished leadership and for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to focus in particular on where we are and where 
we have been. I think it is important, as we discuss these issues 
dealing with the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017, that 
we really have the responsibility, as Members of Congress, to engage in 
safe and fair workplaces all over the Nation.
  Certainly, I want to speak particularly about the Civil Service Act, 
which I am stunned that this would extend the period of time for a 
probationary period from 1 year to 2 years. But what is most striking, 
since I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, is that Federal 
employees will remain at-will employees for a period of time with 
virtually no due process protection.
  I clearly want to try to understand an administration that, first of 
all, wants to make skinny the government to disallow it to do its work; 
and then, on top of that, it wants to have temporary employees with no 
due process rights.
  Yesterday, we stood on the floor of the House to insist that there be 
mandatory training for sexual harassment and, as well, to recognize 
that there should be zero tolerance for sexual harassment and, of 
course, sexual assault.
  As an African-American woman, over the years, historically, we, along 
with women all over the world, have seen the plight, or the 
devastation, of sexual harassment and sexual assault. I was 
disappointed that this floor could not vote on that resolution. I would 
really ask for that resolution to be called up again so that this House 
could go on record for supporting mandatory training.
  At the same time, I think it balances, with due process, the work 
that we have to do to make sure that we have a workplace that is 
tolerable and allows women who feel insulted, harassed, and, God 
forbid, assaulted easy, quick access to a pathway of relief.
  This legislation and the underlying bill on this rule specifically 
dealing with taking away due process rights from civil servant women 
strikes me as the wrong direction to go in light of where we are. So I 
am questioning this legislation. I think it is the wrong direction to 
go. I, frankly, believe it should be pulled.

  And as that legislation is pulled, I believe that we would do 
ourselves well to reassert the resolution from yesterday and to cast a 
vote. Let's get on the record of where we stand on the issues 
protecting women against sexual harassment and sexual assault.
  Finally, let me indicate that we are in the middle of appropriations. 
We have not been compensated for the devastation of Hurricane Harvey. 
My constituents are suffering. They are suffering in Puerto Rico, in 
the Virgin Islands, and in Florida. The appropriation, or the 
recommendation from the White House, is insufferable, unacceptable, and 
it is time for us to move as a Congress to bring relief to the people 
who have suffered from the hurricane.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a good friend and authority on the issue.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1699, the Preserving 
Access to Manufactured Housing Act, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the passage of this rule and the underlying bill.
  As the vice chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit Subcommittee and a cosponsor of this legislation, I want to 
underscore the impact that passing the Preserving Access to 
Manufactured Housing Act would have on hardworking Americans.

[[Page H9533]]

  


                              {time}  1300

  We all agree that we should work to ensure that everyone can afford a 
safe place to live. Representative Barr's bipartisan bill will remove 
misguided barriers that block access to affordable manufactured homes 
while preserving consumer protections.
  In many parts of this country, manufactured homes represent a cost-
effective and customizable housing option. It is important to keep in 
mind that the challenge of finding affordable housing is not 
exclusively an urban problem. Housing affordability is a challenge in 
many rural areas as well, and manufactured homes can be a solution.
  This is an industry that offers millions, including many rural 
Americans with moderate incomes, a chance at home ownership. In fact, 
nationwide, 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes.
  In my State of Pennsylvania, manufactured homes comprise almost 5 
percent of the housing stock. Manufactured homes account for 73 percent 
of all new homes sold under $125,000. The average income of a 
manufactured home purchaser is less than $40,000 per year.
  The manufactured housing business also sustains thousands of 
families. Sixteen thousand workers in Pennsylvania are employed in that 
industry.
  Unfortunately, misguided rules from Washington, D.C., threaten to 
choke off access to manufactured homes. When Washington bureaucrats 
sought to implement Dodd-Frank, they put forward rules that led some 
manufactured housing retailers and sellers to be considered loan 
originators. They also expanded the ``high-cost loan'' definition and 
swept many manufactured housing loans into that category.
  The increased restrictions, liability, and stigma that accompany 
these designations have led many in the industry to cut back on 
lending. As a result, fewer hardworking Americans will be able to 
afford a quality manufactured home for their families.
  The Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act will address these 
harmful restrictions that are making manufactured homes unaffordable 
for prospective homeowners while preserving important consumer 
protections.
  This bill clarifies that a manufactured home salesperson is not a 
loan originator unless he or she is being compensated by a lender, a 
creditor, or a mortgage broker. It also adjusts the high-cost mortgage 
designation thresholds so that many manufactured housing loans are once 
again not included.
  It is important to keep in mind that the Truth in Lending Act and 
State consumer protection laws will still apply after the enactment of 
this legislation.
  Representative Barr's bill is a narrowly focused, commonsense, and 
bipartisan effort to target a specific challenge facing prospective 
purchasers of manufactured homes. This bill will preserve access to 
affordable housing for millions of American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge support for the Preserving Access to 
Manufactured Housing Act and this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream 
Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of 
young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Norman). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres).
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, this Congress faces a moral decision that 
we have put off making for too long, a decision that we cannot put off 
any longer: Will we stop the deportation of hundreds of thousands of 
young DREAMers or not?
  This is not a partisan question. This is a question of who we are as 
Americans.
  Are we willing to put partisan games aside? Are we willing to put to 
an end the fear that DREAMers have, the fear that they have been living 
with these past few months?
  We are quickly approaching the year-end deadline for many items this 
body needs to address. Many of us are looking forward to seeing our 
families through the holidays.
  What about the 122 DREAMers that lose protection every day that we 
don't act? Can they say the same.
  This is unconscionable. This is not who we are.
  When I am home, I hear from businesses, school leaders, public 
officials, religious leaders, and friends, and they all want us to act 
now, today. Failure to do so will result in tearing families and 
communities apart.
  The fix is right here in front of us. H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, is a 
bipartisan, bicameral bill that will put this issue at rest once and 
for all.
  We all know that the votes are here today in this body. Plenty of my 
Republican colleagues support this legislation. Plenty of my Republican 
colleagues stand with their business, religious, and community leaders 
to bring this dream to a reality for the DREAMers.
  We have been clear. This Congress must not finish this year without 
providing a fix in certainty for DREAMers. Their families and the 
communities that depend on them expect that.
  I ask my colleagues to allow us to vote and provide a vote against 
the previous question so that we can immediately bring the Dream Act to 
the floor for a vote today.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would share with the gentlewoman from New 
York that I have no further speakers remaining, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, funding for the government expires on December 8. That 
is 8 days from now. We wonder why we are wasting time on unnecessary 
bills before us today and running us toward another shutdown.

  Let me remind everyone watching here today about the last shutdown in 
2013. The majority shut down the government rather than fund the 
Affordable Care Act, which was then and remains today the law of the 
land. The shutdown lasted 16 days. In just that short time, it cost our 
economy an estimated $24 billion. The shutdown cost the government $24 
billion.
  Federal facilities were not opened. The mom-and-pop stores and little 
restaurants in Federal buildings all closed. The processing of 
veterans' disability claims was stalled. Head Start grantees that serve 
an estimated 6,300 children were forced to close their doors for 9 days 
until some private philanthropists stepped in. Hundreds of patients 
were unable to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials at the 
National Institutes of Health.
  Ninety-eight percent of the employees at the National Science 
Foundation, nearly 75 percent of the employees at the National 
Institutes of Health, and two-thirds of the employees at the Centers 
for Disease Control were furloughed. That brought new Federal research 
to a standstill.
  An estimated $4 billion in tax refunds were delayed, denying middle 
class families the money they expected and planned for. Even the 
National Transportation Safety Board was impacted, unable to 
investigate 59 plane accidents as swiftly.
  Another shutdown will be devastating, but I am afraid that is what we 
are headed for under the leadership here.
  The President recently tweeted that he doesn't see a deal on the 
horizon. This comes after he tweeted earlier this year that our country 
needs a ``good shutdown.''
  Instead of doing anything about that here today, we are frittering 
away precious legislative time on bills that are, at best, not urgent 
and, at worst, completely unnecessary and even damaging.
  The greatest Nation on Earth will be struggling to keep the lights 
on. This is no way to run the United States.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H9534]]

  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raises a lot of important points. I am 
absolutely concerned about funding the United States Government, but, 
sadly, in a way that has become systemic as we talk about who we are as 
a people, Mr. Speaker, we can either be glasses half full or we can be 
glasses half empty.
  Is it true that the number of days we have left in this continuing 
resolution are limited?
  It is.
  Is it also true that this House has fully funded the government ahead 
of schedule for the first time since the good people of the Seventh 
District elected me to Congress?
  It is.
  This House has nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, this House should 
be shouting it from the rooftops:

       The United States Constitution gives the United States 
     Congress a job to do. The House has done its. Senate, get to 
     work.

  This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that we have been able to fund 
all the appropriations bills--there are 12 of them--before the end of 
the fiscal year since I was elected in 2011. The Senate has passed, I 
believe, zero appropriations bills so far this year.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not give anybody a pass on getting the good work 
done. Let's do hold people accountable, but let's not chastise 
ourselves and create an atmosphere of failure.
  Success begets success. We succeeded together for the first time in a 
long time. Let's not waste that opportunity to get that bill across the 
floor of the Senate.
  Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about civil service 
protections today. There is not a man or a woman in this Chamber who 
doesn't want the absolute best Federal workforce that we could find; 
not one.
  The question today is: Do we lock you in and give you all of those 
ironclad protections that every American knows the civil service system 
offers?
  We all know that it is hard to get fired from a government job. We 
all know that.
  Should we extend the probationary period where folks can be 
monitored, trained up, disciplined, worked with from 1 year to 2 years?
  If that gets us a better Federal workforce to serve the American 
people, the answer should be a unanimous yes.
  I say to my friends who oppose this bill: If it doesn't end up in 
that result, I will vote with you to repeal it. But I believe it will 
end up with a more highly qualified workforce, that it will end up with 
an American taxpayer who feels like they are getting their money's 
worth.

  I will tell you the best thing we can do for our civil service 
employees is to end the narrative that civil service is a place of 
failure instead of a place of success, it is to end the narrative that 
substandard people work for the Federal Government as opposed to 
exceptional people work for the Federal Government.
  I represent employees of the CDC in my part of the world, Mr. 
Speaker. The Centers for Disease Control is second to no one in the 
intellectual firepower that they assemble to serve the American people. 
Those men and women put themselves in harm's way to battle those 
pandemics that scare the bejesus out of the rest of us. They do it as 
an act of service, and they should be praised for it.
  The best thing we can do for them is to make sure folks don't slip 
through the cracks and they get saddled with a substandard partner. We 
want them to have access to an exceptional partner. This bill would do 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, as to access to manufactured housing, the bill from my 
friend from Kentucky, it is absolutely true that every man and woman in 
this Chamber wants to protect the American consumer from predatory 
lending. That is undisputed. But as my friend in Kentucky stated, when 
do we protect someone right out of the opportunity to have a home? In 
the name of protecting people, when do we fail those very same people?
  We had testimony in the committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, presented 
credit union after credit union after credit union that would no longer 
loan money to its members to purchase a manufactured home. They 
wouldn't do it. They couldn't do it.
  Talk about predatory lending if you want to; it is not your local 
credit union that is doing it. Talk about big Wall Street banks 
exploiting people if you want to; it is not your local credit union who 
is doing it.
  Talk about people who want to build your community; it is your local 
credit union.

                              {time}  1315

  Yet credit union after credit union said: The men and women whom we 
strive to serve, we will no longer help access the American Dream. We 
can't. Why? Because of the regulations coming out of Washington, D.C.
  Do we want to protect the American consumer? We do, and we can, but 
we can't protect them right out of home ownership. We shouldn't, yet we 
have.
  Passing this bill today that my friend from Kentucky brings forward 
corrects that mistake, puts us back on track for protecting consumers 
and enabling consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, you can pick any day of the week on Capitol Hill, and 
you can find a way to describe everything that goes on as nefarious, as 
misguided, as contrived. But, Mr. Speaker, you can also look at days on 
Capitol Hill and see the earnestness with which men and women work 
together to move this country forward. That is the day we have today. I 
hope it is the day we have tomorrow and the next day and the next day.
  I urge my friends, support this rule. Support bringing this bill to 
the floor for manufactured housing. Support bringing this bill to the 
floor to improve the civil service system.
  We can do that with a vote right now, Mr. Speaker.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 635 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the revolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate

[[Page H9535]]

     vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________