Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 195 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 195 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9547-H9559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENSURING A QUALIFIED CIVIL SERVICE ACT OF 2017

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4182.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 635 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. 4182.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1518

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. 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, with
Mr. Simpson 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.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, highly skilled Federal employees are essential to a
government that serves its citizens. Skilled Federal workers ensure
that functions of government, from delivering mail to protecting the
homeland, are carried out successfully.
Federal jobs and the skills required to perform them vary
significantly across government. Some employees review patents, some
work in human resources, and others work in law enforcement.
While the jobs, skills, and training required may be different from
job to job, the expectation that the Federal Government hires qualified
candidates is universal.
One tool agencies and managers have to ensure a qualified workforce
is the probationary period--a period of time used to evaluate whether a
new hire

[[Page H9548]]

can effectively perform the duties of the position.
Under current law, most new hires are required to complete a
probationary period of 1 year before receiving full employment status.
Most new employees complete the probationary period and are hired as
permanent employees.
New employees who fail to demonstrate that they are a good fit for
the position, however, are transitioned out of government during the
probationary period, but the current 1-year trial period is not
sufficient for complex Federal occupations. Potential employees deserve
ample time to learn about the job and demonstrate they are able to
perform all critical aspects of a Federal position, and supervisors
deserve ample time to evaluate new hires.
What is a manager supposed to do in this case? Does the supervisor
take a gamble and offer permanent status to an untested employee or
risk missing out on a potentially skilled employee? This is a real
dilemma. Supervisors throughout the Federal workforce have described
this exact scenario in their advocacy for this bill.
According to the Government Managers Coalition, managers tend to err
on the side of releasing borderline employees in cases like this, and
it can be a very frustrating decision for them to make. They have
already devoted a significant amount of time and resources into
training the new hire.
However, managers would rather not risk hiring an employee who is on
the fence at the end of a probationary period. This is because a
manager is pretty much stuck with an employee after the probationary
period. It is difficult to remove a permanent employee for poor
performance or misconduct.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the procedural
hurdles to removing a permanent employee can take from 6 months to 1
year. The evidence is clear, the probationary period needs to be
extended.
In 2015, the GAO reported that chief human capital officers
throughout the Federal Government would benefit from an extension of
the probationary period, especially in occupations which are complex or
difficult to assess. Federal manager groups have been asking for a
longer probationary period for years.
In congressional testimony earlier this year, the national president
of the Federal Managers Association, Renee Johnson said: ``FMA
advocates extending the probationary period. This would benefit both
the government and employees by allowing supervisors to make decisions
based on the employees' performance as fully trained employees--not
just guessing at how they will perform after the training is
completed.''
The Government Managers Coalition, a group of five organizations that
represent the interests of over 200,000 supervisors, managers, and
executives serving throughout the Federal Government, supports an
extension of the probationary period.
I include in the Record a letter of support from the Government
Managers Coalition signed by the heads of the FAA Managers Association,
Federal Managers Association, Professional Managers Association,
National Council of Social Security Management Associations, and Senior
Executives Association; and a letter from the Professional Managers
Association.

Government Managers Coalition,

November 29, 2017.
United States Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Government
Managers Coalition (GMC), which is comprised of five major
federal sector professional associations collectively
representing the interests of over 200,000 supervisors,
managers, and executives serving throughout the federal
government.
Our coalition is supportive of H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a
Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017 (the EQUALS Act),
introduced by Representative James Comer. We appreciate Rep.
Comer's efforts to take the lead on this important
legislation and the consideration earlier this month by the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The GMC has
advocated for an extended probationary period for over a
decade. We encourage you to support the measure when it comes
to the floor later this week.
The EQUALS Act would grant agencies the authority to extend
the probationary period for competitive service appointments
and supervisors. In addition, this legislation would align
appointments under competitive and senior executive service
with the two-year trial period served under excepted service
appointments, bringing consistency to hiring throughout
government.
Extension of the probationary period is supported by a 2015
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, GAO-15-191.
Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) commented to GAO that
often supervisors within federal departments and agencies are
not given sufficient time to accurately review performance
before the probationary period is complete. The CHCO
recommended an extension of the probationary period to the
GAO in order to accurately assess an employee's abilities in
the federal workforce. In addition, Congress has already
approved a two-year probationary period for employees at the
Department of Defense, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), P.L. 114-92.
The GMC's mission is to promote good government initiatives
that foster effectiveness and efficiency throughout the
federal government. We believe that this legislation will
allow employees sufficient time on the job to demonstrate
their abilities as well as allow for proper assessment. The
measure will also ensure that supervisors have the
opportunity and authority to fulfill their performance
management responsibilities that may not be feasible under
the current one-year probationary period.
The current one-year probationary period is often
insufficient to assess an employee's performance in more
technical and complex jobs, of which there are many in the
federal government, and may in fact place an employee at risk
of termination before having had the opportunity to
effectively demonstrate their abilities. The reality is that
many technical jobs require agency classroom training,
mentoring and on-the-job training for employees to become
proficient. Often, the supervisor does not see the employee
during those times, and is unable to observe the employee's
performance. In front-line public service roles, such as with
the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), employees must not only learn
material, but also need to be able to effectively interact
with citizens. The EQUALS Act would ensure that employees are
provided with the opportunity to not only receive training,
but also to effectively demonstrate their abilities.
Extending the probationary period will in no way penalize an
employee who is performing well and progressing in their
training and responsibilities.
The GMC would appreciate your support of this legislation.
In light of ongoing agency reorganization efforts, it is now
more important than ever to ensure federal managers making
personnel decisions have a comprehensive toolset available
that represents both flexibility for agencies and fairness
for affected federal employees. We look forward to passage of
this legislation, as well as other commonsense federal
workforce reform bills resulting in an improved federal
government that can better serve the American public. Should
you require additional information or want to discuss this
issue further, please contact Rachel A. Emmons with the
National Council of Social Security Management Associations
(NCSSMA).
Sincerely,
Andy Taylor,
President, FAA Managers Association.
Renee M. Johnson,
President, Federal Managers Association.
Thomas R. Burger,
Executive Director, Professional Managers Association.
Christopher Detzler,
President, National Council of Social Security, Management
Association.
Bill Valdez,
President, Senior Executives Association.
____

Professional Managers Association,

Washington, DC, November 29, 2017.
Dear Representative: The Professional Managers Association
(PMA) represents the interests of professional managers,
management officials, and non-bargaining unit employees in
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other federal
agencies. On behalf of PMA's members, I write in support of
H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017
(the EQUALS Act), introduced by Representative James Comer,
and to offer a specific example--Revenue Agents at the IRS--
for an example of a federal job that would benefit from an
extended probationary period. PMA also signed onto a letter
with our colleagues with the Government Managers Coalition
(GMC) expressing our collective support for the EQUALS Act.
Following their hiring, IRS Revenue Agents go through an
extensive training process that includes classes in tax law
and procedures. They begin by learning the basics and the
laws that deal with individuals, starting with several weeks
of classroom training before moving on to work on actual
cases in taxpayer service. After that, they move onto
Schedule Cs and Partnerships, following the same process, but
with less time spent in the classroom. They then return to
the field or office for on-the job training with those types
of cases. Once they have completed this portion of training,
they are assigned to an office where they receive an
inventory of cases to work on. At this time, they are
evaluated on each case they close.

[[Page H9549]]

All of this is just within the first year of training. In
year two--if they are lucky--the agent will be sent to
classes for small and then large corporations. Once the
classroom training is completed, they are assigned more
training cases. Again, each case closed is rated and
evaluated based on all aspects: tax law interpretation, case
write up, meet and deal qualities, etc.
There should also be managerial mentoring completed during
this training process. The manager is meant to go on visits
to observe how the agent deals with the taxpayer and how they
are doing with regards to case write-ups. Yet, while managers
are intended to be involved throughout the training process,
many are spread extremely thin and may be forced to make a
decision not in the best interest of the government or the
agent. A longer probationary period would give managers more
time to make an accurate decision on whether or not an
individual is able to perform the necessary duties of an
efficient, effective agent.
Two years of training is a very costly process, but it is
costlier to make a hasty decision and keep an employee that
would not be an asset to the organization or would be unable
to best serve the public. I urge Members to support the
EQUALS Act.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Burger,
Executive Director.

Mr. COMER. In the letter, the coalition members write that they have
``advocated for an extended probationary period for over a decade,''
and that this legislation will allow employees sufficient time on the
job to demonstrate their abilities as well as allow for proper
assessment.
The individuals they represent see the difficulties associated with
the current system in their day-to-day lives. They understand the
problems associated with the arbitrary nature of the current 1-year
probationary period.
The EQUALS Act addresses these problems and moves toward a system
better suited for the modern workforce. The bill will extend the
probationary period for new hires in the competitive service and
initial appointments for managers to 2 years after the completion of
formal training or licensure.
The concept of a 2-year probationary period is not new. Congress
extended the probationary period for new hires at the Department of
Defense to 2 years in 2015. This bill brings the rest of the government
in line with the Department of Defense standards. The EQUALS Act also
recognizes the variety of positions and training requirements
throughout the Federal Government. The EQUALS Act requires the 2-year
period to begin upon the conclusion of the formal training or licensure
process.
This is important, because under current law, time spent in training
counts against the probationary period. This means that a Federal job
with long training, by the time a probationary employee completes the
training, the supervisor often has little or no time to evaluate the
employee's performance.
For example, training for new hires at the Internal Revenue Service
takes 1 year. By the time a new IRS employee completes training, the
manager has to make a decision whether to keep the employee without
having seen the employee do the job.
As Ms. Johnson testified before Congress: ``New employees must often
master broad and complex policies and procedures to meet their
agencies' missions, necessitating several months of formal training
followed by long periods of on-the-job instruction. In occupations
where training takes substantial time, supervisors may only have a few
months of work to judge employees' performance.''
According to data from the Office of Personnel Management, most
formal training programs last less than 1 month. For those positions,
the inclusion of formal training in the probationary period does not do
any harm.
However, for those positions that have long training periods, the
EQUALS Act will make a big difference. The EQUALS Act also helps ensure
managers are doing their jobs. Under the bill, agencies must notify
supervisors prior to the completion of a probationary period so that
the supervisor is reminded to make a decision about a probationary
employee.
The bill also requires agencies to certify that an employee has
successfully completed a probationary period and to provide
justification for that decision.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to make sure we are clear about what
the EQUALS Act does and does not do. The EQUALS Act does not remove or
change any due process rights for probationary period employees.
Probationary employees will still have due process protections.
Probationary employees have access to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Office of
Special Counsel. Each of those offices are empowered to hear appeals
from probationary employees, and that will not change when H.R. 4182
becomes law.
This bill is a much-needed fix to the Federal hiring process. It will
allow the Federal Government to select the best and brightest civil
servants to serve the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a
Qualified Civil Service Act. This bill potentially weakens the Federal
civil service by increasing the probationary period for career civil
servants and those in the Senior Executive Service from 1 year to 2
years.
I might add, almost no private sector company I know of would have a
2-year probationary period because they know it would make it hard to
recruit talented employees.
Unlike what has just been said in terms of protections that remain in
place, during the probationary period, Federal employees have very
little due process or appeal rights if disciplinary action is taken
against them, and the action we would take today would be to extend
those diluted rights instead of providing them with robust rights of
every civil servant beyond the probationary period. They can be fired
without notice. They have limited rights to an attorney or
representative, and they generally may not appeal their removal.
Due process protections are critical to ensuring the integrity of the
Federal civil service. In fact, that is the very heart of having a
professional civil service.
These protections help prevent the politicalization of the workforce
and protect whistleblowers from retaliation, which our committee, the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has passionately documented
as a very real danger in the past.
The Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act is a solution in search of
a problem. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has not held
one single hearing to determine whether extending the probationary
period an additional year for every single Federal job in the
competitive and Senior Executive Service is something that agencies
need or want to help them better manage their workforce. Not a single
hearing, and this would have a profound impact on every Federal agency.

{time} 1530

In February of 2016, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report which my friend from Kentucky cited at the request of the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. The request asked GAO to examine the rules and trends relating
to the review and dismissal of employees for poor performance. Now
supporters of this bill are using this report as a basis for extending
the probationary periods of Federal civil service employees; however,
nothing in this report calls for doing that. In fact, the title of the
report is ``Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary Periods
Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance.'' The focus
ought to be, the GAO says, on improving the supervision of the
probationary period we have in place.
In conducting its study, GAO found that supervisors do not always
have the skills necessary to do that and help address employee
performance issues during the probationary period. GAO also found that
supervisors sometimes do not even use the probationary period to make
performance-related decisions about an employee's ability to do their
job and may not always know when the probationary period even ends.
The report's recommendations were mainly focused on ensuring
qualified supervisors have the training and skills they need to deal
with poor performers

[[Page H9550]]

and making better use of the existing probation period for all new
employees.
Instead of focusing on addressing the gaps identified by GAO and
encouraging agencies to implement the recommendations made in that
report, Congress is now attacking Federal employees and the merit-based
system.
I am especially concerned about the bill's impact on recruiting the
workforce of the future. Currently, 40 percent of the current Federal
workforce is either eligible for retirement or soon will be--40
percent. Federal agencies need to be able to recruit their replacements
and get the requisite skill sets we need for these challenging jobs,
just like the private sector is challenged with that.
Extending the probationary period to 2 years, governmentwide, creates
a climate of more uncertainty, less protection, and diminishes,
clearly, the attraction of Federal service for many people, especially
those whom we want to be attracted to the civil service, especially
millennials.
Some of my colleagues have referenced the 2-year probationary period
for Department of Defense civilian employees enacted in the NDAA, the
National Defense Authorization Act of last fiscal year. They argue that
it should serve as precedent for the rest of the Federal Government.
There are a few things I need to point out about that. First, the
Department of Defense did not request an extension of the probationary
period or even indicate a need for it. Second, now that the 2-year
probationary period for civilian defense employees has been enacted,
the Department isn't even making use of this new authority.
According to the former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, Peter Levine, who testified before the Senate
Armed Services Committee in March of this year on civilian personnel
reform, ``the Department has done little to take advantage of that
legislation.''
Mr. Levine also warned that changing the law to address a small
number of problem employees could hurt recruitment and retention and
worker productivity. He stated: ``If legislation that is intended to
address a problem with 1 percent of the workforce is perceived as
threatening and hostile by the other 99 percent, it may undermine
morale and reduce the Department's ability to attract and retain the
capable employees that it needs. The civilian workforce will not become
more productive if problems with a small number of poor performers is
addressed with measures that are perceived as a declaration of war on
all employees.''
In closing, 2 weeks ago, Congress passed legislation that would pave
the way toward evidence-based policymaking, and we all supported that.
For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, ought we not see the
evidence of whether lengthening the probationary period is materially
different and what impacts, both positive and negative, it would have
for Federal agencies and employees?
Absent such evidence and careful study, I certainly am not willing to
take the risk that this bill will not do more harm to both agencies'
ability to recruit and retain qualified employees and that it would not
be used to arbitrarily punish hardworking Federal employees.
However, if the GAO studies the impact of this policy at DOD and
finds that this new policy has been wonderful for morale and has indeed
improved employee performance and helps employee recruitment, then sign
me up. But I do think we ought to rely on data and hearings before the
requisite committee when making such a major change to how we manage
our Federal workforce.
I plan on offering an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that would arm us with
the information we need to make an evidence-based decision regarding an
extension of the probationary period of the Federal workforce, which is
what we ought to be doing before consideration of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record statements in opposition or
expressing deep concern about this legislation from the American
Federation of Government Employees; the International Federation of
Professional & Technical Engineers; the National Treasury Employees
Union; and a group of organizations, including the Government
Accountability Project, the Liberty Coalition, the Project on
Government Oversight, Public Citizen, and Taxpayers Protection
Alliance.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, November 28, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), which represents
approximately 700,000 federal and District of Columbia
employees, in more than 70 agencies across the nation, I
strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 4182, the ``Ensuring a
Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017,'' introduced by
Representative James Comer (R-KY) when it comes to the floor
this week. If enacted, this legislation would arbitrarily
extend the probation period for a minimum of two years for
newly hired federal employees. AFGE opposes this legislation
as it does not address any issues surrounding employee
performance evaluation or management's ability to properly
evaluate employees during the probation period. Instead, all
it will do is penalize federal workers and weaken their due
process rights.
The extension of probation periods for competitive service
federal employees from one year to two years is unnecessary
and damaging to due process and the merit system. Candidates
for federal jobs are put through an extensive selection
process prior to being hired and one year is sufficient time
for a competent manager to determine if a new employee has
the ability to accomplish the duties for which he or she was
hired.
Specifically, H.R. 4182 would extend the probation period
to a minimum of two years after completion of a ``formal
training'' program or after the date on which a required
license is granted. Such a change could leave employees in
probation limbo for many years. For example, government
agencies require initial training for prolonged periods of
time that could result in employees serving three to five
year probation periods, or longer. Employees should not be
subject to an almost perpetual state of probation because of
comprehensive agency training, certification or licensing
programs.
Additionally, extending the probation period reduces the
due process rights of employees. While on probation,
employees have few civil service protections and almost no
appeal rights in the event of an adverse action. Civil
service protections and the merit system exist to protect the
government from politicization. Without these rights,
employees on probation will have little to no protection
against discrimination and employer retaliation and more
exposure to termination not based on cause, but rather
arbitrary and unjust reasons.
Extending the probation period does not solve any problems
regarding poor performance. Supervisors should be responsible
and held accountable for identifying and addressing issues of
poor performance of new employees quickly and efficiently.
Supervisors need better training to manage new employees.
Extending the probation period does nothing to better train
supervisors nor does it provide any accountability for
supervisors to effectively manage new employees.
Please Vote NO on H.R. 4182, ``Ensuring a Qualified Civil
Service Act of 2017.''
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Kahn,
Director, Legislative Affairs.
____

International Federation of Professional & Technical
Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC,
Washington, DC, November 27, 2017.
Dear Representative: As behalf of the International
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE),
representing upwards of 90,000 workers, including tens of
thousands of federal employees, I am writing regarding H.R.
4182, the so-called Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of
2017. This bill has been scheduled for full house
consideration this week and IFPTE urges you to oppose it.
H.R. 4182 aims to extend the probationary period for
federal civilian workers from one year to a minimum of two
years. Under this bill, the probation period would not
necessarily begin at the time a federal worker arrives for
their first day of work. Rather, the period would, ``end on
the date that is 2 years after the date on which such formal
training is completed.'' This is also true for federal jobs
that require a license, in which the probationary clock would
not start ticking until the license is achieved. In other
words, probations for many federal workers under this
legislation will be longer than two years, and dramatically
more than the current 1 year period.
IFPTE is opposed to this bill for several reasons. First,
this legislation is punitive in nature and serves no logical
policy objective. For example, it does nothing to address
performance issues, as supporters of this bill will
erroneously argue, and is silent on addressing the ongoing
challenges that management faces in properly evaluating new
employees, regardless of whether the probationary period is
for one year, or two years. For example, this past March
former Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Peter Levine, testified in the Senate regarding
the DOD's use of their new two-year probationary period for
federal workers. Mr. Levine testified that even though
managers at the DOD were granted two years to determine if a
newly hired DOD civilian employee should stay or go, that
authority is rarely, if ever used.
Unfortunately, this is yet another in a long list of bills
from this Congress that attempts

[[Page H9551]]

to legislate good management, while creating more useless and
unnecessary requirements that end up costing taxpayers more
money. It is illogical to think that a manager who will not
act on a problem employee within one year of being hired
would act within two years. Mr. Levine's testimony confirms
as much. Federal managers already have the authority to
discipline and ultimately fire employees, BUT they actually
need to use the many authorities they already have to do so.
IFPTE believes that one year is more than enough time for
managers to determine whether a newly hired employee can
perform their job. Instead of creating more bureaucracy, as
this bill will do, Congress should simply require managers to
use the flexibilities they currently have, including the one
year probationary period, to retain or release federal
workers who have yet to fulfill their probationary periods.
Please vote against H.R. 4182.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Junemann,
President.
____

The National Treasury

Employees Union,

November 28, 2017.
Dear Representative: As National President of the National
Treasury Employees Union, representing over 150,000 federal
employees in 31 different agencies, I am writing to express
NTEU's opposition to H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a Qualified
Civil Service Act of 2017 or the EQUALS Act of 2017, which
would drastically extend the probationary period for
individuals hired into the competitive service from one year
to two years, reflecting changes in policy based on a handful
of individual instances of concern that would--and can be--
much better handled by improved management than by changing
the law. With respect to any position that requires formal
training, the two-year time period would begin after the
required formal training. Given how limited an employee's due
process rights and a labor organization's representational
abilities are during the probationary period, NTEU believes
that the current one year is the proper time period for
agency management to assess and determine whether the
individual is suitable for the position and capable of
performing its duties. It is also important to recognize that
the end of a probationary period does not mean that an
employee cannot be disciplined or removed. It merely allows
the employee to challenge such actions that are done without
merit. Well trained managers can and do impose disciplinary
and adverse actions that stand up to such challenges. In
fact, in 2015, the Government Accountability Office found
that the probationary period of one year was not working, for
the most part, because those in supervisory positions are
only there for a higher grade, that no one had trained the
supervisor in how to supervise people, or that agencies are
not properly using the probationary periods for supervisors
who are not up to the task. Therefore, we question why this
bill is necessary when, instead, increased and improved
supervisor training is what is needed. NTEU has long
supported and advocated Congress enacting federal supervisor
training.
NTEU strongly opposes subjecting frontline federal
employees--who are not tasked with managing agencies and
long-term strategic responsibilities--to longer durations of
assessment that preclude due process and collective
bargaining rights. By extending the probationary period, the
federal workforce essentially becomes an at will workforce,
with limited rights and protections. In fact, the lack of
these due process rights has a chilling effect on employee
use of the few protections they do have, namely protection
against discrimination, sexual harassment, and whistleblower
retaliation. Congress has long recognized and valued the
importance of these protections for federal employees, which
would be undermined by this bill.
We also have significant outstanding questions about what
constitutes ``formal training'' under the bill as training
programs differ greatly by agency. NTEU represents a variety
of employees who undergo long periods of significant training
that occurs at multiple points in time (non-consecutive in
nature) and where the employee is already executing the
actual job in between training sessions.
We are greatly concerned that the language in this bill
could translate into 3 or 4 year--or even indefinite--
probationary periods for some of the employees we represent,
even though that may not be the intent. At this time, it is
unclear how agencies would categorize various types of
training that some of our members undergo under this new
definition. It is also important to note that for positions
that require extensive training, these individuals are
subject to ongoing evaluations by management during any
period of training.
For all of these reasons, we strongly oppose H.R. 4182 and
urge you to vote against it.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Reardon,
National President.
____

Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker,
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: We are
writing to express our concerns that H.R. 4182, the EQUALS
Act of 2017, could undermine protection for government
employees who blow the whistle. The legislation extends the
probationary period for civil service employees from one to
two years.
We recognize that the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA)
covers probationary employees, and that there are provisions
in H.R. 4182 that directly address those rights. But
probationary employees already are at a handicap, because an
agency has almost unlimited discretion to defeat a
retaliation lawsuit through independent justification reasons
entirely within its discretion. Second, probationary
employees only have rights against partisan discrimination
and under Sec. 2302(b)(8). This means an extra year that they
will not be protected under the recently-enacted Follow the
Rules Act or under 5 USC 2302(b)(9)(D) when they refuse to
violate the law. The taxpayers could suffer the consequences.
We request that the House of Representatives consider these
concerns before there is action on this legislation. The bill
states its goal is to strengthen government accountability.
Reducing whistleblower protection will undermine it.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Devine,
Government Accountability Project.
Michael D. Ostrolenk,
Liberty Coalition.
Elizabeth Hempowicz,
Project on Government Oversight.
Shanna Devine,
Public Citizen.
David Williams,
Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the EQUALS Act.
As a former Federal employee, I served in many capacities, from a
letter carrier to a manager, and I know the dedication of those who
serve in our civil service jobs. This bill is an insult to Federal
employees and is completely unnecessary.
Mr. Chairman, I say this is a bill in search of a problem. What are
we fixing?
This is not good-government legislation. It just makes it easier to
fire Federal employees without due process. By arbitrarily extending
probationary periods, this bill takes away civil servants' employment
rights and due process protections for at least 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, do you realize that benefits that career employees are
entitled to are held in abeyance while they are on probation? They are
given a different classification as being probationary than they are as
being a career employee.
What are we trying to achieve?
They also give up the right to receive 30 days' notice before they
are fired or furloughed, and they do not receive their rights as
whistleblowers as probationary employees. This bill simply takes away
workers' rights.
How many Members of Congress' parents worked as Federal employees to
put them through college and to make a difference in America?
Here we are assaulting the legacy of Federal employees who work every
day to make this country an amazing place to live.
This is not the way to address performance issues in the Federal
workplace. As a Federal employee who had the responsibility to perform
probationary evaluations, you need to talk to the supervisor if they
are not doing their job conducting the proper evaluations.
We must continue to support accountability measures and tools. In
addition, we must keep the spotlight on gross mismanagement.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is my dear friend.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Virginia. He is
doing a public service with his response to the bill that is coming
forward today.
Mr. Chairman, you can call this bill whatever you want, but it is not
a reform bill. It creates a problem in order to get rid of it.
Mr. Chairman, 0.18 percent is all of the employees who get dismissed.
The sponsor must want more. Instead of taking that as an indication of
the competency and of the excellence of Federal employees--under 1
percent, only 0.18--there must be more to be

[[Page H9552]]

fired than that. The data shows the opposite.
The Federal workforce has consistently been understood to be the best
qualified public employees in the country however you look at them,
particularly with their education and with their efforts.
The first reason the sponsor gives for this bill is that managers
``simply lose track of time and are unaware of the 1-year deadline
approaching.''
Whose competency should we be checking? Not the employees, surely.
Management should be doing its job. They are paid big Federal bucks
precisely for that.
But they are paid to do something else. They are paid to observe.
They are not observing if they are not even looking for the 1-year
deadline wherein they could fire an employee.
They are supposed to assist employees during that first year. They
are supposed to help correct employees during that first year.
What are they doing during that first year losing track of it? Who
bears the burden is the employee who may be perfectly competent but
wasn't receiving the assistance or the oversight to which she was
entitled.
We are moving without information that would help us understand if
there is a problem. What is the reason for not calling witnesses to
find out if there is a problem? Because if there is, then we ought to
do something about it.
We do know this: 36 percent of all the employees dismissed are
dismissed in that first year. That would seem to indicate that maybe
management is doing its job.
Today's young workforce is always looking for better opportunities.
Pass this bill, and you chase away the best and the brightest from even
applying to work for the American people.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is a perspicacious member of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, someone who grasps these
issues fundamentally, and is my good friend.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia for
those loquacious comments.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a
Qualified Civil Service Act.
H.R. 4182 unnecessarily doubles the probationary period for Federal
employees from 1 to 2 years. During this period, employees have
essentially no due process rights and can be removed for any reason or
no reason at all with no right to appeal.
This is an arbitrary change to existing policy, and there is no
evidence to suggest that extending the probationary period will address
any issues surrounding employee performance or the department
performance.
Not only are candidates for Federal jobs already put through
extensive selection processes, but a year is sufficient for any
competent manager to determine the ability of any employee to
accomplish the job that they have been hired to do.
This bill will not improve agency outcomes but would penalize Federal
workers by weakening their due process rights. Without due process,
Federal employees will have little protection against employer
discrimination and termination without cause.

These due process rights are also critical to promoting equity,
fairness, and ensuring that whistleblowers continue to speak up without
fear of retaliation.
It is also a clear attempt to undermine Federal employees' right to
unionize since they would not be eligible to participate until their
probationary period is over.
We need evidence-based changes that value Federal employees, make
their workplaces safe, protect them against sexual harassment and
discrimination, and ensure that their voices are heard. I ask my
colleagues to reject this shortsighted legislation.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair the schedule
on the amendments.
The CHAIR. After general debate is completed, the Committee will
proceed to the amendments.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair for that clarification.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), who is a professor and a very able member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.

{time} 1545

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Connolly for his invitation, and I
am delighted to be here to speak out against H.R. 4182, the so-called
Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act.
The first complaint I have got to lodge about it is the process by
which it is taking place. This is a radical change in the civil service
hiring policy and in the workplace without a hearing. I know we have
grown accustomed to that, but let's just focus on the fact that here we
are in the Nation's Capital and we have got all of the employees,
managers, and supervisors, and everybody here, and we didn't even have
a hearing to discuss why this might be necessary.
Then it is passed on a completely party-line vote in the Oversight
Committee, which leads to the suspicion that this has nothing to do
with the integrity of the civil service or the excellence of the civil
service, the things that we should be thinking about, but it has to do,
in fact, with a partisan mission.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Did my colleague just say there was not a single
hearing on a bill that affects the entire Federal Government?
Mr. RASKIN. Reclaiming my time, I tremble to say here in front of the
whole body, but I don't believe that it was. I stand to be corrected by
my colleagues if there was a hearing.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Did we act on evidence-based policymaking? Were there
studies and data that showed how successful extending the probationary
would be for all of these Federal agencies?
Mr. RASKIN. Reclaiming my time, not to my knowledge. I am used to
that coming out of the State legislature, where we have endless
hearings that go on into 2 a.m. in the morning or they go on for
several days. But there were no hearings, there was no evidence, there
was no expert testimony.
I couldn't figure out what was behind it. Then I realized that there
is this effort to demoralize the Federal workforce and there was this
effort to create a kind of political control over what is going on in
the Federal workplace.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I am baffled and puzzled by the way in which
this measure came about. And I am really scared about what it means for
all of our constituents who make the sacrifice of going to work for the
Federal Government to serve the American people, because they are going
into the workplace and I think most people are used to a probationary
period of 3 months or 6 months. We had a year. Now we are doubling it
to 2 years, which means that people are living in fear at a time when
there is an administration that is intimidating people for doing their
jobs; for example, for doing research about climate change and trying
to deal with environmental problems. They are facing reprisals in the
workplace.
This is a bill that deserves to go down in defeat. Anybody who
represents Federal workers, I think, should stand up strongly against
it. It should be returned to sender and let's have some real hearings
and some real analysis.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I think it is important to define what the probationary
period is and what it is not.
According to the MSPB, the probationary period is the final step in
the employee screening process when an individual must demonstrate
``why it is

[[Page H9553]]

in the public interest for the government to finalize an appointment to
the civil service.''
This is not a punitive measure. It is an opportunity for a
prospective employee to prove they are qualified to serve the American
people through a position in the civil service. These are critically
important jobs and we need the best and brightest to fill them. A
longer probationary period gives all new hires time to complete their
training, learn on the job, and demonstrate that they can perform the
role they were hired to do. This is good for our government, good for
Federal employees, and good for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4182, the
EQUALS Act.
My Republican colleagues have offered a legislative solution to a
problem that does not exist.
The Oversight Committee has not held a single hearing to examine the
existing one-year probationary period.
Yet, this legislation would double the probationary period. In the
process, it would degrade the due process rights of these employees.
These due process protections are critical to protecting
whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, and abuse.
For example, the Oversight Committee has examined retaliation against
whistleblowers at the Transportation Security Administration.
In one case, a career official and disabled veteran testified before
the Oversight Committee that he was removed from consideration for a
Senior Executive Service position during his probationary period
because he reported misconduct by top leaders at TSA including sexual
harassment.
During his interview with Committee staff, this senior career
official explained that extending the probationary period would make it
easier for agencies to retaliate against other whistleblowers in the
future.
The House of Representatives should not approve legislation that
would allow more retaliation against whistleblowers at federal
agencies.
Apart from the negative effects, we have seen no reason to adopt this
bill. We have seen no problem that needs to be addressed.
As I said, the Oversight Committee never held a hearing on this bill.
We have not determined whether doubling the probationary period would
help agencies deal with poor performers or further their missions.
We have not seen any evidence that federal agencies need a blanket
one-year extension of the probationary period for every single federal
job.
Instead, a recent GAO report recommended that the Office of Personnel
Management actually study whether expanding the probationary period
makes sense. GAO found that OPM should, and I quote:

Determine whether there are occupations in which . . . the
probationary period should extend beyond 1-year to provide
supervisors with sufficient time to assess an individual's
performance.

I agree with GAO that a study needs to be conducted first.
But our Republican colleagues want to skip this step. They want to
skip any real examination of the issue and just add another year of
probation during which employees have limited rights.
Some of my colleagues cite the fact that Congress passed a two-year
probationary period for Department of Defense civilian employees in the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2016.
However, I would like to note two important facts.
First, the Defense Department did not request this change in the
probationary period or indicate any need for it.
Second, the Department is not even using this new authority.
The Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
Peter Levine, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in
March. He stated, and I quote, ``the Department has done little to take
advantage of that legislation.''
Mr. Levin warned that changing the law to address a small number of
problem employees could hurt recruitment and retention and worker
productivity. He stated, and I quote:

``If legislation that is intended to address a problem with
one percent of the workforce is perceived as threatening and
hostile by the other 99 percent, it may undermine morale and
reduce the Department's ability to attract and retain the
capable employees that it needs.''

Before damaging protections for whistleblowers, we should first
determine whether an extension of the probationary period is needed at
all.
We should also determine whether it is appropriate for all federal
service occupations or only certain occupations.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 4182

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring a Qualified Civil
Service Act of 2017'' or the ``EQUALS Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. 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) The length of a probationary period established
under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall--
``(A) with respect to any position that requires formal
training, begin on the date of appointment to the position
and end on the date that is 2 years after the date on which
such formal training is completed;
``(B) with respect to any position that requires a license,
begin on the date of appointment to the position and end on
the date that is 2 years after the date on which such license
is granted; and
``(C) with respect to any position not covered by
subparagraph (A) or (B), be a period of 2 years beginning on
the date of the appointment to the position.
``(2) 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 the
agency and any offer of appointment made to any individual
with respect to any such position clearly states the terms
and conditions of any applicable probationary period,
including any formal training period and any license
requirement;
``(2) any individual who is required to complete a
probationary period under this section receives timely notice
of any requirements, including performance requirements, that
must be met in order to satisfactorily complete such period;
``(3) any supervisor or manager of an individual who is
required to complete a probationary period under this section
receives notification of the end date of such period not less
than 30 days before such date; and
``(4) if the head decides to retain an individual after the
completion of a probationary period under this section, the
head submits a certification to that effect, supported by a
brief statement of the basis for the 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 1 year 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. 3. EXTENSION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR POSITIONS WITHIN
THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE.

(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''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section--
(1) shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(2) shall apply in the case of any individual initially
appointed as a career appointee under section 3393 of title
5, United States Code, on or after the date on which this
section takes effect.

SEC. 4. 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 ``or, except'' and inserting ``and,
except''; and
(2) by striking ``1 year of current'' and inserting ``2
years of current''.
(b) Subchapter II of Chapter 75 of Title 5.--Section
7511(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page H9554]]

(1) in subparagraph (A)(i) by striking ``; or'' and
inserting ``; and'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``1 year'' the
first place it appears and inserting ``2 years'';
(3) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''; and
(4) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``; or'' and
inserting ``; and''.
(c) Actions Based on Unacceptable Performance.--Section
4303(f) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``1 year of current'' and
inserting ``2 years of current''; and
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``1 year'' and inserting
``2 years''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c)--
(1) shall take effect 1 year 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.

SEC. 5. REGULATIONS REQUIRED.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall
issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act
and the amendments made by this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in House Report 115-430. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered 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. Hastings

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 115-430.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, line 18, strike ``The length'' and insert ``Except
as provided for in paragraph (2), the length''.
Page 4, after line 8, insert the following (and redesignate
accordingly):
``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of an
individual who has successfully completed a term of service
in a national service program under the National and
Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.) or
the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4950 et
seq.), or as a volunteer or a volunteer leader under the
Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), the length of a
probationary period established under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a) shall--
``(A) with respect to any position occupied by such an
individual that requires formal training, begin on the date
of appointment to the position and end on the date that is 1
year after the date on which such formal training is
completed;
``(B) with respect to any position occupied by such an
individual that requires a license, begin on the date of
appointment to the position and end on the date that is 1
year after the date on which such license is granted; and
``(C) with respect to any position occupied by such an
individual that is not covered by subparagraph (A) or (B), be
a period of 1 year beginning on the date of the appointment
to the position.
Page 4, line 9, strike ``paragraph (1)'' and insert ``this
subsection''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 635, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, for far too long, the Republican majority
in Congress has treated Federal workers as if they are the problem.
We have spent years beating up Federal employees, implementing pay
freezes, implementing hiring freezes, and cutting benefits in order to
drive employees away from government service. The legislation we are
debating today continues this offensive unfair trend.
This bill doubles the probationary period for employees of the civil
service, in an effort to make it easier to fire the employees without
giving them any chance to challenge that decision. In doing so, my
Republican friends are sending a clear message, and that message is
that they see Federal employees as untrustworthy and unworthy of being
secure in their employment.
The amendment I am offering would exempt those who have served this
country through programs such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps from
the 2-year probationary period under this legislation, instead keeping
them at the 1-year level of probation already in effect.
Last night, I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee to extend
this same exemption for veterans, but it was blocked from
consideration.
Let me say that again because I want every one watching to hear me
loudly and clearly. Last night, the Republican majority on the Rules
Committee voted to block an amendment that would have protected
veterans employed in the government from being fired without cause.
I was told by my colleague who introduced this measure that being
able to fire veterans within a 2-year probationary period--footnote
right there: veterans would have already served 2 or more years before
becoming civil servants at that level--but I was told that, without
giving them any legal protections, recourse, or even an ability to
improve ``helps the veterans, just like it helps everyone.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you that is hogwash. Veterans
should not need to prove themselves worthy of a government job for a
full 2 years before they are afforded the rights that should be
inherent their position.
We ought to be spending time working to strengthen our Federal
workforce through better training and more plentiful diversity
programs. Instead, this bill needlessly undermines our civil service
and the fine people who work within it, while simultaneously making it
a less attractive place of employment for our best and brightest at a
time when we are in desperate need of such people.
This amendment would protect those who have already served our
country in the national service from this bill's intentions. In my
opinion, we should be expanding protections for everyone--for veterans,
women, minorities, LGBTQ Americans, and especially for disabled
Americans.
Let me say one more thing that I said last night, and this is with
due respect to my colleague, Mr. Connolly, who is managing for the
minority in this case, and the extraordinary number of constituents
that he and the Members, both Republican and Democrat, in the near
curtilage of this area here in metropolitan Washington, they do an
incredible job. Their constituents virtually all are saying to them
that this is an unnecessary measure.
I am sure that Mr. Connolly has made that very clear. I heard him
introduce measures that I introduced in the Rules Committee last night
from a variety of organizations. I will not burden you more but to say
that we should be about the business of trying to build a Federal
workforce and not put obstacles in their way.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not create an exception for alumni
of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service programs. It
puts them at a disadvantage.
They would have less time than other new hires to prove themselves
before managers make a decision whether to keep them or let them go.
This could mean fewer Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national
service alumni are retained at the end of the probationary period.
Under the current 1-year system, supervisors often do not have enough
time to determine whether a potential employee is a good fit for the
job. Managers tend to err on the side of releasing an employee who is
on the fence at the end of a probationary period.
New hires to the Federal Government deserve ample time to demonstrate
they are able to perform all critical aspects of the job. H.R. 4182
gives them more time.
This amendment would actually put certain groups at a disadvantage in
comparison to the rest of the Federal workforce. Alumni of the Peace
Corps, AmeriCorps, and other programs would have 1 year to demonstrate
the skills and core competencies required for the

[[Page H9555]]

Federal job they are seeking. Their colleagues would have 2 years.
The spirit of this amendment is admirable, but the unintended
consequence of adopting it will be that the very people the amendment
is meant to benefit would be at a disadvantage.
The probationary period is not a punishment. It is an extension of
the hiring process and a tool to help ensure a qualified civil service.
This amendment would create additional classes of Federal employees and
unnecessarily add complexity to an already complex system.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not
be offered.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Gianforte

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 115-430.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the following:
``(3) any supervisor or manager of an individual who is
required to complete a probationary period under this section
receives periodic notifications of the end date of such
period not later than 1 year, 6 months, 3 months, and 30 days
before such end date; and

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 635, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Gianforte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.

Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gianforte

Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment in the form I have placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 5, strike lines 8 through 12 and insert the following:
``(3) any supervisor or manager of an individual who is
required to complete a probationary period under this section
receives periodic notifications of the end date of such
period not later than 1 year, 6 months, 3 months, and 30 days
before such end date; and

Mr. GIANFORTE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Montana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
A longer probationary period for new Federal hires is important to
give supervisors the time they need to evaluate whether a new hire
should gain career employee status. But a longer probationary period
will not accomplish anything if supervisors don't use the extended time
properly.
Managers often don't know the end dates for probationary employees
under their supervision. Because probationary periods end
automatically, without action by a supervisor, an employee can be hired
without a complete assessment of whether the employee is qualified for
full Federal service.
A 2015 Government Accountability Office report recommended automated
systems to notify supervisors when the end of an individual's
probationary period is imminent.

{time} 1600

Agencies have these systems. They just need to use them. My amendment
requires supervisors to be notified at a series of regular intervals in
advance of the expiration of a probationary period. The notifications
occur at 1 year, 6 months, 3 months, and 30 days before the scheduled
completion of a probationary period.
This notification will remind supervisors of their responsibilities
to observe employees and provide feedback throughout the probationary
period. It will also remind supervisors to decide whether the employee
is fit for Federal service.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, as indicated, I appreciate the intent of
my friend from Montana, but this is a bad bill. We ought to be studying
the effect of the existing pilot program at the Department of Defense
to see how it works, and we ought to be adopting the GAO recommendation
of better training for supervisors whom the GAO found, frankly, were
ill-equipped to evaluate employees during a 1- or 2-year probationary
period.
We ought to have a hearing, and my friend from Montana might even
agree with this, since he is the newest Member, one of the newest
Members of our committee. Our committee is the locus for government-
wide initiatives such as this.
We have not had a single hearing on this bill, or, frankly, on this
subject, and I think that is a huge mistake. We are putting the cart
before the horse; so I think we ought to return to a more empirical-
based policymaking, especially when it is a policy that will affect
every future Federal employee, and those numbers are huge, given the
baby boom bulge ready to retire. That is 40 percent of the workforce,
and it has to be replaced.
So while I very much appreciate the intent of my friend from Montana,
it is in that context I rise in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia. I urge
adoption of this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 115-430.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. STUDY ON LENGTH OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study on Federal agencies that have
lengthened the employee probationary period from 1 to 2 years
and other potential extensions of probationary periods for
certain occupations in the Federal Government.
(b) Contents.--The study required under subsection (a)
shall analyze--
(1) any impact of an existing 2-year probationary period
(compared to a 1-year probationary period) on the employing
agency's ability to deal with underperforming employees,
improve productivity, improve recruitment and retention, and
accomplish the mission of the agency and shall include the
Department of Defense as a case study; and
(2) whether certain occupations in the Federal Government
should have probationary periods in excess of 1 year because
of the complexity, sensitivity, or unique occupational
challenges of such occupations, including--
(A) whether such a probationary period extension would
provide supervisors sufficient time to adequately assess
employee performance and whether the extension would lead to
measureable improvements in the performance of employees in
those occupations; and
(B) an identification of the occupations, and the
characteristics of those occupations, that would benefit from
longer probationary periods, including requirements to
exercise supervisory authority and possess professional
licenses and training.
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
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 a report
containing the study required under subsection (a).

[[Page H9556]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 635, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 4182, the probationary period for all
Federal employees is extended for an additional year, regardless of the
job they are hired to do. All new employees are punished equally, and
supervisors are given no new tools to improve their use of the existing
probationary period.
In February 2016, as I have mentioned before, the GAO reports
studying the rules and trends relating to review and dismissal of
employees for poor performance, suggests that the Office of Personnel
Management look into whether there are certain occupations, due to the
nature or complexity of the position, in which the probationary period
should be extended beyond 1 year or not.
We heard testimony before the Rules Committee from a number of
colleagues who represent areas with big Federal concentration, Federal
employee concentrations with specialized agencies, such as the weather
service in Oklahoma and CDC in Atlanta where a 2-year probationary
period may very well impede the ability to hire the skilled workers we
need.
The report goes on to say that it is something that should be looked
into. It does not call for a government-wide extension of the
probationary period. That is why I filed this amendment to require the
GAO to conduct a study on the Department of Defense and other Federal
agencies that have used this tool, a 2-year probationary period.
A 2-year probationary period for civilian employees at DOD was
enacted in 2016, and as the largest Federal agency, this extension
would provide a good case study on the potential impacts: good, bad,
and indifferent on the legislation before us. It is a study we ought to
do before we adopt a bill.
Some of my colleagues believe that since extending the probationary
period has been working out so well, it ought to be extended across the
entire Federal Government. There are a few things I need to point out
for us. This policy only affected those who were hired after November
25, 2015, the day the law went into effect.
Secondly, the former Under Secretary of Defense, as I mentioned in
earlier statements, Peter Levine, testified before the Armed Services
Committee that the Department has done little to take advantage of that
legislation. That is his testimony. Therefore, there are only a small
number of employees who have completed the 2-year probationary period,
and it is too soon to declare it a success or failure.
That is why my amendment would have the GAO give us guidance. How has
it worked? Has it helped? Has it hurt? Are there some things we haven't
anticipated that we need to address?
The study would also look into whether extending the probationary
period has any effect on the ability of an agency to recruit and
retain. And, again, I pointed out 40 percent of the existing workforce
is eligible for retirement now or in the next few years. That is a huge
number of people. And we have got to worry about recruitment.
Gathering the data is a necessary first step, not a last step or an
afterthought, before deciding to change a law with such profound impact
on Federal agencies. This bill, as I said to my friend from Kentucky
(Mr. Comer), may yet prove to be a good idea, but we don't know. There
remain a lot of questions about the efficacy of this proposal. It is
risky, and it can have terrible negative consequences that we haven't
even foreseen and some of which we can predict today.
Two weeks ago, this body adopted a policy of evidence-based
policymaking, so let's put it into implementation with this bill. Let's
look for some evidence, empirical evidence, systematically done to
justify the adoption of such a sweeping bill.
Mr. Chairman, I call for the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, extending the probationary period is not a
new idea. Federal manager groups have advocated for an extended
probationary period for more than a decade.
The Government Accountability Office completed a study on the
probationary period in February of 2015. In that study, chief human
capital officers told GAO a longer probationary period could help
supervisors make a performance assessment for those occupations that
are particularly complex or difficult to assess. GAO also recommended
considering, ``extending the supervisory probationary period beyond 1
year to include at least 1 full employee appraisal cycle.''
As far back as 2005, the Merit Systems Protection Board completed a
study and recommended longer probationary periods when an agency deems
it necessary to fully evaluate a probationer. It is not necessary to
wait for more studies on this issue.
This amendment strikes the entire bill, meaning the current
probationary period would remain the same and the problems that GAO and
others have identified would persist. This amendment undermines the
entire purpose of the bill, which is to allow managers' employees more
time to conduct a fair and complete assessment of probationary Federal
employees.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Connolly, and I want to
salute him as a really ardent champion for those of your constituents
who work in the Federal Government. In Maryland, as in Virginia, we
have lots of them, but it is not just there.
Eighty-five percent of the Federal workforce lives outside of the
Washington/Maryland/Virginia area: Kentucky and California and South
Carolina and Texas. This would apply to all new employees. Millions of
new people coming into the workforce would be added, doubling the
probationary period. Imagine if you were trying to hire for your small
business and you had to tell people that they were going to be on
probation for 2 years basically, with none of the rights that you would
have vested as if you had really gotten hired and been part of the
workforce.
I want to say, they are willing, apparently, in this bill, to give
people a whole extra year on probation. They are not wanting to wait
even 1 year or a half a year, maybe, for the GAO to do a proper study
so we can use evidence-based policymaking, as the gentleman says. That
is the very least that we can do.
The good gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) said that there was a
study done 10 years ago.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-430 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hastings

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is a request for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H9557]]

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 221, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 646]

AYES--195

Adams
Aguilar
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--221

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--17

Barletta
Bridenstine
Collins (GA)
Conyers
Delaney
Gohmert
Harper
Jayapal
Kennedy
Norman
Pocan
Posey
Renacci
Scalise
Stivers
Taylor
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1637

Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. OLSON, BISHOP of Utah, and Ms. GRANGER changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. TORRES and Mr. DOGGETT changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 223, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 647]

AYES--193

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Comstock
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--223

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)

[[Page H9558]]

Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--17

Bridenstine
Collins (GA)
Conyers
Delaney
Harper
Jayapal
Kennedy
Norman
Pocan
Posey
Renacci
Ruppersberger
Rutherford
Scalise
Stivers
Taylor
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1644

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ferguson). There being no further amendments,
under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Byrne) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ferguson, Acting 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. 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, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 635, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 4182 will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on passage of H.R. 3017.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 204, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 648]

AYES--213

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cooper
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--204

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Comstock
Connolly
Cook
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Bridenstine
Collins (GA)
Conyers
Delaney
Grijalva
Harper
Jayapal
Kennedy
Norman
Pocan

[[Page H9559]]

Posey
Renacci
Scalise
Stivers
Taylor
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1651

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________