Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3082, the ``Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2010.'' This bill will fund our nation's military construction projects and veterans' benefits for Fiscal Year 2010.

While I supported this bill, and what it provides for our military and veterans, it is unfortunate the Democratic leadership in Congress refused to allow debate on many amendments including an amendment proposed by Rep. Connie Mack that would have reduced the labor costs of each construction project funded by this legislation.

Currently, federal construction projects which cost more than $2,000 must follow Davis-Bacon wage requirements. The Davis-Bacon Act requires employers to pay workers at least the ``locally prevailing wage,'' as determined by the Department of Labor. Of the reports investigated by the Office of Inspector General, 100% of the wage surveys, used to set the ``prevailing wage,'' contained one or more errors.

According to the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, Davis- Bacon wage requirements over-estimate wages, inflating construction costs by almost 10%. This amounts to $8.6 billion taxpayer waste per year. For our military and veterans, this is billions that could have been used to update the Vietnam-era quanzi-huts still in use at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base or to fix the Post 9/11 GI bill error that will unfairly reduce California veterans' education benefits.

In this time of fiscal uncertainty, Congress must set priorities and spend wisely. Shutting out debate on an archaic measure that unnecessarily increases cost moves our nation in the wrong direction.

Madam Speaker, I just want to take a brief moment to commend Pope Barrow on his service to the House.

He has been a witness to history--serving through a succession of speakers, passage of landmark legislation, and unprecedented political change. But he and his team have served as a steady hand throughout.

The professionals in the Legislative Counsel's office are truly instrumental to the function of the House and our legislative process. They participate from the initial concept, through multiple rewrites and phone calls, until we have something that hopefully respects the law and the Constitution.

At times we are in a rush, pushed and pulled by the demand of policy and politics to move hastily. Under Mr. Barrow's able leadership, however, he and his team always guided and assisted us with a steady hand, providing timely, professional, and nonpartisan advice.

Madam Speaker, I simply want to express my gratitude to him for his service, and express my thanks to everyone in the Legislative Counsel's office for their work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in celebrating the 90th birthday of James R. Paulson, a veteran of World War II, a philanthropist and a leader in business.

As a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, James R. Paulson was the skipper of a Sub Chaser ``SC671'', conducting mine-sweeping operations in Alaska's treacherous seas along the Aleutian Islands from the North Pacific to Japan during WWII.

Jim met his beautiful wife Marijane Lewis in 1938 and they were married four years later, just days before he deployed to the North Pacific. Together they raised four wonderful children.

He received his undergraduate degree from University of Puget Sound, in WA. His career

as a Certified Public Accountant brought him much acclaim and he sat on the Board of Regents for 25 years at University of Puget Sound.

He was one of the founders of the Tacoma Foundation and was a major supporter of it.

He was a consultant and service provider with the Weyerhaeuser family, and headed a group of companies he brought together under the holding company name ``Comerco.'' These companies included Alaska Fish Fertilizer, Olympic Stain, Dawson Insurance and 23 other companies. They merged with the Clorox Company and at that time Big Jim, as he is known by his friends, served on the board of directors of Clorox.

Not one to stand on the sidelines, Jim has been a lifelong public activist, working to protect the American way of life and the sacrifices that he and so many Americans have made to protect our freedom.

Jim stands as a testament to the American spirit. Born of immigrant parents from Norway, he made his own way in the world, and made significant contributions to his family and his country. From nothing, he built a corporate network providing high quality careers for thousands of employees and providing valuable services and products to the nation and the world.

We are fortunate to have James R. Paulson as a friend and fellow American.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the House voted on final passage of H.R. 2965, the ``Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act of 2009,'' rollcall No. 486.

My vote was recorded as ``no'' but in keeping with my past votes on the Small Business Research and Innovation Act, my vote should have been a ``yes.'' The Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program are critical to increasing small business research and project development capabilities, and I strongly support their continued funding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3114, a bill to promote the success and vitality of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, ``USPTO.''

The USPTO is integral in strengthening America's battered economy. Although there are those in this body that believe the federal government can spend our way out of the current financial crisis, this is a fallacy. It is through private commerce and investment that we will find the light at the end of the tunnel. For many sectors of our economy, patent protections provide tremendous incentive to invest.

The USPTO is already faced with a tremendous backlog of patent applications. A reduction in labor force at the USPTO would only compound this problem. It is for this reason that we must make sure that the USPTO is not forced to lay off or furlough patent examiners. Allowing the USPTO Director to use funds made available under the Trademark Act of 1946 will help to ensure this does not occur.

Innovation is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. It is innovation which has and will continue to promote prosperity and wealth in the United States and aid in combating the recession in which we find ourselves today. I encourage my colleagues to support the USPTO and support this legislation.

Today is July 7, 2009. Today would have been the 24th birthday of my own nephew, William Louis Issa. Last week, I attended his funeral.

He had a connection to this House because he worked both in Cleveland, his home, and here in Washington for his Congressman, Dennis Kucinich. In his passing, I lost a nephew; Cleveland lost somebody who cared about the environment, who was passionate about wolves in the wild, who in fact had graduated from college and was going on to law school to be an environmentalist, to seek what liberty allows us in this country, which is the right to feel and do what you think is right for your country.

I speak from this side of the center of this body and I speak about somebody who I disagreed with on many policies. As a young man, while he was summering here and staying at our home, he wanted me to know that the eating of meat was wrong and that if I wasn't a vegetarian, then I wasn't getting it. And he admired Dennis Kucinich, who's a lifelong--or at least as an adult person--a vegan. And he on a host of other issues felt so strongly. But, most of all, he felt strongly about the individual liberties, particularly his.

Now his choice was a Prius and his choice was in fact to try to do and be everything for a sustainable ecology as he saw it. So when I thought about coming and using his nexus here to the House floor tonight to speak on what would have been his 24th birthday, I thought it appropriate to say that from the left--and he certainly was a child of the left; perhaps a child of the sixties reborn in a next generation--and from someone on the right, I wonder if we shouldn't come together the way this young man did with everyone he met and talk in terms of America's liberty.

What in fact is this body doing--not to pass new laws. That wasn't what we were sent for. But to defend the inherent constitutional obligations: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

I believe that he ended his life far too soon and without accomplishing what he would have, had he lived longer. But tonight I will tell you that I'm brought to the House floor for perhaps only the third or fourth time in 8 or 9 years to say that those on the left and those on the right, we need to recommit ourselves.

At a time when we're talking about regulating CO2, where we regulate the highways, the waterways, where we're looking at an 8 percent tax on health care to pay for the new health care proposal, while so much of what we once thought of as the free wild, wild west of the United States has been changed, particularly post-9/11, I wonder if this wouldn't be a good time for men and women of good conscience on both sides of the aisle to say: Shouldn't we relook at every liberty? Shouldn't we form a liberty caucus? Shouldn't Congress be dedicated to ask the question not as Republicans or Democrats, but in fact as Americans sworn to uphold the Constitution?

Isn't it time we start looking at every single law we passed and the regulation they produced and find out how many of them we could do without--not liberal laws, not conservative laws, but all of them. I believe that that is the highest calling for those of us here in Congress.

I will tell you tonight, perhaps as a small tribute to my nephew, that I will reach out and I will ask every Democrat I see and all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle: What have we done in fact to defend liberty? What have we done to give somebody the right to decide they want to spend three months with wolves in the wild or that they want to in fact go out and save our delicate ecosystem from the unnatural twisting that 300 million people here in America bring upon the world.

That liberty is important. It's important that we pay tribute to it every chance we have, and can.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to, in a small way, talk about liberty and a man who would have fought for it.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear today that some would have us be silent as to the aspiration of the people risking life and limb on the streets of Iran today. We cannot and should not be that way. Yes, it's an internal matter, but it's an internal matter in a country which has been ruled by theocrats for so very long who have denied real free elections, and even when the will of the people was obvious, in fact, want to overturn the will of the people for a President who could be a reformer and give opportunity, particularly to women in this country.

So I urge support for this resolution because it sends the message that we are, in fact, with the people who want freedom.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication and contributions to the United States Marine Corps are exceptional. Our country has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated leaders who willingly and unselfishly give their time and talent to keep this country free and safe. United States Marine Colonel James B. Seaton III is one of these individuals. On June 25, 2009, a ceremony will be held on the occasion of his relinquishing command of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton as he leaves to assume the prestigious posting as Director of Commander's Initiative Group under General David Petraeus.

Col. Seaton received his master's degree in political science from Duke University and later earned a Master of Strategic Science from the U.S. Army War College. Serving in many capacities over the years, Col. Seaton provided support for our country in places such as Grenada, Beirut, Japan, Southeast Asia, the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean. In 2001, he reported to the 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton, California for duty as Division Inspector and Deputy G-7 before assuming command of 1st Battalion, 11th Marines in June 2002 and led the battalion during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In June 2004, he transferred to Twentynine Palms, California for assignment as the Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command G-3 and was promoted to Colonel in September 2004.

Apart from his active duty service, Col. Seaton served as a political science instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy where he received the ``William P. Clements Award for Excellence in Education'' as the top military instructor. He has also been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Pacific Council on International Policy, Inter- University Seminar on Armed Forces & Society and other various military associations.

Col. Seaton's tireless passion for service has contributed to the betterment of this country. His decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Bronze Star with Combat V, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with three Gold Stars, Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Combat Action Ribbon with two Gold Stars, and the Presidential Service Badge. I am proud to call James a fellow community member, American and friend. On behalf of the people of the United States whom he has served with courage and honor, we commemorate the service of Colonel James B. Seaton III and congratulate him on his new post.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

I'm declining on this bill. I will pick up on the next one. Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act of 2009. Witness testimony is a critical component of our criminal justice system. Even with sophisticated DNA and other forensic evidence, there is no substitute for an eyewitness testimony.

However, engaging the cooperation of witnesses is frequently a daunting obstacle in many criminal prosecutions. Many witnesses fail to come forward or refuse to testify out of fear of retribution by the defendants or pressure by the community.

It is no surprise that violent criminals will unleash their brutality on witnesses whose testimony could result in years or decades in prison. It is also no surprise that violent gangs and drug organizations are the source of much of this brutality. The Justice Department's National Gang Center reports that ``gang members so frequently engage in witness intimidation that it is considered part of normal gang behavioral dynamics.'' State and local law enforcement officials and prosecutors are in a constant struggle to counteract witness intimidation and to convince witnesses to cooperate. It's vital that we assist in this.

At the Federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service is charged with witness protection and has operated the Witness Security Program since 1970. Under the program, more than 7,500 witnesses and over 9,500 family members have been protected, relocated, or given new identities. Most States and local governments cannot offer that level of protection. Many cannot afford to offer even basic protection services, for instance, during a trial in which the proceedings in a small town might be all too evident to gangs in the area.

H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act, directs the Attorney General to award grants to State and local governments to establish and maintain witness protection programs.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this not only is a well-worthwhile program whose time has come, but, in fact, it could be a real cost- saving to the taxpayers from the Federal level. Federal prosecution tends to be more expensive. In the case of gang, drug, and other activities, there is almost always a dual nexus: one in which the State or local courts can try the gang members, one in which the Federal Government can find Federal statutes to try under. Unfortunately, without an effective witness protection program, localities may often choose to move a case to Federal court where witness protection is available rather than providing that protection themselves.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support strongly that we find those opportunities in which local government can provide this service rather than removing to Federal court. This is a cost-saving, commonsense initiative, and I support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished attorney from the City of New Orleans, the junior Member from Louisiana, Mr. Cao.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the precious time on the floor needs to be well spent, and we certainly support that we are well spending it. This is an important piece of legislation. It's important because, in fact, we in the Federal Government need to team with cities and localities around the country to ensure that we not distort where prosecutions are made. I fully support this legislation because, with all due respect to my colleague, it will relieve the cities and the counties from often choosing a Federal venue rather than a local venue if we help with protecting their witnesses, something that the Federal Government and the U.S. Marshals have proven to do very well. So I do support the bill. It's a bipartisan bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield back the balance of my time and support the passage of this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any further speakers after I conclude?

Excellent. I will be brief.

This is noncontroversial. In fact, the Antitrust Criminal Enhancement Reform Act of 2009 is about a program that is working. It is a program that not only do I hope we will unanimously pass and send to the Senate, but that the Senate will act quickly so that after the 2 weeks remaining, this statute will not expire, and we will use this year wisely to review and reauthorize in a longer term basis this act.

ACPERA has in fact worked. It is something that both the majority and minority have agreed on, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume for our response to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge its passage, and I do so for a reason that I believe does tie fairly into another piece of legislation. This is a piece of bipartisan legislation with Chairman Conyers. Another piece tries to deal with a greater inequity than even this one.

While Internet broadcasters or podcasters or Webcasters pay as much as half of their revenues, half of their gross revenues if they play performances of music, and NAB was cited as being a participant, let me make something very clear, Mr. Speaker. The National Association of Broadcasters has chosen to have an absolute ``burn the bridge'' attitude toward terrestrial broadcasters paying even a cent.

I join with Chairman Conyers, Mr. Berman, myself, and many others, in urging that this pattern of lowering to what we believe is a more fair rate or helping lower to what we believe is a more fair rate, in fact, flies in the face of terrestrial broadcasters continuing to say that the only fair amount to pay in the way of royalties to the music producers, the actual performers, is zero.

The public today, Mr. Speaker, when they hear this, if they hear this, will be shocked to find out that when they listen to terrestrial radio, nothing is paid to the artist.

Well, if they listen to Internet radio, actually more than half in some cases of the gross revenues of these Internet broadcasters is paid to the performers.

As Mr. Inslee said, I do believe that perhaps it is too much; that there is, in fact, a point at which, when you tax something too much, even if it's taxed to pay the performance, you may get too little of it. To that extent, we need to find an amount that balances fairly compensation for the creative artist who brought us this fine music and those who would seek to make it available to the public.

I hope that this piece of legislation will help for those doing business on the Internet and that H.R. 2344 will be quickly adopted and that it will lead to more affordable rates for the Internet.

But I cannot, in good conscience, fail to mention that these companies trying to start and promote a new industry and a service in many places in which terrestrial broadcasts may be poor or not available at all find themselves hampered while they pay half of their revenues out in royalties, competing against terrestrial broadcasters who insist on continuing to pay not a penny.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will look for this legislation to become law. I look for the other legislation behind it to be brought to the floor, fairly considered, and voted on in order to bring performance fairness.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time and would close quickly when the gentleman is ready.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I, again, reiterate my appreciation for his appropriate and wonderful statements on H.R. 848, a bill that would simply eliminate Congress' prohibition on the Copyright Royalty Board from reaching a fair and equitable royalty for performers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, H.R. 626 sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working American taxpayers and families that are struggling in difficult times. Our economy is in crisis, and deficits are already soaring.

Excess government spending created record deficits that have continued to rise for years, in good times and bad, meaning government already spends too much of the taxpayers' money and has been running deficits before, and now during, the Obama administration.

But more than that, jobs are being lost. In the time since the last time this bill was considered and not passed into law, 4.3 million Americans have lost their jobs, while 36,000 net new Federal jobs have been created. My voters, my taxpayers, my constituents are suffering. So are yours, Madam Chairman. So are the people on the other side. But in fact, there's no suffering in Washington.

We have some of the lowest unemployment. We have a growing quality of life, and even home prices are not falling very much here. It's not a surprise why. Salaries are not falling here. Those of us who will speak here today are making nearly $170,000 a year, and many of our staff, a great many of our staff, make over $100,000 a year, as do a great many of the Federal workforce.

This bill does not have one provision to say if you make $170,000 a year, why do we have to give you this benefit, because you have to choose between feeding your children and being with your children? Certainly not. There are no protections against, in fact, those who do not need this special benefit getting it. There are no safeguards at all. As a matter of fact, this bill envisions the $1 billion over 5 years or more than $2 billion over 10 years swelling to $4 billion over 10 years or more because, in fact, they believe it should be 8 weeks of special leave.

Now, in the Rules Committee, I was told I just didn't understand, that Germany gives a year when you have a child. You know, the amazing thing is Germany and France and many of these countries are now going the opposite direction because they recognize that they were losing competitiveness and that these generous benefits, although good to have, were unsustainable, and they're particularly unsustainable when the only people that can afford it are those of us who live off the taxpayers'--I'd like to say generosity, but in fact, it's not generosity. This money is taken involuntary and spent at the whims of Congress.

Madam Chairman, Federal employees enjoy one of the highest levels of job security, without a doubt, anywhere in the United States. I would venture to say many of them the highest. More importantly, in good times and bad, they keep their jobs.

Even if you look at the protections against being arbitrarily let go or hired at will, that's not even the point. The point is, in a bad time, when tens of thousands of auto workers are being laid off, when 40,000 employees of Chrysler dealerships have just gotten from this administration a 26-day pink notice to go because their franchise has been taken arbitrarily, at that time we have grown the Federal Government by 36,000, and we're looking at a new benefit that could easily cost $4 billion over the next 10 years.

Now, this bill was scored at nearly $1 billion over 5 years, but of course, that's only if it remains at 4 weeks. And let's talk about those 4 weeks. This bill is not 4 weeks. This is 12 weeks.

Most Federal workers when they retire have a significant amount of, even when they leave in general, accrued sick leave, and you might ask why. Well, because the typical sick leave for Federal workers is 13 days a year. That's nearly 3 weeks a year you get to be sick, depending upon your seniority, 20 to 26 days a year of vacation. So you're looking at 5 weeks of vacation. On top of that you're looking at nearly 3 weeks of sick leave, and we're being told by the majority that they can't make those tradeoffs to use some of that when a child is born.

It's a joyous occasion when a child is born. It's an important occasion when a child is adopted. It's sometimes a critical time when a foster child, battered, beaten, or simply unloved, is brought into the home. The minority has no question at all about the importance of this. It's been a long time since 1993. This is well-established to be something in which people make the sacrifices without sacrificing their jobs, and we certainly have no objection to the current practice which is common throughout the Federal workforce to allow employees to take some or all of their sick leave.

As a matter of fact, an amendment which has been ruled in order, will be considered tonight, calls for employees, Federal employees to be not only able to use all of their accrued sick leave, but to borrow against future sick leave. So, if they want to take the whole 12 weeks and every single day receive a full paycheck, we're willing to

meet the majority more than halfway. We're willing to make the kind of compromise the American people would like us to make with the majority. It doesn't mean that this is the ideal solution. There are safeguards that are not in this legislation that we would like to see, and we will work with the Senate to see if we can't get that, but in fact, we offer an amendment that would at least cause there to be no net new cost to the American people.

And I know that the majority will come back and say this is PAYGO neutral. Well, PAYGO is a wonderful term but let's understand. If you create additional days the Federal workforce will be off, you can only have one of two choices. Either their labor wasn't needed and, as a result, doesn't need to be replaced, or their labor was needed and will be replaced. Replacement costs money. That ultimately will lead to a higher cost.

I believe CBO's scoring of approximately $1 billion over 5 years is, in fact, low, but I'm not going to argue with it. We accept theirs because they are, in fact, a neutral arbiter of these differences about what something costs or is worth.

So here the Republicans are going to offer to support codifying what many agencies are already doing in the Federal Government, but not without the American people understanding that if we add a new additional off-time benefit of 4 or 8 additional weeks, on top of the 5 weeks and nearly 3 weeks that are already granted to most Federal employees, I think that the American people, rightfully so, will send us packing. They will send us packing because we would be so out of touch, so inconsistent with what the small mom-and-pop and the not-so- small companies in America are experiencing.

Earlier, Madam Speaker, I said that 4,353,000 net jobs have been lost since the last time this bill was considered. That's not the true story. The true story is reflected in the State tax revenues and now in the Federal tax revenues, where we realize it's not just those who lost their jobs; it's those who lost a great percentage of the earnings they were making on their job. Overtime is gone, and in fact, profits, profit-sharing and additional commissions are generally gone. As a result, people aren't just out of work, but people who were still technically fully employed may be making less than half of what they were making just a year or two ago.

So, Madam Chairman, we on this side of the aisle will oppose the bill in its current form but not without offering viable alternatives, reasonable alternatives, some ruled, some not ruled, so that we can make this at least a bill that America can understand why we would consider doing it at a time in which so many Americans are suffering.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to a ranking subcommittee member and somebody who has worked very hard on trying to make this bill better, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I would yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Madam Chair, I trust the gentlewoman from California was only misunderstood or had misspoken when she said someone would lose his job for taking parental leave. That would be a crime under the 1993 act.

I would yield to the gentlewoman to correct that.

Beyond the 12 weeks?

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and somebody who well knows about the challenges that people face in the workforce today.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in a few short minutes we will complete general debate; we will go to amendments. At that time, I'm hopeful that the amendment offered by the committee, the Republicans on this committee, will be considered favorably. If it is, then what seems to be unreconcilable as our differences can be resolved.

Clearly, we agree that 14 million Americans are out of work. We agree that we're in a recession. We agree that Americans are suffering. We agree that whether you're having a child, adopting a child, or bringing a foster child in need into your home, that that bonding time is worthwhile now, just as it was in 1993 when we overrode all States and all employers to provide that option without fear of retaliation or loss of a job.

I think we agree that this bill is 12 weeks, 8 of which may be paid by the use of sick and other leave. I know we agreed that if you serve 15 years in the government you'll have about 8 weeks a year of paid leave already accrued. We only disagree on whether or not a new cost, a new entitlement will be borne by the American people. We seem to disagree on whether going from not paying somebody when they're off to paying them is, in fact, a cost to the government. We certainly disagree on whether or not when it becomes an additional 4 weeks of pay, many will choose to take it. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, when the CBO scored, they made the assumption that half of all men would not take any benefits under the Parental Leave Act as they currently don't. But, of course, when you're offered 4 weeks free, completely free of sick leave, perhaps it will be irresistible to take some, in which case the $1 billion over 5 years could rise above that figure.

So there are some things we disagree on.

But if we take what we agree on, which is the American people are watching mounting deficits, the American people do believe that at times we're out of touch, that we don't feel their pain. The gentleman from Virginia talked about the Federal workers in his district. The Federal workers have grown in his district at a time in which the gentleman from Illinois has seen 40,000 workers lose their job at Caterpillar. Those were good-paying jobs. They had benefits. They may have even had some parental leave benefits. Today, they have no benefits. They're not choosing between having a paycheck or being with their child; they're choosing whether or not to go out and find some minimum-wage job or do something to try to bring a little money into the house, because in fact, they no longer have the good-paying jobs that have evaporated in this recession.

We did a stimulus package, and we disagreed on a lot of how it was done, but we understood we needed to get Americans rolling again, we needed to get them the opportunities. What those 14 million have given up--and countless millions more have given up in loss of some of their income--is what we disagree about.

So, Madam Chair, I would ask that the CBO document scoring this be placed in the Record so there is no question as to what we all agree on, the NFIB letter opposing this, and the letter from the Independent Electrical Contractors also be placed in the Record at this time.

H.R. 626 Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009

Summary: H.R. 626 would amend title 5 of the United States

Code, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Family

and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) by creating a new

category of leave under FMLA. This new category would provide

four weeks of paid leave to federal employees following the

birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. In addition, the

legislation permits the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

to increase the amount of paid leave provided to a total of

eight weeks based on the consideration of several factors

such as the cost to the federal government and enhanced

recruitment and retention of employees.

Under current law, federal employees who have completed at

least 12 months of service are entitled to up to 12 weeks of

leave without pay after the birth, adoption, or fostering of

a child. Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be

returned to the same position or to an ``equivalent position

with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and

conditions of employment.'' Employees may get paid during

that 12-week period by using any annual or sick leave that

they have accrued. The leave provided by this bill would be

available only within the 12-week FMLA leave period.

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 626 would cost $67

million in 2010 and a total of $938 million over the 2010-

2014 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds.

Enacting H.R. 626 would not affect direct spending or

receipts.

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or

tribal governments.

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary impact of H.R. 626 is shown in the following table.

The costs of this legislation would fall in all budget

functions (except functions 900 and 950).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Madam Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

My amendment to H.R. 626 is a commonsense amendment. I believe the legislation bridges the differences between the majority and the minority, recognizing that the Federal workforce should, in fact, be able to use accrued and earned time they have, recognizing that it is already the policy of many, but not all, Federal agencies to allow all accrued leave, both vacation, if you will, and sick leave, to be used by somebody wishing to avail themselves of their 12 weeks of family medical leave.

Having said that, we do take away the question of 4 weeks of additional paid or 8 weeks of additional paid leave. We recognize, though, that not every person, particularly a young family new to the Federal workforce, may have accrued leave sufficient to do 12 full weeks. Therefore, my amendment allows for that worker to take an advance against future sick leave and other leave in order to ensure that they may remain with their new child for the full 12 weeks allowed within the law. This would, in fact, eliminate the contradiction between various government agencies. It would streamline the process. It would make clear that no Federal worker would ever have to choose between being with their newborn and receiving a paycheck.

So with that, I urge the strong support of this amendment as a commonsense middle ground.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now proudly yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the subcommittee, somebody who is very aware of family values and the importance of this legislation, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.

Madam Chair, I just want to review one more time why we believe that doing this within the existing means of the program dollars that are already available to the Federal workforce is a commonsense compromise.

Meeting the majority halfway, recognizing that 14 million Americans are making no money, except for their unemployment insurance, and those who are making so much less this year demand that we find ways not to increase our spending. So, Madam Chair, I would just like to review one last time. The Federal workforce, if you've been in for only 3 years, you have 4 weeks of paid vacation and 13 days, which is nearly 3 weeks, of sick leave per year. You already have that every year. Isn't it family values to be willing to give up some of that to be able to stay with your family? Why wouldn't you use some of that first?

Madam Chair, I want to recognize that the Federal workforce is a good workforce, and we want it to be a great workforce. But at a time in which 14 million Americans are looking for jobs, we are actually not having a hard time finding people who would like to come to work for the Federal Government. We're offering jobs. We're hiring. We're growing. So if we're ever going to need an inducement, it will be at a boom time, at a time in which we have to compete against higher salaries and bonuses, not at a time in which Americans are suffering and being laid off in record numbers.

Lastly, Madam Chair, I would like to refer to the President's statement, which was quite a weak statement, in support of this bill. He recites the bill and then says, ``The administration is currently reviewing existing Federal leave policies to determine the extent of their gaps and limitations. The administration looks forward to working with Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make sure it meets the needs of the Federal agencies and employees, as well as their families.''

Madam Chair, what that says to me is, this is not the right bill. They'd like to work with us to make it better. Hopefully this amendment will make it better here today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, because there is no objection to this commonsense evaluation as to the low-income and economically disadvantaged, we claim in opposition and then yield back immediately.

Madam Chair, although we do not object to this, we claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, briefly, this amendment seems to be a good one that would try to clarify some of the many, many, many, many elements of this bill that were not worked through thoroughly in committee, so I applaud the gentleman. I believe that, in fact, if we would have done more of this in committee, if more people would have looked and said, We want, as the committee that is charged by the Congress to fight waste, fraud, and abuse, that, in fact, if we had tightened up this bill much better earlier, we would have been more accountable to the taxpayers.

So I applaud the gentleman and recommend that this be voted positively.

I yield back all time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, yes, I am.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit would ensure that nearly 14 million Americans who have lost their jobs will not see an additional 1, 2 or $4 billion of the new benefits paid to Federal workers unless this Congress is able to get its house in order.

Under the motion to recommit, we recognize that according to the Office of Management and Budget the deficit is currently approximately $1.841 trillion. The motion will very simply tie the enactment of this new and expensive and overly generous benefit to the national debt.

The motion dictates that if the deficit for any fiscal year exceeds $500 billion, the act will then terminate on the 30th day of the next fiscal year.

Madam Speaker, in a commonsense way, it means we can have this expensive--we object to it--but this expensive new benefit go into effect this year, but if this House and this Congress cannot get its house in order in the following years, then this act would not continue.

We believe that this is the last and best effort to try to reach a compromise to allow the majority to have its way on this expensive, new benefit but not allow it to continue on the backs of 14 million unemployed Americans, until or unless we're able to bring the deficit at least in line with where it was just two short years ago.

Madam Speaker, in closing I believe that the majority in this case has ignored one after another commonsense opportunities to amend this bill. In committee, we were shut out; here on the floor, each of our amendments, including one that would have simply allowed for every Federal worker to have 12 weeks of paid medical leave in the case of the birth, adoption or taking on of a foster child, but to do so with existing benefits, including sick leave, even allowing them to borrow sick leave.

Since that's been rejected, our motion to recommit seeks only to recognize that this new benefit on the backs of 14 million unemployed Americans and countless millions who are making much less this year than last year cannot be sustained if we cannot bring our fiscal house in order.

And with that, I would urge passage of the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, the author of the bill, Marsha Blackburn.

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to introduce yet another friend of the former Lieutenant Governor, Jimmy Duncan, a member of the committee and a fellow Tennesseean. I yield him such time as he may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join with the other Members, primarily of the Tennessee delegation, who so aptly are wishing a happy birthday to the Governor today on his 88th birthday. And I do support strongly the naming of this post office after a public servant of such a unique character and longevity of service.

And now that we have dispensed with this portion, the suspension, the noncontroversial part, as is the tradition of this committee, sometimes we make a point of other things on this allocated time. And today I believe that it's appropriate to speak about the impending, before August, cap-and-tax scheme that has been proposed by the Speaker and is likely to come to a vote.

We on this side of the aisle are deeply concerned about a system which is designed to raise the cost of all utilities in America, with no offset, no offset, for the ultimate CO2 that is likely to be created by moving those jobs overseas. It's very clear that cap-and- tax, if not uniform and enforced, would simply move American jobs overseas. And the bill, which is being considered by the Global Warming, otherwise sometimes called the Junket Committee here, is in fact something that I oppose, and I oppose because it is very clear that we cannot, in this body, simply make a decision that we're going to stop producing a certain amount of CO2 in the United States. And this, I might mention, while Air Force One consumes an incredible amount of CO2 or produces an incredible amount of CO2 while flying empty over New York City.

The world and the air around us is not isolated. If we go forward with a cap-and-trade initiative that is not globally enforced by every single nation, we simply are pollution laundering. We're saying we're going to have cleaner cars here, we're going to have cleaner this here, and yet CO2 will be produced in other places. Already it is very clear that China, for every single product it produces, is more energy intensive than the same product produced in the United States. Literally, when you import the same product from China that would otherwise be made here, although it may be cheaper, it produces more CO2 and a great many other pollutants.

I've been to China. I've been to Hanoi. I have been to many of these countries, and what I generally see are leaves blackened from the burning of coal, with not even scrubbers, much less any sequestration.

So, Madam Speaker, as we do not disagree one bit on the naming of this post office, this side of the aisle has to make it very clear that we do object to the present form that is being proposed without any real inclusion of Republicans and with the American jobs at stake.

And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, at this time due to the entry of the Ronald Reagan statue here in Statuary Hall, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) be able to control my time.