[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.
____________________