Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it's my great honor to introduce the author of this piece of legislation, someone who understands the importance of Isaac Hayes to Tennessee and to the music world, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn. I yield her 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the gentleman, does he have any additional speakers?

Then I would close briefly by supporting this bipartisan legislation, recognizing the life of Isaac Hayes. Additionally mentioning that Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith support this and support recognizing this inspirational man, his inspirational life, and his fine music and work he did well into the last days of his life.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of legislation. I was not aware of it in its earliest authorship. I became aware of it, in addition to the issue which I was aware of, only when it began to move toward our committee. As I looked at both the legislation and those affected, who had worked so valiantly for 17 years to try to bring justice to an unjust occurrence in the history of Iraq, I discovered that we had a large group of men and women who had been used as human shields, a relatively small group of people who had been tortured at Saddam's hands, Americans.

But what I also discovered was that these people had no other way to focus the injustice of what had happened to them than by seeking a remedy in the courts, and that had been denied them for so long. Now they have that remedy from the courts, and they're being denied the opportunity to avail themselves of it.

Mr. Speaker, if this were just about money, I wouldn't be standing here. This is not. This is about a much larger cause. Throughout our history, we have endeavored to compensate our men and women when we send them to war. We've endeavored to compensate them when they're prisoners of war, but we will never be able to compensate them for the torture that they've received at the hands of barbarians.

The very barbarian who ordered this misconduct, Saddam Hussein, has been executed by the new government of Iraq. The new government of Iraq every day is seeking to reenter the world of justice and civilized nations. They're doing so in a myriad of ways, including settling the wrongful acts of the Saddam regime. This is no different.

The amendments that I asked for, and on a bipartisan way were granted, in the Judiciary Committee sought to make it clear America wants no compensation from the new Iraq government unless it is consistent with other compensation for similar acts of the Saddam Hussein regime. As Mr. Scott has already said, the administration of Iraq is making those efforts today, and I know they will negotiate in good faith with the victims of torture if, in fact, they have standing to do so.

That's why we're working on a bipartisan basis to grant the President the ability, if there are not similar settlements, to withhold this capability until or unless there are. I don't want this to be about every past war, but it wouldn't be fair to ask for this if we hadn't previously seen Libya make settlements finally but only after the State Department had withdrawn their objections.

And to most people here on the House floor, World War II is but a memory or a piece of history they've read about. The men and women who were taken at Bataan and other places were tortured. Most of them died. Then, too, we felt that we shouldn't burden the new Japanese Government with the sins of the past government. I think that's a bad precedent.

I believe that the making whole of people for whom you have done more

than just conduct war is, in fact, the responsibility on an ongoing basis of a government if they have the ability and certainly if they grant similar compensation to people from other countries or, in the case of Japan, Libya and post-Saddam Iraq, if they grant money damages to companies who often lost nothing but money.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this legislation wholeheartedly. I know my Republican colleagues will. I note that this is, in fact, a good message to the administration to facilitate the settlement rather than to stand aside on it.

Mr. Speaker, many members of our armed forces faced horrible abuse and torture at the hands of Iraq's former dictator, Saddam Hussein, during the first Gulf War. We owe those members of the armed forces not only our sympathy, but our deepest thanks for enduring immense pain and suffering for a larger cause that helped keep all of us safe here at home. We also owe those members of the armed forces justice. And that's why we're here today to pass H.R. 5167, the Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act.

In the closing hours before the most recent House recess, I was very pleased to see the House, and the Senate, send legislation to the President that statutorily approved an agreement that was reached between the State Department and Libya regarding the compensation of Americans injured by Libyan-sponsored terrorism. That legislation was passed by both bodies under unanimous consent. It not only approved the negotiated agreement, which provides for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, but it also protected the agreement from being undone by lawyers and judges who would have otherwise interfered with its implementation.

The agreement with Libya shows that State-to-State negotiations for the compensation of victims of terrorism can work. It is a far more effective means of compensating victims than lawsuits, as domestic court judgments are always difficult to enforce, and foreign entities have many ways of moving their funds offshore to avoid collection. Negotiations worked to provide fair compensation for the victims of Libya, and they can work to provide fair compensation to the victims of the torture and terrorism perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's former regime.

I was very pleased to have been able to craft a bill with Chairman Conyers that not only facilitates, but encourages, State-to-State negotiations with the new democracy in Iraq that is the surest means of providing ultimate compensation for deserving victims. An amendment I offered at committee with Chairman Conyers, and which is now part of this bill, provides that the negotiations process will be allowed to continue as long as ``the President has certified to the Congress . . . that . . . negotiations are ongoing with the Government of Iraq to settle the claims in the [covered] cases . . . and the President believes that those negotiations are being conducted in good faith and could lead to a satisfactory settlement of those claims . . .''

Under this provision, the President must, on a regular basis, provide Congress with a status report attesting to the continuing good faith negotiations between the parties, and to the prospect that those negotiations could lead to a satisfactory settlement. That provision is necessary to help balance several worthy goals.

One of those goals is the maintaining of a stable, free, and democratic Iraq that will help ensure horrors the likes of which were seen under Saddam Hussein will not be seen again. To that end, earlier in this Congress, Congress passed H.R. 4986, which authorized the President to waive lawsuits against the new democracy in Iraq if the President determined that the waiver is in the national security interest of the United States; that the waiver will promote the reconstruction of, the consolidation of democracy in, and the relations of the United States with, Iraq; and that Iraq continues to be a reliable ally of the United States and partner in combating acts of international terrorism. On the day the President signed that provision into law, he signed a waiver and issued a statement justifying the exercise of the waiver authority.

But H.R. 4986 also included a Sense of Congress that provides as follows:

``[T]he President, acting through the Secretary of State, should work with the Government of Iraq on a state-to-state basis to ensure compensation for any meritorious claims based on terrorist acts committed by the Saddam Hussein regime against individuals who were United States nationals or members of the United States Armed Forces at the time of those terrorist acts and whose claims cannot be addressed in courts in the United States due to the exercise of the waiver authority.''

It is now time to provide the statutory requirements necessary to implement that Sense of Congress. We do that here today by passing H.R. 5167, which gives our policy of encouraging good faith negotiations to provide fair and tangible compensation to victims of torture the force of statutory law. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time while again urging support for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is drawing to a close. I think that so much has been said, not nearly enough. I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have done such a good job of making this a bipartisan piece of legislation.

Additionally, I would like to echo the last speaker because the gentleman from Pennsylvania, rightfully so, reminded us that the men and women in our Armed Forces, in which he served and in which I served, know the rules; they know the rules that we operate under, and we know the penalty if we break those rules. We know that if our country were to, in fact, torture somebody, we would both punish those who did it and compensate those who were treated in any inconsistent way with the rule of law. We only ask that the post-Saddam Iraq, if they're paying compensation and apologizing to others, they do the same to the men who suffered at their hands.

So I think that for all the men and women serving in the Armed Forces today and those who have served in the past, this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is taking a giant step toward saying we will hold others accountable as we have always held our own accountable.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of the City of

Wildomar on their official incorporation as a city on July 1, 2008. Located in southwest Riverside County within the 49th Congressional District, Wildomar stands to be the 456th city in the great state of California. I commend the citizens of Wildomar for their decision to take the responsibility of self governance by utilizing the fundamental principles of democracy, a tradition that goes back to the founding days of our nation.

Established as a community in 1891, Wildomar has a long and rich history in California. The three founders constructed the name ``Wildomar'' from their first names, ``Wil'' from William Collier, ``Do'' from Donald Graham and ``Mar'' from Margaret Collier. Once a common stop for the Pony Express on the Butterfield Stage route, Wildomar provided a much needed break for the express riders. Thanks to the establishment of a rail line and stop at Wildomar, the village has continued to grow throughout the last century.

Today, the area of Wildomar consists of many custom built homes set on large ranches and communities along the hillsides with sweeping views of the valley. Wildomar remains a relaxing and naturally beautiful area of California. Wildomar is home to 27,000 people, many of them first time home buyers and long time residents.

On February 2, 2008, the citizens of Wildomar voted to incorporate the city, while at the same time electing the leaders that will set the standards for future growth and stability in a rich area of California. It is my honor to recognize the first city council of Wildomar: Council Members Ms. Sheryl Ade, Mr. Bob Cashman, Mr. Scott Farnam, Ms. Bridgette Moore, and Ms. Marsha Swanson. I look forward to working with the new council on issues important to their new and growing community.

As the Representative of the 49th Congressional District of California in the United States House of Representatives, I wish the new city of Wildomar great success as it begins the next chapter of Wildomar's storied history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you all for this moment and this minute.

I represent a great many tribes in California, none of whom will be adversely affected if this casino goes in or doesn't go in. I come to the floor as a supporter of tribal and historic rights and their gaming rights. I have absolute support for Native Americans having gaming on their tribal lands. I also have absolute support for private property. As the gentlewoman from Michigan would like to have private property respected, then the State of Michigan can license a casino on that site to anyone they want, including those Indians on lands that are not in trust.

We, as Federal officers, are being asked to put land in trust for purposes of a casino which has no historic link to the tribes receiving it. We should insist that tribal land be given appropriately in Michigan as close to as possible their historic land or in areas that are for some purpose other than manipulating and distorting the intent of our laws to create a casino.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3195, ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

The ADA Amendments Act is a needed step in addressing improper judicial interpretation of the original Americans with Disabilities Act. Courts interpreted the Act more narrowly than Congress had intended resulting in decreased protection under the Act. It is especially gratifying that in crafting the legislation before us today the disability community was able to come to an agreement with private industry on appropriate legislative language.

More specifically than the legislation at hand, I bring attention to the lack of Americans with Disability Act, ADA, compliance in the historic Capitol complex, specifically the use of door handles within personal House offices.

The purpose the ADA is to ensure nondiscrimination for persons with disabilities including but not limited to public accommodations. The ADA specifically states the use of lever operated mechanisms, push-type mechanisms, or U-shaped handles are acceptable designs for all to operate.

Enacted in 1990, I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to every extent reasonable, to install appropriate usable hardware by all those that wish to access the halls of Congress.

Beginning with my first term in office in 2000, I have made requests to have my personal House office located in the Cannon building outfitted with ADA appropriate door handles. It is unfortunate that 8 years after my initial request and 18 years following the enactment of the ADA, Congress has chosen to remain out of compliance with the ADA.

Congress must lead by example by making these buildings accessible to all Americans, regardless of disability. I urge you to read my attached most recent correspondence requesting this appropriate and necessary change.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: I wanted to make you aware of a request

that I submitted to the Committee on House Administration for

the installation of Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA,

compliant lever-style door handles in my office, room 211 in

the Cannon House Office Building, and throughout the House

campus.

I am concerned that nearly 18 years after the passage of

the Act, Congress remains significantly out of compliance. I

have attached a copy of my letter to Chairman Robert Brady

and Ranking Member Vern Ehlers for your review.

Thank you for your attention to this important request.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Member of Congress.

Enclosure.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this hammered- out compromise bill.

You know, Madam Speaker, elections matter. The current balance in the House and the Senate played an important part in the administration, House Republicans, House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Senate Republicans coming together and figuring out what was needed, what was constitutional, in a very much bipartisan fashion.

Unfortunately, there are those who want to have it both ways, those who will talk about how this is balanced, it meets the needs of the administration, as the administration is assuring us, and it meets all of the constitutional requirements. But there are those who want to also play to the other side. While making sure that we are protected by a good piece of legislation, there are those who will come on the floor and denounce this and then vote against it.

Madam Speaker, I ask the American people to look long and hard at how people vote on this. This is in fact worked out to assure the American people, and properly so, that we will protect all of their constitutional rights while doing everything we can to ensure their safety.

This is good legislation worked out over a long period of time, and a lot of thoughtful work went into it on both sides. But I ask the American people to hold accountable those who would want to know that the American people are protected, and then vote against it in order to play to special interests.

Madam Speaker, that is the bad part of what will happen today. The good part is that America will be safer and the Constitution will be secure because of what we are doing here today. I thank you and urge support.

Madam Speaker, in just 1 minute it's impossible to assure the American people of everything this bill will do. But I would like too, if you will, react to something that was said on the other side that just simply isn't true.

Yes, during J. Edgar Hoover's day, there was warrantless surveillance, even on political enemies of the people who were President at the time. Those days are behind us.

This act, long since we've taken care of domestic wiretap, but this goes one step further. It insures Americans and

particularly, I think, Arab Americans like myself who might go back and forth between here or have relatives in the Middle East, that their conversations will not be the subject of warrantless wiretaps, that, in fact, they can be very confident that America is going to observe the Constitution for them, both when they are here and if they are visiting abroad.

So it's not easy to undo some of the statements that talk about the past, but the truth is, this will protect what has already been established for Americans here.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill in search of benefits that in fact do not exist in any great numbers in the private sector. This is a new perk, at a time in which the American people are having to make cutbacks. They are driving less. They are very clearly suffering under the incredible cost of rising energy prices. So this is a bill whose time should not be coming.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield as much time as he would consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers on our side spoke in favor of the bill.

I would like to honor their speaking in favor of the bill by saying that the bill is well intended, even if it is fatally flawed. People are talking about 10 years of wanting to achieve what they hope to achieve here today.

I would say to you and certainly would ask that Federal workers take note of what we do here today. We are not talking about making sure that someone who has a child or adopts a child has the opportunity to take the time off for bonding. We already ensure 12 weeks of that and have for that decade.

We are not talking here about anything except as it is presently written and not allowed to be amended, a bill that simply grants 4 weeks every single year to those individuals who choose to have a child, who choose to take time off in relation to a sick Federal employee, as was originally presented, or, more importantly, someone who takes on a foster child.

Now I am all for people taking on foster children, but let's look at this from a practical standpoint. You are running a Federal department. You have somebody who you need, and every single year, as often happens, they take on a new foster child that they keep for 3 to 5 years and they have, let's say, three foster children. That means that that individual will be gone on paid leave over and above their vacation, over and above their 13 days of sick leave a year, they are going to be gone 4 weeks every year, conceivably for a full 20 years.

So by having not just the birth, of a woman, but the husband, and not just birth, but foster children, we can conceivably go so far beyond the $850 million scoring, we could easily end up in the tens of billions of dollars.

Let's consider our Federal workers at a time when we are considering whether this is appropriate to do. Our Federal workers receive 13 days of sick leave a year. Our Federal workers can accumulate those for 6 months, meaning that when they retire, as is often the case, Federal workers simply don't show up to work for the last 6 months. The reason? They are using up their sick leave. They can't be paid for it. They additionally have in the neighborhood of 2 weeks plus of vacation that they can cash out if they don't use it.

Now, in the private sector, it is not, in almost any case, a use-it- or-lose-it policy on sick leave. Additionally, a little-known practice, but well used in the Federal service, is the giving away of somebody's sick leave. For example, if somebody in your department or somebody in your organization or the Federal Government were to take on a foster child, there can be a campaign to raise sick leave for that individual so that they would not be unpaid if they had a need for it. No problem, but it comes out of the bank of 13 days per employee per year.

What this bill seeks to do is to grant something that is almost unheard of here in Congress or in the private sector.

And I would like to take a little exception with the gentlelady from New York; we did go and look at the existing programs, and there is no support for 86 percent of House offices provide paid leave, not at all. Paid parental leave as a written policy does not exist in many of the offices, and I would ask the gentlelady to bring proof of her statement because quite frankly she has been misled if she thinks 86 percent of House offices have a formal written policy granting already this privilege that we seek to grant here this year.

The scoring, as I said, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. It is not going to be $850 million, it will be billions of dollars. It will be billions of dollars at a time when Americans are being laid off. It will be billions of dollars at a time when Fortune 100 companies offering either pregnancy-related or disability leave, it is less than one-third of the Fortune 100 companies, which are the most wealthy, most generous companies in America, and less than one-third typically will offer that.

The fact is that unpaid parental leave has become widespread. The leadership of the U.S. House and Senate in passing a bill that granted that to Federal workers is to be commended. The opportunity at one's expense using one's resources to take care of and bond in regards to a choice such as a birth or adoption of a child, is commendable and has become widespread.

If this becomes widespread, we might someday look back and commend it. But today, what we are doing is we are offering Federal workers, workers who, like ourselves, are often chastised by people in the private sector who have to make a payroll, are being given things which they cannot afford.

As is often said on the House floor, 44-plus million Americans don't have health care, and yet we are asking that every Federal worker, in addition to 13 days of paid sick leave, accumulable or borrow-able or giveaway-able, be granted additionally another, what is basically twice that amount, each and every year if they choose to use it.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong to do it. In committee we aggressively tried to amend this to allow them to use resources already available more flexibly. Those were voted down on primarily a party- line basis.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in anticipation of more things that need to be corrected on the House floor.

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

I appreciate the majority providing us reference to the 2006 House Compensation Study that shows even with other people's money, and perhaps no guidance on how to spend it, about 20 percent of the House offices offer little or no, or actually offer no paid leave.

The amazing thing to me is we are here today talking about a new paid leave. I just want to explain for a moment, when congressional offices choose to do paid leave, they do so out of a fixed budget. The majority would have you believe here that we are going to do this out of some fixed budget. We are not. This is going to run up the cost of every office that does everything, from post offices to the Secret Service to the IRS. It is going to run up the cost of these Federal employees. It is going to run it up by quite a bit.

With all due respect to my colleague from California, I am not implying that having foster families is bad; just the opposite, it's good. The question is if you have an active foster parent family and they are being given 4 weeks of paid leave, who is to assume that they won't take it. I believe they will. That will mean for every 12 people doing it, you will have basically the need for an additional Federal worker with all the compensation and benefits that go with it. That is the reality we have here today.

In committee we attempted unsuccessfully to have this be fiscally responsible, recognizing that there are 13 days of paid sick leave every year, fully accumulable so that a typical worker need only borrow from the sick leave that they were eventually going to cash out by not coming to work the last 6 months they are in the Federal workforce, simply use it for this.

I am not implying that the birth of a child is sick, but it is fully usable under the amendments we tried to offer. So it is a little disingenuous for my colleague from California to say that the military can use it and somehow Federal workers couldn't. That could have been taken care of in committee, and it was clearly fought on a partisan basis.

The fact is this bill should be before us today clarifying and taking care of some technical problems in the families being able to take full advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act by being able to use all of their sick leave, perhaps even borrow against future sick leave, which was proposed, and in fact have their colleagues give them sick leave in order to facilitate their staying home for those 4 weeks or more and not be without pay.

The fact is we are here today dealing with a problem which we should not be spending new money on at a time when the Federal deficit and the Federal spending is far in excess of what the private sector can afford. As people here in Washington and people in California find it impossible to make ends meet with $5 a gallon gasoline, it is irresponsible for us to be adding this multibillion-dollar perk at a time in which, with only technical corrections, we could have provided these people the opportunity to use resources they already had in the way of sick leave and vacation.

With all due respect to Federal workers, I think the majority of Federal workers would say that if they had their choice of this many billions of dollars of new spending, they would just as soon get it up front in pay and they would care of their choices in children, adopted or natural birth, they would take care of it out of their sick leave if they were given the additional dollars. So I think in fact we are doing them a disservice, if we are going to spend the money, of not spending it straightforward in a proper way, and I look forward to attempts to make this technically correct.

And I once again regret that the Rules Committee chose not to allow these technical amendments not to be even considered, but in fact have kept them from debate on the House floor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Sick leave of Federal workers is not limited to people who are sick. The common practice at the end of a career of simply retiring 6 months early to use up accrued sick leave speaks loudly to the fact that sick leave is simply 13 additional days that can be used on a discretionary basis.

The chairman of the full committee knows this very well. And, in fact, we attempted to make it explicit that not only would you be able to use your 13 days plus any accrual, but even borrow in order to make this fiscally neutral, fiscally responsible at this time.

This bill is not about whether or not we allow people to take 4, 6, 8 or 12 weeks of paid leave. In fact, we were more than willing to have the entire 12 weeks of family medical leave be usable, to be able to use its current or even borrow some of its future sick leave.

What this bill is doing here today is saying, you get to keep 3, 4, 5 months of sick leave you already have in the bank. You get to keep your many weeks of vacation, and you get this additional amount. This is something the American people are not prepared to pay for. If we're going to be responsible, we're not going to make the American people pay for this additional back-door increase at this time.

The majority knows this very well, so I, again, repeat, it is disingenuous to say that they can't use their sick leave. In fact, that was something that could have been handled in committee, would have been handled by the amendments that were not ruled in order by the Rules Committee on a purely partisan basis.

In fact, we are considering a bill today that is designed to cost the American people money.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the leadership said it very well. Of course, they didn't say anything about what we're actually doing here today. This isn't about family unity or bonding. It isn't about mom and dad or the child. This is about a new spending, a new irresponsible spending proposal coming from the Democrats after they promised us fiscal responsibility.

The fact is, we will have our taxes raised. The American people will pay for this in higher taxes in the coming years. They will pay for this after we said it was about your family.

The reality is that there will be layoffs in the private sector. There will be people in the private sector who say, with these new taxes, can we still afford to have health care benefits while, in fact, Federal workers who not only enjoy good health care benefits, good vacation policies, also get more than 2\1/2\ weeks a year to be sick.

Now, when the American people discover that an organization, the U.S. government, gives their people 2\1/2\ weeks to be sick, and allows them to accrue 6 months of that in case they're ever really sick for a long period of time, and does not require a physician's proof that they actually are sick, and then, when given the opportunity to say, let's use these 2\1/2\ plus weeks a year of sick benefits, since they're usable for anything you want to use in the way of time off, let's use

them for time off when you have a child, that, in fact that was turned down as not good enough by the Democrat majority.

It was turned down as clearly we have to add the dollars on top of this, wrongfully estimating $850 million when, in fact, this is billions. This could be fiscally responsible and family-oriented by simply allowing this well-accrued sick leave to be used for this, since it's going to be either used for sick leave, or it's going to be used at the end of a career or before someone leaves government as a general practice. It is seldom simply not used and turned back in.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the Democrat leader, that, in fact, this new expense leading to new taxes is, in fact, something that he supports, but calls it family-oriented. It's not family-oriented to the taxpayers in America, to the private sector. It is simply family- oriented to big government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to correct the Record.

Mr. Speaker, less than one-third of Fortune 100 companies offer fathers paid leave. Approximately half offer some amount of disability or pregnancy leave in the birth of a natural child. So when you mix and match the richest companies in this country you're going to get less than a third offer anything close to what we're offering here today, not more than half. We're not following.

In fact, when you quote the Fortune 100, by definition, what you're quoting are the very large companies that are normally disparaged by my Democrat colleagues as gouging the public on making too much on oil and other resources.

In fact, what we normally talk about on the House floor and pay tribute to are the small businesses, the entrepreneurial, mom and pop businesses. They're not giving this. They can't afford to.

As a matter of fact, a big part of the 44 million uninsured are because small businesses can't afford health care. They can't afford health, dental, eyeglass. And yet we're giving this benefit.

Now, there was a proposal Mr. Van Hollen said that I think was very appropriate. We do have boomers retiring. In committee we have talked about ways to extend the careers of those baby boomers. The easiest way, one which would be fiscally responsible, as a matter of fact, it would even be a benefit to us and to them, those 6 months that are often used as terminal leave on a retiring senior member of government, if we would simply pay them those 6 months when they retire, it would be the least expensive way to get six additional months from the baby booming retired workforce.

That proposal is dead on arrival apparently for the Democrat majority. That proposal would be a way to extend these significant amount of Federal workers at the time we need them most, which is when they really are senior people able to pass on to the next generation. That soft landing, dead on arrival.

A new costly program, one that less a third of Fortune 100 companies, the richest companies, can even afford in fact is what we're being faced with here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

You know, it's amazing that the gentlelady from New York would make the case that this isn't going to cost much. Of course, no dynamic scoring. They're sort of just looking at track history and then want the dynamic scoring for some intangible savings in Federal worker retention. It's very clear this is going to cost $850 million or more and that it is likely to grow.

More importantly, I'm not somebody who spends a lot of time preaching family values from the dais. But if we're going to talk family values here today, let's talk them. Family values are about family making sacrifices to make things work. Unlike the gentlelady, I find that her example is an excellent example for my point, not her point. No Federal worker is forced to come back with an open wound. In fact, that woman would have been allowed to continue getting paid leave.

Additionally, with more than 2\1/2\ weeks of accrued paid medical leave every year, there is no reason that she wouldn't have likely had accruals in her own bank. I love anecdotal examples because they usually make the case for the person delivering them; I would say just the opposite. This woman didn't have to come back. She could use medical leave, and contrary to what the gentlelady from New York is saying, Federal workers are allowed to use their medical, their sick leave in other ways, and they do regularly.

Additionally, there is a whole system within the Federal workforce not really understood by the private sector but supported by this Member which is I can put my unused sick leave into banks to help others. I can even put my vacation, under certain circumstances, in banks to help others. So Federal workers can, in fact, share this very generous more than 2\1/2\ weeks of sick leave and 2 weeks of vacation if they choose to.

So when we talk about the Federal family, the Federal family has plenty of resources to help with this.

What we're talking about here is a multibillion-dollar new spending program at a time of recession, at a time of threatened tax increases by the Democrat majority, and at a time when the American people are striving just to fill up the tank with gas and try to figure out how to pay health care benefits. We're looking at new opportunities to increase our own well being.

But we don't and shouldn't come first. The taxpayers and hardworking men and women out there come first. So for this Member, I'm going to tell you I'm not going to put us first, I'm going to put the taxpayers first and vote against this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if he has no other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the time I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you have noticed I have spoken with great passion here today about this bill. I would wish that I could be speaking with the passion in the positive, because the Federal workers deserve a bill that we didn't bring to the floor today. They deserve one that would allow for flexibility of sick leave, transferability, transparently to people who are having families, whether by adoption or by natural birth. That is what we should be bringing to the floor.

We could do so at a time of shortages around the country at no cost to the taxpayer. We could do it exactly the way the gentlelady from New York described. Mrs. Maloney does not get new money for a new perk for her people. She chooses within a budget to in fact provide that benefit. And I commend her for that, and I commend the other Members who make decisions how to allocate a fixed pie of money, whether it's to go on sending constituent mail or providing paying benefits to the employees that answer the mail from constituents.

So today we are not being given the bill we should be given. The bill we should give is to guarantee the ability to not lose pay when taking family medical leave but to use resources that are already available within the Federal system. That's not happening today. I regret that that's not happening. Had we been allowed to bring the amendments that we wanted to bring, we would have accomplished that. Had we been allowed to even bring the technical corrections that would have made this a less-imperfect bill, one that would not cause deadbeat dads to be able to take advantage of this, we would be doing that. We're not allowed to do that today. I regret that.

I hope that this bill is defeated here and/or in the Senate and that we can bring up a truly bipartisan bill, one that would pass, quite frankly, on suspension if it was structured right, and would provide Federal workers this opportunity without additional costs to the taxpayers.

I thank the Speaker, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for a spirited debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition in order to engage in a colloquy with my colleague.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Davis, I hope I understood you correctly so that I could withdraw any objection. I, too, share a belief that the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, since we ordered the GAO to make these studies and they routinely, of course, grant them, I don't see that it should be in the bill. But I'm a little bit confused about whether or not your request and the acceptance matches the study that was described in the bill.

I yield to you so you could clear that up for me.

Reclaiming my time, so if the gentleman would assure me that if the GAO does not agree to do a study that is commensurate with the one described in the legislation, that he would join with me in asking for that nuance-specific study, then I'd be happy to withdraw because I think his amendment is fully in order if we can assure that.

Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw my opposition and urge support for the amendment.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, only on this floor would we debate how the American eagle would feel. I'm astonished that the Democrats have the hubris to talk in terms of how the American eagle would feel. As a matter of fact, the American eagle and countless thousands of birds and other wildlife have been used as an excuse for a generation for 68 million acres--yes, they are leased, but a lease is in fact not a right to drill. Just because you have a lease doesn't waive any environmental consideration. So beyond the requirement to find out if in fact there is oil on a lease site, you have to go through a myriad of hoops before you can begin drilling.

It's one of the reasons that, in fact, offshore drilling has become so popular. Not only are there vast resources out there, but in fact, the fish simply swim away; and in deep water, particularly over 400 meters, it is unlikely to find an environmentalist at the bottom claiming that there is some new form of life that is not only new but highly in danger.

So with all fairness to the Nation's bird, I would say that what we need to do is stop talking about 68 million acres that are ``available for production'' when in fact, the vast majority of that has little or no usable oil.

And I just want to give you a fairly short statement, Mr. Speaker. It is not a question of whether or not you have acreage, it's a question of whether the acreage is valid acreage for oil. I will give you the easiest example. West Virginia. It's a wonderful State. Beautiful State. They take a tremendous amount of coal out of there. They also take a quite a bit of oil. As a matter of fact, with 3,400 oil wells, they take a total of 5,000 barrels a day out of there. To the contrary, or to the other example, Alaska, with only 1,700, half as many wells, take 700,000 barrels a day.

So it's not, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you have millions of acres, it's do you have the acreage that you are able to drill in, do you have the acreage that is, in fact, yielding oil. And I can assure you at $134 a barrel, if anyone was holding acreage that yielded barrels that in fact could deliver that kind of revenue, it would be drilled today.

The truth is the vast majority of the acreage is either off limits for environmental reasons or, in fact, would be like West Virginia: 3,400 wells, 5,000 barrels a day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentlelady from Orange County in support of this resolution. But this resolution brings to mind one of the challenges we have in California. You see, in California, we don't allow coal to be used to make electricity. In California, we don't allow nuclear; we banned it for more than 30 years, no new nuclear. As a matter of fact, in California, with the exception of some geothermal that we can't seem to find a way to bring power lines from where it is to where we want it, all of our new power comes from natural gas.

And in California, we are not looking for natural gas. As a matter of fact, we don't allow any leasing, Federally or State, off of our coastline. Literally a thousand miles of coastline out 200 miles is off limits to natural gas. We can't take clean natural gas from our own shores in California. As a result, water projects are in danger.

The gentlelady from California rightfully so did speak about groundwater replenishment, which she has in her district and I have in my district. We also have desalinization in both of our districts. And guess what? Desalinization is another term for electricity-to-water.

In order to meet our water needs, whether it's pumping from the north to the south, pumping for replenishment or, in fact, desalinization, we need energy. That energy is electricity. That electricity comes from natural gas. That natural gas comes from unstable parts of the world in which it must be hauled in by liquefication because we don't meet our own natural gas needs.

Republicans here in the House support opening up the opportunity to get natural gas, at least allow some exploration for natural gas 50 miles off the California coast. That's not difficult. And the leaks, in fact, would be methane 50 miles offshore. You wouldn't see it, you wouldn't hear it, and it's nonpolluting. And yet, as of today, the Democrats continue to block that.

We need to open up. We've been talking about oil, but we need to talk about natural gas. California needs clean natural gas. It's off our shoreline, it's close to us today. And I would absolutely urge my colleagues, when they're looking at water in California, look at water as electricity and electricity as natural gas, and natural gas is something we have off our shore that is presently unavailable; millions, countless millions of acres unavailable.

And last, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when people are talking about the acreage that isn't being used today, the 68 million acres that's not currently in use, and, you know, we can look at whether some of it just recently was granted and it's in exploration, whether it's in environmental, we can break it down. But the amazing thing is, out of only 41 million acres that is out on lease of any exploration or production, we're getting a huge amount of oil off Federal lands. Just think if we, in fact, used those 68 million acres over the next few years and opened up some major portion of 2.351 billion acres, that's 2,351 million acres that are not available today.

So when people talk about the 68 million that are, they should also talk about the 41 million that are under use today that are generating oil and natural gas, the many millions that are coming in from leases that are out that are just now beginning to bear fruit, and of course the 2,351 million acres that are presently closed, a lot of which is off the California and the gulf coast 50 miles out that no one would see, that, in fact, could be drilled in deep water safely, but of course is not available today.

If the gentlelady will yield.

What I was talking about is a portion of the 2.351 billion acres. Obviously, all of us would want to make sure that certain areas were not drilled in, but of course most of this acreage we have no idea what is there.

As you probably know, there are 3,400-plus oil wells throughout West Virginia. We have overdrilled West Virginia and Oklahoma. We haven't put a new drill even for exploration off the California coast in decades, not even to find out how much natural gas is out there. And that, in fact, from 50 to 200 miles, is an economic zone created by Ronald Reagan that belongs to the United States that could be explored.

Well, Madam Chair, of course it excludes it. But when we look at only 3 percent and 6 percent that are under oil leases, we have to look at all the available BLM land. Just, for example, though, there are 700 million acres that are presently held by the BLM. By definition, the Bureau of Land Management holds that for productive use. So that would be an example where there are no parks on BLM land, there are no national monuments or military bases on those 700 million acres alone.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I too rise in support of the resolution. National Public Radio is important. KPBS in my hometown represents a voice that provides a plethora of information that would not otherwise be available.

Some of the information that I hope they would provide would be to get to the true causes of our high oil prices. In San Diego, Public Broadcasting is playing a role in saying that $5 gas is unacceptable. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, public radio is not yet making us aware of just why it is so high.

The fact that over 2 billion acres are not available for exploration of oil and gas in California is part of the reason that last weekend I paid $5-plus for a gallon of gas in my home district. That, Madam Speaker, is in fact something that we need to take care of. We need to have public radio and all of our communications systems running on full bore.

I do note, Madam Speaker, that this is an April resolution. This is a resolution that we are so far behind in the important business of the House, we are only getting to now celebrating April of 2008 for Public Broadcasting. I find it interesting that we were so busy, and yet we didn't have time to find out what were the real causes of high oil and gas prices, why America is importing half a trillion dollars a year of other people's oil and a similar growing amount of natural gas and other resources.

So I would hope that when we get this April legislation off our plate, we would turn to the important issues of the day, certainly the incredibly high price of gas in my home district, caused by a lack of domestic exploration.

And if we have just a little time, perhaps we could find out why in the midst of the sub-S meltdown, we discover that Members of this body and Members of the body on the other side of the dome were in fact getting special deals that saved themselves tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars on their home mortgages. These investigations need to happen, because we need to solve the problem of how America finds itself with financial meltdown. We need to find out what it is going to take to get American oil and high-paying American jobs flowing again.

Madam Speaker, I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I too rise in strong support of Flag Day. Since 1777, America has in fact invested a great deal of who we are, what we do, what is right and what we stand for in our Nation's flag. Whether it was the first Flag Day, which emerged in 1885 when a 19-year-old schoolteacher in Wisconsin declared the flag's birthday, or in 1889, when a kindergarten teacher in New York City held a patriotic ceremony to help educate his children, or throughout the years, year after year after year, in which America invested its patriotism in the flag, or, as the gentleman in the majority said, in fact on September 11, when here in Washington and around the world we invested in a patriotic showing after the terrible events in New York, here in Washington and Pennsylvania, we did so because in fact we are what America stands for. Our flag represents that.

But, today, Madam Speaker, America stands for a country that imports half a trillion dollars worth of oil and vast amounts of natural gas. America is a country with crushing debt owed to other countries around the world. America today is a country proud of itself and proud of its flag, but mortgaging our children's future by investing in foreign oil and foreign natural gas and foreign minerals at a time in which the vast majority of our resources are not being used.

Madam Speaker, I join with the majority in saying that in fact America has to make sure that our natural resources are used, whether it is the 68 million acres being called into question by the majority as to whether or not oil leases are being pursued, or the 41 million acres that do have oil under production, or in fact the 2 billion-plus acres, including the area over 50 miles off the California coast that has been permanently taken off limits to oil and clean natural gas so needed in our country.

So, as we celebrate this Flag Day and our reinvestment in our flag and in who we are as a nation, let's remember who we are is a country of self-sufficiency, and self-sufficiency starts with the ability to produce our own products and certainly to heat our own homes.

Madam Speaker, I have no more to say about our flag than what our flag says for itself, but I have a great deal to say about who we as Americans will be. We will be a country, God willing, that in fact is self-sufficient.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would yield back.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, no one is a better example of energy, of doing more with less than is Chi-Chi Rodriguez. Not only did he begin golfing at age 6 and shoot a 67 at age 12, but in fact, for a man who never rose above 5'7'' in height or 130 pounds in weight, he has one of the most famous long balls in golf. That is the energy of Chi-Chi Rodriguez, an energy that America covets. He is somebody who doesn't let size or any other limitation keep him from achieving his goals.

Earlier, the gentleman from Florida talked about Florida and Chi-Chi Rodriguez' activities there in Clearwater. Florida brings to mind that, when you talk about a man of energy, just 50 miles off the coast of Florida, China and Cuba are now issuing contracts that are going to allow for drilling, for drilling closer to America than we allow, just 50 miles off the coast of Florida, in fact, without the kind of safeguards that American companies would use.

So when I think of Florida and I think of a man of energy, I think of the energy that is being kept away from the American people, energy that would keep our dollars from flowing to countries less friendly to us, energy that would make us self-sufficient and self-reliant, and energy that would heat our homes and fuel our cars at a cost far less than what we are paying today.

Madam Speaker, I truly think of energy when I think of Chi-Chi Rodriguez, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Chi-Chi Rodriguez and urge passage of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I join with my friend and colleague from Ohio in urging support for H.R. 6150 to name the post office in Cleveland, Ohio, in honor of John P. Gallagher. Like the gentleman, I am also a Clevelander born and raised. Like many of us in the room, I know what Mr. Gallagher came home to after World War II. He came home to a Cleveland that had helped win the war. He came home to a Cleveland in which women had come out of their homes to work in all of the major plants. They worked in auto plants that were now making tanks. They worked in the steel mills. In fact, Cleveland won the war both by the men it sent off to war, and by the men and women who stayed home and worked those heavy industries.

So I very much believe it is appropriate and vital that we recognize the Cleveland workforce that made America great and won World War II. And, in fact, the common man, who did the uncommon thing, that was all too common in World War II, and that is going off and fighting for your country while others stayed home and made sure that the tanks, the steel, the tires all came to the battle.

And as a Clevelander, I recognized that Cleveland ran on resources. Cleveland ran on coal and iron ore. And yes, Cleveland ran and used to run very well on oil and natural gas, in addition to coal, that made our steel mills work and that made our auto companies produce.

Cleveland no longer runs that way. Cleveland is, in fact, a city that is now

needing to turnaround yet again. Why, among other reasons, because of $5 gasoline, the cost of home heating oil, the cost of living that is spiraling up much faster than the men and women of Cleveland have the ability to pay.

So as we honor Mr. Gallagher, I would hope that we also turn our focus to the need to deal with these natural resources that we now import, the copper we import, the coal that if we don't change we will soon be importing, certainly the steel mills that have gone to Korea; and yes, the half a trillion dollars a year of oil that we are importing from countries often hostile to us simply because we are not willing to open up exploration on our 2 billion-plus acres of Federal land.

So I join with my colleague in strong support of remembering what made America and Cleveland great, and I ask that we join together and do that again by passing comprehensive land opportunities for oil so that we too can be self-sufficient, as we were when Mr. Gallagher came home from World War II.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I would inquire of the majority if they have any additional speakers.

Then I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself just 1 minute to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I think often the famous get post offices named after themselves; but I would like to comment that the gentleman has done a wonderful job, Madam Speaker, of making someone less famous, but equally deserving, the subject of today and the subject of this post office.

And so once again I'd like to congratulate my colleague, not only on selecting somebody, but on doing a good job of making sure that we understood just who he was and what he contributed.

Madam Speaker, I yield back all of my remaining time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 6058 to designate the U.S. post office at 42222 Rancho Las Palmas Drive in Rancho Mirage, California, as the Gerald R. Ford Post Office Building.

Throughout his life, Gerald Ford was a patriot and a civil servant. Throughout his life he had a ``can do'' attitude, whether it was attending the University of Michigan where he played ball and was quite an athlete, or upon graduation from the University of Michigan, when he had the opportunity to play for the NFL, he declined the offer and instead attended the Yale Law School where he gained a skill that he used the rest of his life.

He then served 4 years in World War II, and, like many people, came home from World War II with a ``can do'' attitude, served his district of Michigan for 25 years, and as we all know, gave up the job of minority leader to become the Vice President and almost immediately became the President.

Gerald Ford, as the 38th President of the United States, enjoyed the dubious honor of being the only President not to have run for President or Vice President. But he didn't let that stop him. He was not an unelected president but, rather, he was a President who had a mandate to heal the Nation. He was a President who had a mandate to deal with a post-Vietnam, post-Richard Nixon period. He did so not only by pardoning Richard Nixon, something that undoubtedly cost him his own election, but, in fact, he did so recognizing that America's healing was more important than politics.

Today, as we recognize Gerald Ford, I would like to just briefly explain that I didn't know him as President. I didn't get to vote for him, of course, as President. I didn't meet him until 1996, when we were doing the Republican convention in San Diego, and his son, Jack, was the executive director for that. And a then aged Gerald Ford came out simply to support his son and to support what we were trying to do in San Diego. He came out repeatedly to help us, help us in the fund raising, but more importantly, help his son who he still, at that age, was trying to make sure that he went even further than his father.

Gerald Ford was the kind a person who stayed focused on basics throughout his life. One of the basics here in America is our need for energy, our need for the natural resources to be domestic, not imported. Gerald Ford understood that.

During Gerald Ford's time our debt was internally held. We had just come off of a balanced budget in 1969 and were near a balanced budget for his years. And more importantly, the vast majority of our oil was, in fact, domestic.

As a matter of fact, although we did have Aramco operating in Saudi Arabia, it was an income stream to the United States and the oil, for the most part, did not come to America.

Additionally, the Prudhoe Bay was coming on line at that time, and America's likelihood of getting its oil from its own country made more sense.

Many people do not understand, as Gerald Ford certainly would have understood, that Alaska was larger than Saudi Arabia, and that oil reserves every bit as plentiful in some areas as Saudi Arabia should be gleaned from our 50th State.

So as we honor and remember Gerald Ford and name this post office after him, let's also remember the time, not too long ago, when Gerald Ford was President, and America was self-sufficient. America had not yet fallen into the melees that it found itself in just a few years later when OPEC turned off the oil and America went cold.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.