Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 626, Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding this time to me to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I've heard a lot of arguments here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I'm not a psychologist, but I would tend to bet that probably more than the first 12 weeks of a child's life is very important to their development. I'm kind of surprised that we don't have evidence today that says that the first 13 or 14, 16 years of a child's life is really the most important point, and maybe we just ought to let Federal employees take 16 years off since that's the defining moment. There's just no reality with this about the first 12 weeks of a child's life. Let me tell you, it's about probably the first 14 or 15 years; and as a parent, I can tell you, I remember the first 12 weeks. I remember them very vividly for both of my boys. I'm sure that there is some bit about what my children understood about the bonding with me.
Let's just go straight to this. This is expensive. It's going to cost a lot of money, and it's for Federal employees at a time when this Federal Government needs to be more efficient, and the people of this country cannot afford it. We've done without it for this number of years, and I'm surprised that we're doing it today in the economic times that we have.
Today I will discuss my opposition to the structured rule, which limits debate and does not provide for the ``open and honest Congress'' my Democrat colleagues have always called for for the past 3 1/2 years. I also rise in opposition to putting taxpayers further in debt, those people that don't work for the government, to pay for this new extension of benefits by expanding an already generous government paid leave.
The economy is in a recession. Hello. Hello. Wake up, Washington. We're in a recession, and somebody else is going to have to pay for this. Oh, I know. It's about the kids. I know it's about this bonding for the first 12 weeks. Unemployment is at a 25-year high. Government spending is out of control, and individuals and retirees that have lost trillions in their savings and retirement are now going to have to pay another billion dollars for this plan. The government should be ensuring the future of the economy before taking on additional government benefits for those who have some of the greatest job security at the expense of the people who are paying for it, namely, the taxpayer.
I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule and to this legislation, which would provide more government benefits to bureaucrats with benefits already in excess of what most hardworking Americans in the private sector have. I guess we're supposed to sacrifice a little bit more to make sure our government employees get more benefits.
Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, I return to my home every weekend in Dallas, Texas. I have only been in this body 13 years. I have never spent a weekend in Washington, D.C. I go home when the votes end to be with my family; and I, like every Member of this body, love my family. We understand the importance of family and how strong families are to our country. Additionally, I know how hard Federal employees work. I honor them for their work and their devotion to the people of this country and the devotion to their jobs, and they do deserve competitive compensation and a good benefits package. At the same time, I believe at this time this bill sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working Americans, the taxpayers and their families that they, themselves, are struggling to sacrifice to give a select few in this government additional new benefits.
In February of this year, my Democratic colleagues passed a $1.2 trillion economic stimulus package with absolutely no--zero--Republican support. This was their failed attempt to provide jobs to the struggling economy. The U.S. has eliminated 663,000 jobs in March alone, an additional 563,000 in April. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed has risen by 6 million people to 13.7 million, and the unemployment rate has grown from 3.9 to 9 percent. We should be thinking about how we're going to struggle to get people employed in this country, not give additional benefits to government workers.
One would think that this massive amount of spending that was done this year by my friends on the other side would ensure job growth, investment and economic output. Instead, the failed policies of the Democratic Party and of this administration have led to a budget deficit that already has been announced, it's not just $1 trillion, it has now grown to $1.8 trillion, about $89 billion more than was predicted in the President's budget. That is nearly four times the record set last year by my Democrat colleagues of this House. This has led even to the President's chief economic adviser, Dr. Christina Romer, while speaking on CNN to acknowledge that it is ``pretty realistic'' that there will be no job growth until 2010, and the U.S. will hit 9.5 percent rate of unemployment this year. Well, let's just be honest about it. The Democratic plans are that there would be 9 percent unemployment next year. That was the Democrats' blueprint, their plan that was in the budget. Nine percent, that's their best estimate, their guess. We're going to rise to 9 percent. Well, the question is not whether Congress should support families but whether it makes sense when so many Americans are already struggling with unemployment rates, increased taxes, thanks to our good friends in the Democrat majority, and an economic recession in the 3 years that the House and the Senate have been run by Democrat leadership, to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that government workers, in my opinion, have not even asked for it.
Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle often argue that Federal employees need greater benefits to be more competitive with private industry. There could be truth to that. But even the Office of Personnel Management has determined that Federal and private sector benefits compare favorably, and additional benefits would not help with retirement and retention. Additionally, this bill does not assist the older workforce facing retirement since it specifically deals with paid leave for having a child, adopting a child or taking care of a foster child.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit-in-search-of-a-problem will cost taxpayers $938 million over the next 5 years. Madam Speaker, at a time when average hardworking American families are already struggling and working many, many, many more hours and trying to find additional income through a job that they cannot find to pay their bills, I don't believe it's appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels by using taxpayer dollars to do it.
Since June of last year, the Federal Government workforce has grown by 37,000 employees while the private sector has shed more than 4.4 million jobs at the same time.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent trillions of the taxpayers' dollars over the past 6 months. Americans are faced with a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone from the Democrat majority in this administration. Their plan. Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point when it comes to subsidizing higher Federal spending at their expense. It is costing the free enterprise system jobs and the opportunity to get a job tomorrow because of the massive spending that is taking place by this Democrat majority.
Responsible American families are cutting back their costs. They are dealing with the job loss. They are doing the things to help their families and their friends, and they are looking at the destruction of their savings and retirement accounts.
I think it is simply wrong. It is wrong for the Democratic Party to move this bill. Rather than trying to create jobs, they are trying to get new benefits for Federal employees.
Madam Speaker, I will be honest. You are darn right that this is going to be a tough vote for Members of Congress. Are we going to pay attention to what is happening back home or are we just going to come up here and spend another $1 billion?
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' on this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we have had two wonderful speakers on the majority side tell us--I think they were contradicting each other. One said it only costs $100 million a year. Another speaker said, oh, there is no cost. As a matter of fact, PAYGO says there is nothing to it.
Well, maybe the PAYGO rules of this House say that, but let me tell what you what the Congressional Budget Office says, their cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office says, 5 years, $938 million; $938 million. Almost $1 billion over 5 years. Now, that is real money. Oh, no, no, no. You got it wrong. We are already going to give them the money anyway, so it doesn't cost any more.
That is not reality, and that is not the way it works. The CBO is right, $938 million over 5 years. We had our President just 3 or 4 weeks ago say, after spending all these trillions of dollars, the President said, I'm going to ask my budget to cut a whopping $100 million from all their budgets across government; 100 million. Well, that is this bill just for 1 year, as the gentleman says, just 1 year. But the bottom line is it is $938 million over 5 years.
You just can't have it both ways. You can't try and explain to the American people that you are really trying to do something good for them but turn around and make it more difficult. I think our friends that are in the majority party don't understand that you just can't sneak up here to Washington and do this and get away with it back home. People are going to pay attention to this.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source