Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 118) to amend section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, to improve the program under such section for supportive housing for the elderly, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2010. I would like to start by thanking Chairman Frank and Senator Herb Kohl for their efforts on this bill and their dedication to America's seniors. This legislation simply brings HUD's section 202 program, part of our Nation's safety net for the low- income elderly for nearly 50 years, into the 21st century.

Supportive housing of the type funded by section 202 is an effective and cost-efficient program for low-income elderly. Section 202 grants combine high-quality, affordable housing with service coordinators who connect tenants with health, income support, and other community-based services. This produces positive outcomes for the health and quality of life of elderly tenants.

Section 202's housing plus services model extends how long seniors can live independently. This turns out to be cost effective as well, given the alternatives of nursing home care coupled with frequent hospitalizations. However, it is clear that HUD needs to streamline administration of this program to reflect a new financing reality.

The section 202 program was originally designed to be a one-stop shop for nonprofits to cover their entire project costs--that is capital, operating, and supportive services. Due to funding constraints, HUD's 202 grants no longer do so, especially in high-cost areas like my home State of Massachusetts. This requires nonprofit sponsors to access other sources of financing such as low-income housing tax credits.

The bill before us today addresses these concerns while taking into account HUD's legitimate interest in maintaining oversight of its substantial investment in section 202 projects. Senate 118 requires HUD to take advantage of State and local housing finance agencies' better positioning to process mixed finance applications. It also enables nonprofit sponsors to share more fully in the proceeds of refinancing opportunities that are now available in the private sector that some older 202 projects have, so those sponsors can make needed improvements to existing projects and develop desperately needed additional senior housing.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 118.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side on this issue, but I do want to take an opportunity to thank Mrs. Biggert, the gentlelady from Illinois, and Mrs. Capito, the gentlelady from West Virginia, for their great work on this bill.

I have--and I'm sure we all have--a number of section 202 developments in our districts. I have plenty, and they serve our low- income seniors extremely well and it really is a program that does improve the quality of life for a lot of our seniors. So I thank the gentleladies for their cooperation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Kurt Czarnowski in recognition of his 34 years of dedicated public service with the Social Security Administration.

Kurt was raised in the town of Weston, Massachusetts, by his proud parents Edward and Alisca Czarnowski and for the past 27 years, he has lived in Norfolk, Massachusetts, with his wife Anne, their daughter Amy, and son Brian.

Kurt graduated from Hamilton College earning a B.A. degree and then worked as a substitute teacher while pursuing his education, earning a Master's degree in Public Administration at Northeastern University.

Kurt began his Social Security Administration career in 1976 as a Claims Representative in Framingham, Massachusetts. He was selected for the agency's Management Intern Program in 1979 and subsequently worked his way through the management ranks, serving as Programs Analyst, District Manager, Deputy Assistant Regional Commissioner, and Area Director. After holding a number of key positions in the area of public relations, Kurt became the Regional Communications Director in May 2000.

When reflecting on a lifetime of good works, Kurt counts as his greatest achievements his 38 years of marriage to his wife Anne and raising their two children, Amy and Brian, as well as his 34 years of public service with the Social Security Administration.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take to the floor of the House today to join with his family, friends and contemporaries to thank Kurt Czarnowski for his dedicated service to the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Kurt Czarnowski for his dedicated public service.

Later on today, Mr. Speaker, we will address this bill which would award a tax cut for the richest 2 percent of Americans, and it's important that we understand the context in which this bill is being addressed. In this current year, the government has taken in $2.4 trillion in revenue, but we have spent $3.7 trillion. And so we have a deficit of $1.3 trillion. If this bill passes, it will add almost $1 trillion to our national debt.

At current rates, by the year 2040, the interest on the debt will be double the amount that we spend on defense, education, transportation, agriculture, housing, the space program, science, and research and development. We can't keep kicking the can down the road and not address our national debt. We're running out of road, we're running out of time, and the American people deserve a better deal.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, just to remind Members where we are in this debate, we are about to debate and take up a measure that would, number one, preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while we have a $1.3 trillion deficit in the current year. We would also, if this bill were to pass, create a tax exemption for estates of up to $10 million. That is for 6,600 individuals, which brings to mind, I will paraphrase Winston Churchill who said, it has been some time since so many have been asked to do so much for so few--and with no legitimate reason, I might add.

We are also talking about raiding the Social Security trust fund for the next 2 years, a total of $111 billion, and increasing the deficit by about $1 trillion, which will require us to exceed the national debt limit. So in April or

May of next year, with this bill passing, we will definitely exceed the current $14 trillion debt limit that the country has.

I had a fair opportunity to negotiate contracts when I was an ironworker; and one thing I learned, and it applies to this agreement with the Republican Senate, there's a big difference between compromise and surrender.

What this bill represents is a complete surrender of Democratic principles and standing up for working people and making them carry an undue burden under this new tax law.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona who spoke earlier. There is another important number in this bill, and that number is $119 billion--$119 billion. You might ask why that number is important. That is the amount of money that this bill will rob from the Social Security trust fund if it is implemented, at a time when more and more of our seniors rely on Social Security as their sole source of income, at a time when more and more of our seniors are vulnerable and are on fixed income and can't go out and get a second job, at a time when more American workers are desperately needing Social Security benefits because their defined benefit pensions have gone away, any kind of pensions have gone away.

In spite of the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana who just spoke, it is easy to forget that on most of these issues, Democrats and Republicans agreed. We agreed that 98 percent of Americans needed a tax break continued. We are fighting about that 2 percent. That is where the argument is. We are arguing about people who have $10 million in an estate. In a windfall to them, should they pay taxes?

It is interesting that in this bill, those people have been protected, but the folks who are on Social Security and the solvency of the Social Security trust fund is fair game. Vote ``no'' on this measure.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of State Representative Lida E. Harkins of Needham, Massachusetts, in recognition of her decades of dedicated Public Service to the families of the 13th Norfolk District, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Representative Harkins resides in Needham, Massachusetts where she raised 3 children--Joe, Mike and Julie and is the proud grandmother to 10 grandchildren.

Representative Harkins graduated from Regis College earning a B.A. degree and then pursued her education earning a graduate degree at Boston College.

After attending Boston College, Representative Harkins began her career as an Elementary School Teacher and served 6 terms on the Needham School Committee. She also directed a collaborative vocational training program for 13 towns in the Metrowest area of Massachusetts.

Representative Harkins was first elected to the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1988 serving the towns of Needham, Dover and Medfield. She served as Vice-Chair of the Committee on Ethics, Assistant Majority Whip, Majority Whip, and House Chair of the Joint Committee on Education, Arts and Humanities. Further, Representative Harkins serves as Chair of the Needham Democratic Town Committee.

When reflecting on a lifetime of good works, Representative Harkins counts as her greatest achievements raising her 3 children, Joe, Mike and Julie and being blessed as a grandmother of her 10 grandchildren as well as her 22 years as a public servant to the families of the 13th Norfolk District.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take to the floor of the House today to join with her family, friends and contemporaries to thank Representative Harkins for her dedicated public service to the families of the 13th District and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Representative Lida E. Harkins' career of dedicated public service.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1721, I call up the bill (H.R. 1722) to improve teleworking in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 2 administrative workweeks, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material.

I now yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Federal workforce, Postal Service, and District of Columbia, I rise in support of H.R. 1722, the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. I am pleased to offer for consideration this bipartisan legislation which seeks to improve and expand the access to telework for Federal employees in the executive branch, as well as for government employees within the Government Accountability Office.

The cost-saving measure before us today was introduced by Congressman John Sarbanes of Maryland, along with myself and Representatives Frank Wolf, Gerry Connolly, Jim Moran, Dutch Ruppersberger, and Danny Davis back in March of 2009. This is the third time this good governance bill has been debated on the House floor.

This past July, the House considered and passed this legislation which subsequently was amended and passed by unanimous consent by our Senate counterparts in September. I would like to take a moment to thank Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich on this legislation and to acknowledge Senator Voinovich's dedication to and respect for Federal employees. The Senator will be missed greatly by the Federal community.

Madam Speaker, despite the evolving nature of the way the Federal Government conducts its affairs, telework, which allows an employee to regularly perform work in a remote location, continues to be woefully underutilized by Federal agencies. Private and public sector employers that offer telework consistently experience increased productivity and retention rates, thereby lowering an employer's operating costs.

More specifically, independent research states that increased use of telework saves employers money by reducing the amount of needed office space, parking facilities, and building maintenance fees and utilities. Given that the Federal Government owns or leases over 8,600 individual buildings and spends upwards of $500 billion as a landlord annually, this legislation will translate into real-world savings in the near future.

Successful Federal telework programs such as those used by the General Services Administration and the Defense Information Systems Agency show how telework enhances an agency's customer's service offering for our citizens while at the same time achieving greater cost efficiencies and lowering taxpayer costs.

H.R. 1722 provides for increased numbers of Federal employees to participate in telework programs by requiring agencies to develop comprehensive telework policies within 1 year for authorized employees and by directing the Office of Personnel Management to develop regulations on overall telework policies and to annually evaluate and report on agency telework programs.

H.R. 1722 also seeks to elevate the importance of incorporating telework into the community of operations planning of agencies in order to ensure that they are better prepared to maintain essential operations during emergencies. I am confident all of my colleagues appreciate the need for agencies to be able to operate during a time of crisis when access to office buildings might be impossible.

A less distressing, but by no means less critical, role for the telework program is to assist agencies in carrying out their missions during difficult weather conditions. Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry estimates that the use of telework reduced the estimated cost of lost productivity during the 2009 snowstorms here in the Nation's capital by approximately $30 million per day.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation before us is PAYGO-neutral, meaning there is no mandatory spending in this bill. The Congressional Budget Office does, however, estimate that approximately $28 million will be needed over 5 years to implement the requirement in the bill. However, it is unlikely that any additional appropriations will be necessary because Federal agencies can reasonably implement the bill's requirements from existing budgets.

While you may hear from colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this telework is a costly and unnecessary legislative mandate, I must point out that the Congressional Budget Office estimate they are relying on looks only at the implementation costs and not at the bill's potential cost savings. A closer look at the potential benefits of increased telework will reveal that H.R. 1722 actually saves the government money down the road, which has also been the case among telework-embracing private sector companies such as IBM, which, for example, reports that it saves $56 million a year in reduced office space costs by permitting its employees to telework.

In fact, we only have to look at the Patent and Trademark Office to see such advantages within government. The Patent and Trademark Office, which has been an agency leader in telework efforts, reports that it was able to consolidate nearly 50,000 square feet of space, thereby avoiding $1.5 million in rent per year through greater use of telework. Additionally, the agency avoided securing $11 million in additional office space as a direct result of the agency's telework hoteling programs. Private-sector companies are seeing similar benefits from increased telework. We can expect many other government agencies to begin to reap the benefits of lower overhead costs because of this bill.

Telework also leads to greater worker productivity. Greater productivity in the Federal workforce provides an important benefit to the taxpayer. For example, the Patent and Trademark Office also reports that increased utilization of telework has reduced the amount of sick leave taken by its employees and increased worker retention. As we have seen, the government can benefit from this bill by lowering overhead costs and increasing worker productivity. This is a win-win for the

taxpayer. When we take a commonsense approach to our cost-savings efforts, it is easy to see that the potential to save tens of millions of dollars every year in increased productivity and lower overhead is an excellent return on an initial investment of $28 million over 5 years.

Lastly, this past summer, our committee worked in a bipartisan fashion with Mr. Issa and with the Senate on amending this bill. While the bill before us looks somewhat different from what was previously agreed to in the House, I would like to note that the Federal employees who have been disciplined for being absent at work or for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography on a government computer while performing official duties will not be allowed to telework.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act. This legislation is aimed at ensuring Federal agencies are able to operate 24/7, as the public expects a 21st century employer to act, and to do so more cheaply. A vote in favor of this bill is a vote for the future.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Representative John Sarbanes, the lead sponsor of this measure.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his long time, 18 years, of leadership on this issue.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), our distinguished chairman and a champion of this cause as well for many years.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) who has been at the forefront of this debate and who has been a great advocate and champion on behalf of Federal workers.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's remarks.

At this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I have one additional speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, Mr. Danny Davis of Illinois.

At this time I just want to thank Mr. Wolf and Mr. Wittman, my colleagues across the other side of the aisle who stood and spoke in favor of this bill. Despite the highlight of our

differences, I would like to remind our colleagues that this bill was entirely acceptable to all of the Democratic and Republicans on the Oversight Committee prior to this bill reaching the floor.

H.R. 1722 received full consideration by the Federal Workforce Subcommittee that I chair. It was referred unanimously by the subcommittee to the full Oversight Committee. And during the full committee consideration, I am proud to say that Republican amendments were offered and they were accepted and the legislation was then advanced to the House without a single objection by any Republican member. And I am proud of that fact. That is bipartisanship. My friends on the other side of the aisle, good Republicans, had every opportunity to attempt to add additional provisions in the committee, where they would have received full consideration rather than the 5 minutes of hurried debate prior to the vote on the Republican motion to recommit.

But today I'm pleased that we have the opportunity to consider the excellent, comprehensive, bipartisan compromise we were able to negotiate with the Senate. And I would also like to add that all the House and Senate committee staff, majority and minority, met following Senate passage to discuss possible alternatives that would be acceptable.

This has been a bipartisan process. This is something I think we can agree on. I would not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good in this case. I think we have a good bill here. I think there's been good input from both sides of the aisle here, and it shows in the end product.

I ask all Members to vote in favor of H.R. 1722, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of George Alcott, a constituent from Braintree, Massachusetts, in recognition of his decades of commitment to the men and women of Communications Workers of America, Local 1301, and for ensuring access to quality communications service for the people of the Ninth Congressional District, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and New England.

George was born to George and Marilyn Alcott and raised in the city of Quincy, Massachusetts, where he graduated from North Quincy High School. After attending Boston College, George taught in the Boston school system and was also a manufacturer's representative.

George began his career with New England Telephone in 1983 as a Yellow Pages Sales Representative and worked in the Boston and Providence, Rhode Island markets. He quickly became a leader among his peers, and in 1986 was elected Vice President of Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 1301, a position he held through 1989. In 1990, George became President of CWA Local 1301 and remained the Local's leader through 2010, representing Yellow Pages Sales Representatives throughout New England for two decades.

During his tenure George served on both the Local and Regional Bargaining Committees and negotiated numerous contracts, which were viewed in the industry as ``best in class'' for the hundreds of members that he represented. These contracts provided workers and their families with outstanding compensation, healthcare and pension benefits. Although he has stepped down as President, George still works tirelessly on behalf of active and retired members of CWA Local 1301 on issues critical to their well being.

Currently, as a Vice President on the Executive Board of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, George represents hundreds of thousands of working people in Massachusetts. He also sits on the Board of Directors of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, and in this role is able to provide the perspective of labor and working families to his colleagues of this leading healthcare organization. His lifelong commitment to the people he represents has earned George Alcott the admiration and respect of the men and women in the labor movement, in Massachusetts and across the Nation.

When reflecting on a lifetime of good works, George counts as his greatest achievements marrying his loving wife of 11 years Kathy, and raising his children, Daniel and Courtney.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with his family, friends and contemporaries to thank George for his commitment to the men and women of Communications Workers of America, Local 1301, and the working families of Massachusetts and New England. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing George Alcott's efforts and dedicated service to others.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, and as a strong supporter of this bill, I am pleased that the House will act today to advance H.R. 3243. The bill, introduced by Congressman John Sarbanes of Maryland, will allow federal fire fighters to trade shifts with each other, without triggering required overtime payments from their employing agencies. Notably, state and municipal fire fighters have long been able to swap shifts, or to exchange time, and still be paid according to the original work schedule. Such workplace flexibility aids in boosting employee morale and increases overall retention rates, without costing these local and state governments any additional money.

The Sarbanes bill simply amends title 5 by excluding trade time from the calculation of overtime pay for federal fire fighters. Clearly, it will still be up to the agency--such as the Department of Defense--to approve the request to switch schedules. The bill's enactment will actually save federal agencies money, because under current law, agencies must at times pay overtime for fill-in workers. However, under this legislation, these entities will now have employees voluntarily agreeing to work shifts without overtime being required.

Again, extending a small amount of scheduling flexibility to our federal fire fighters--that neither increases agency costs nor reduces manpower--is the right thing to do. Moreover, the bill's enactment will increase the attractiveness of federal fire fighters positions,

that at present can actually go unfilled for as long as half a year.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all federal fire fighters as well as other fire fighters, including those recently combating the fires in the Salt Lake City suburbs, as well as my own fire fighters from Boston Local 718.

I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Towns for his unwavering commitment to extending workplace flexibilities to all federal workers--regardless of whether they are white collar desk workers or shift workers such as our federal fire fighters.

Mr. BIlBRAY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Stephen J. Braverman, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to senior citizens in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to commend him for eighteen years of service to Hebrew SeniorLife and the Institute for Aging Research.

During his tenure, Steve provided rigorous medical research of new models and standards by which to enhance long-term care for the aging community. Steve has worked to maximize the strength, vigor, and physical well-being, and preserve the cognitive and functional capabilities of senior citizens as they age.

I would also like to acknowledge his continued commitment to developing and managing two of the largest capital campaigns for senior care, housing, and research throughout the country, which enhance the resources for age-related disease and disability. In addition, he has actively sought and secured endowed chairs for research in Quality and Health Care Standards and Aging Brain Research.

Most importantly, Steve has been a consistent leader in his community, and a strong mentor and friend to his colleagues.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with his family, friends and contemporaries to thank Steve for his remarkable service to the Institute for Aging Research and the people of Massachusetts. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Stephen J. Braverman's efforts and dedicated service to others.

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a United States Supreme Court decision that could have far-reaching social and economic impacts on the American Indian population.

Carcieri v. Salazar, a 6-3 decision by the United States Supreme Court issued on February 24, 2009, held that the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his authority in taking land into trust for an American Indian tribe that was not under Federal jurisdiction or recognized at the time the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934. I speak tonight to the injustice of that result and to the moral imperative that we as Members of the United States Congress have to see that that decision is corrected.

For centuries, now, the American Indians who called these lands home long before Europeans have arrived have been pushed to the geographic and societal fringes of this great country. They have suffered disruption, violence, and relocation to make way for continued expansion. The Indian Reorganization Act, ironically, of 1934 sought to actually rectify so many of those mistreatments.

From 1934 to 2009, the Department of the Interior has restored lands to enable tribal governments to build schools, health clinics, hospitals, housing, and community centers to serve the American Indian people. The Secretary of the Interior has approved trust acquisitions for approximately 5 million acres of former tribal homelands, far short of the more than 100 million acres of lands lost through the Federal policies of removal, allotment, and assimilation.

The Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, if left in place, has the potential to undo that effort. The decision threatens tribal sovereignty, economic self-sufficiency and self-determination, as the Indian Reorganization Act provides not only for the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take lands into trust for tribes, but also for the establishment of tribal constitutions and tribal business structures.

The Carcieri decision also has the danger of establishing two classes of American Indian tribes in this country today: those recognized as of 1934 for whom land may be taken into trust, and those recognized after 1934, who would be unable to have land taken into trust for their benefit. This is simply unacceptable and contrary to the intent of Congress. In fact, the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act, passed by Congress in 1994, provides that all tribes are treated equally regardless of their date of recognition.

Since 1934, the Department of the Interior has construed the Indian Reorganization Act to authorize the Secretary to place land into trust for all federally recognized tribes. Trying to right our Nation's wrong, Secretary Salazar and his predecessors have taken steps to return to American Indians a small portion, a fraction of the lands that their ancestors called home.

And for the Supreme Court--for any court for that matter--to render a narrow decision like this based on supposition that 76 years ago the writers of the act gave particular meaning to one word in their decision is a further slap in the face to this proud people.

Current history leaves many Americans to associate the restoration of American Indian tribal lands with the development of casinos and gaming, but it is about much more than that. It is about providing resources for a nation to survive. It is about restoring sacred lands on which their ancestors hunted, prayed, and were buried. It is about rebuilding communities, heritage, and proud nations.

I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for their efforts to amend this decision. I would like to acknowledge, also, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, for his efforts in seeing that this miscarriage of justice is corrected.

While times have been bad for most Americans, they have been worse for a lot of our American Indian friends. Despite their own struggles during the economic downturn of the early 1980s, when I was traveling this country as an ironworker, they gave me a place to live. For 1 year, I was a guest of the Navajos on a reservation in New Mexico on the land that the United States Government put them on to simply survive. Over the years, I have worked alongside Navajo, Wampanoag, Apache, Navajo, and Mashpee ironworkers. I know them to be hardworking, honorable people.

The Carcieri decision serves only to further dishonor them and their ancestors, to deprive them of an opportunity to regain the dignity and the justice that they are owed.

As a Member of this body, I am now in a position to return the kindness of my Navajo hosts and say thank you to the many American Indians I have worked beside on the high iron all over this country. That's why I am a cosponsor of Mr. Kildee's bill, H.R. 3742, which will make the necessary amendments to the Indian Reorganization Act.

Madam Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Schwind, United States Army, on the occasion of his transfer to the 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. I, and many other members of this chamber, have had the pleasure of working with him over the past three years that he has served as a part of the U.S. Army Office of Legislative Affairs and as a Liaison Officer in the Army Liaison Office in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lieutenant Colonel Schwind enlisted in the United States Army in 1989, attended Basic Training, Advanced Individual Training, and served three years as an Aero-Scout Observer with the 101st Airborne Division, AASLT. In that time, he deployed with his unit to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991. After redeploying in 1991, he attended Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia and was commissioned a Field Artillery Lieutenant on January 30, 1992.

The next day he married the former Darlene Hendrix of Columbia, Tennessee. They have been married over 18 years and have a daughter, Jennifer, and son, Dylan.

Through the years, LTC Schwind's assignments have taken him to Kentucky, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Virginia, Texas, Kansas, New York, and Washington, DC.

Lieutenant Colonel Schwind's deployments include Operation Desert Shield/Storm; Restore Hope, Haiti, IFOR, Bosnia; and Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan.

Matt is a graduate of the Aero-Scout Observer Course, the Air Assault School, the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Combined Logistics Captain's Career Course, Combined Arms and Staff Services School, and the Command and General Staff College. He has a Masters Degree in Logistics Management from the Florida Institute of Technology.

During his assignment to the Army House Liaison Office, Lieutenant Colonel Schwind developed outstanding rapport with senior Members of Congress and their staffs--both personal and committee. He was often a by-name request from committee chairmen to plan, coordinate, and escort their fact-finding and oversight delegations. He served as the Army representative on 20 congressional and staff delegations to locations within the continental United States, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other overseas locations.

Lieutenant Colonel Schwind leaves OCLL for Fort Campbell, Kentucky, this July. He will work on the staff of the 101st Sustainment Brigade, and then take command of the 426th Brigade Support Battalion in the summer of 2011.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues please join me in recognizing the outstanding accomplishments of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Schwind in serving the United States Army and the Nation.

Madam Speaker, the United States Postal Service's CSRS Obligation Modification Act of 2010, is intended to remedy a unfair and inequitable methodology for allocating the Postal Service's share of Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, retirement benefit liabilities for employees that provided service to this country under both the Post Office Department and the independent United States Postal Service.

According to a January 2010 report by the United States Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, USPS-OIG, the Postal Service paid more into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund that it would have paid if a more equitable methodology were used to allocate CSRS retirement benefit liabilities between the Federal government and the United States Postal Service.

As a result of the USPS-OIG report's findings, the Postmaster General of the United

States Postal Service submitted a request, in accordance with section 802(c) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC, calling for an independent and objective review of the methods used to allocate benefit liabilities between the Postal Service and the Federal government under generally accepted actuarial practices and principles.

The independent actuarial firm hired by the PRC, The Segal Company, determined that the current methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, for allocating such retirement benefits between the United States Postal Service and the Federal government follows an antiquated methodology that fails to incorporate current actuarial best practices and accounting standards as recognized and codified by the Financial Accounting Standard Board.

Accordingly, to remedy this unjust treatment, this legislation I am introducing today directs OPM to update and modernize the actuarial methodology to be used in allocating CSRS retirement benefit liabilities between the United States Postal Service and the Federal government in accordance with The Segal Company's recommendation. Under this approach, the Federal government's portion of an individual's CSRS annuity will be based on the CSRS benefit accrual formula and the conventional individual's ``high-3'' average salary. By utilizing this methodology, this legislation will ensure that OPM is using modern actuarial practices and accounting standards to apportion the benefit liabilities that are codified by the independent Financial Accounting Standard Board under FASB ASC 715.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1509, I call up the bill (H.R. 1722) to improve teleworking in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 2 administrative workweeks, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, as chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Federal workforce, postal service, and the District of Columbia, I'm pleased to offer H.R. 1722 for consideration. This legislation seeks to improve and expand access to telework for Federal employees in the executive branch.

The bipartisan measure before us today was introduced by Congressman John Sarbanes of Maryland, along with myself and Representatives Frank Wolf, Gerry Connolly of Virginia, Jim Moran of Virginia, Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, and Danny Davis of Illinois back in March 2009. The bill was then amended and ordered reported favorably by our subcommittee on March 24, and again shortly thereafter by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on April 14, 2010.

Madam Speaker, despite the evolving nature of the way the Federal Government conducts its affairs, telework, which allows an employee to regularly perform work from a remote location other than their usual workplace, continues to be underutilized by Federal agencies. Experience has consistently demonstrated that the private and public sector employers who utilize telework experience increased productivity and retention rates. More specifically, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Defense Information Systems Agency have successfully used telework programs, which shows potentially how telework can transform and enhance agencies' customer service offerings for our citizens and do so with greater efficiency and lower costs.

H.R. 1722 provides for improvements to increase the number of Federal employees that participate in telework programs by requiring agencies to develop comprehensive telework policies within 1 year that allow authorized employees to telework and by directing the Office of Personnel Management to develop regulations on overall telework policies and to annually evaluate agency telework programs.

H.R. 1722 also seeks to elevate the importance of incorporating telework into the continuity of operations planning for our Federal agencies. For example, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry estimated that the use of telework reduced the estimated cost of lost productivity during the recent snowstorms this past winter in the District of Columbia by approximately $30 million per day.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of moving telework forward by passing H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvement Act. This legislation has long enjoyed bipartisan support in the Oversight Committee and in the House over several Congresses and will help ensure the government operates more efficiently and effectively as a modern-day employer.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

General Leave

For the record, Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks with respect to H.R. 1722.

I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the lead sponsor of this measure, Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the full committee chairman, energetic and wise chairman of the Oversight Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his thoughtful comments.

At this time I yield 1 minute to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask for a clarification, did the gentleman say that the Federal employees make an average of $60,000 more than their counterparts?

Sixty thousand dollars more.

The typical Federal employee makes $60,000 more?

If the gentleman would produce some type of--that fact's not

in evidence at all. I'm sure that we have kids that are working for $30,000, $40,000 a year. How are they making $60,000 more than their counterparts?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to note that we do have one study here that I think is probably the most extensive one done on comparing private sector jobs to Federal jobs, and that is by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they compared occupation to occupation. They took an engineer in private sector versus an engineer working for the Federal Government, and they have reported that Federal employees are paid 22 percent less than their private sector counterparts.

At this point, I yield 5 minutes to an energetic and diligent member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has been a long-time advocate on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the sheet, but I do want to note this does not compare job-to-job, nor does it indicate that there is anything close to a $60,000 delta between the private and the public employee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), who also has been an energetic worker on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I again would like to express my strong support for the passage of H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act of 2010. I would like to thank Mr. Sarbanes, our lead sponsor on this measure which is before us today, which promotes good and common sense governance policy which will ensure a more efficient, responsive Federal government, especially in times of national security and weather-related emergencies.

Moreover, H.R. 1722 will allow executive branch agencies to act more like other 21st century employers, particularly private sector employers, which for years have utilized and reaped the benefits of telework in terms of increased job productivity as well as employee moral.

I want to paraphrase the words of my Republican colleague, Mr. Wolf of Virginia, who said that the vote for saving money and the vote for cutting costs here is a ``yes'' vote on this measure.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1722.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion.

No.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points here that I would like to make at the outset, and I appreciate the spirit in which the gentleman has offered these amendments.

Many of the concerns that the gentleman has raised in his motion to recommit have been addressed in the bill.

I would like to begin by saying that right now, with respect to tax delinquency and enforcing the tax laws against Federal employees, we have greater protections right now in place against those Federal employees than exist against any other employee in America today. We have the ability to remove them from their jobs. We have the ability to garnish their wages. We have the ability to demand of them compliance with the tax law that is much more difficult to implement against the average private sector employee. So I do not think that the measures here and the ``seriously delinquent'' category that does not exist under the IRS Tax Code well serves the underlying purpose of this bill.

I do want to say that prohibiting collective bargaining activity while teleworking is also a question of possible violation with other statutes that I believe may be infringed upon by this motion. So I would be very, very concerned about--obviously we were given this motion about a minute ago--well, a couple of minutes ago, so I'm not so sure how that would affect Taft-Hartley collective bargaining rights. But it would appear that they would do a carve-out here for those workers who are teleworking and yet unable to exercise the rights that otherwise might exist in those employees. So I am very, very concerned about that.

I understand the restrictions. Further, the amended version of H.R. 1722 already incorporates language to restrict allowing employees to telework based on previous disciplinary issues that might have been presented.

With respect to the concern raised by my friend and colleague with respect to accessing pornographic sites, I should note that history has shown us that those who rail against weaknesses of the human spirit are usually the very people who succumb to those very weaknesses. But we would certainly agree that that is inappropriate behavior and it should be punished. I tend to think that that is a point of agreement, but I think it's just a matter of how to implement that prohibition.

There is also a difficulty at the heart of this, which is that the gentleman's motion to reconsider requires us to demonstrate a savings now at this level. Here's the problem: We are not in an Appropriations Committee. We have not appropriated any money for this. We don't have the ability to do that. This is authorization. So how are we supposed to know where the break point on savings might be when we don't know, in this forum, how much money might be spent?

Those are structural flaws, I think, in the bill that prevent us from accepting the amendment at this time. However, I understand that some Members may see one or two of these issues as decisive on their behalf, and I would understand and respect the Members' rights to vote as they might on this measure. But because of the issues that I have raised-- one, because it creates a level of impossibility for us to demonstrate savings when we don't know how much money is going to be used in implementing this measure. That will be decided by the appropriators. And, as well, we realize that to set this up, in order to establish the teleworking protocols, there will be an expenditure to begin with, but the savings will result at a later time. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 1722, back to the House with an amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would like to engage with the chairman of the committee and the drafter of this legislation. I congratulate him on the great work he has done on this reform bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to call your attention to sections 726 and 765 of the bill. These two provisions require the CFTC and the SEC to conduct rulemakings to eliminate the conflicts of interest arising from the control of clearing and trading facilities by entities such as swap dealers and major swap participants.

This problem arises because, right now, 95 percent of all of the clearinghouses in this country are owned by just five banks. So, while we are relying on the clearinghouses to reduce systemic risk, we have the banks now owning the clearinghouses.

The question I have is regarding the intent of the conferees in retaining subsection B of these provisions. It could be loosely construed to leave it up to the agencies whether or not to adopt rules.

Mr. Chairman, do you agree that my reading of sections 726 and 765 affirmatively require these agencies to adopt strong conflict of interest rules on control and governance of clearing and trading facilities?