Federal Employees Parental Paid Leave Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, H.R. 626 sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working American taxpayers and families that are struggling in difficult times. Our economy is in crisis, and deficits are already soaring.
Excess government spending created record deficits that have continued to rise for years, in good times and bad, meaning government already spends too much of the taxpayers' money and has been running deficits before, and now during, the Obama administration.
But more than that, jobs are being lost. In the time since the last time this bill was considered and not passed into law, 4.3 million Americans have lost their jobs, while 36,000 net new Federal jobs have been created. My voters, my taxpayers, my constituents are suffering. So are yours, Madam Chairman. So are the people on the other side. But in fact, there's no suffering in Washington.
We have some of the lowest unemployment. We have a growing quality of life, and even home prices are not falling very much here. It's not a surprise why. Salaries are not falling here. Those of us who will speak here today are making nearly $170,000 a year, and many of our staff, a great many of our staff, make over $100,000 a year, as do a great many of the Federal workforce.
This bill does not have one provision to say if you make $170,000 a year, why do we have to give you this benefit, because you have to choose between feeding your children and being with your children? Certainly not. There are no protections against, in fact, those who do not need this special benefit getting it. There are no safeguards at all. As a matter of fact, this bill envisions the $1 billion over 5 years or more than $2 billion over 10 years swelling to $4 billion over 10 years or more because, in fact, they believe it should be 8 weeks of special leave.
Now, in the Rules Committee, I was told I just didn't understand, that Germany gives a year when you have a child. You know, the amazing thing is Germany and France and many of these countries are now going the opposite direction because they recognize that they were losing competitiveness and that these generous benefits, although good to have, were unsustainable, and they're particularly unsustainable when the only people that can afford it are those of us who live off the taxpayers'--I'd like to say generosity, but in fact, it's not generosity. This money is taken involuntary and spent at the whims of Congress.
Madam Chairman, Federal employees enjoy one of the highest levels of job security, without a doubt, anywhere in the United States. I would venture to say many of them the highest. More importantly, in good times and bad, they keep their jobs.
Even if you look at the protections against being arbitrarily let go or hired at will, that's not even the point. The point is, in a bad time, when tens of thousands of auto workers are being laid off, when 40,000 employees of Chrysler dealerships have just gotten from this administration a 26-day pink notice to go because their franchise has been taken arbitrarily, at that time we have grown the Federal Government by 36,000, and we're looking at a new benefit that could easily cost $4 billion over the next 10 years.
Now, this bill was scored at nearly $1 billion over 5 years, but of course, that's only if it remains at 4 weeks. And let's talk about those 4 weeks. This bill is not 4 weeks. This is 12 weeks.
Most Federal workers when they retire have a significant amount of, even when they leave in general, accrued sick leave, and you might ask why. Well, because the typical sick leave for Federal workers is 13 days a year. That's nearly 3 weeks a year you get to be sick, depending upon your seniority, 20 to 26 days a year of vacation. So you're looking at 5 weeks of vacation. On top of that you're looking at nearly 3 weeks of sick leave, and we're being told by the majority that they can't make those tradeoffs to use some of that when a child is born.
It's a joyous occasion when a child is born. It's an important occasion when a child is adopted. It's sometimes a critical time when a foster child, battered, beaten, or simply unloved, is brought into the home. The minority has no question at all about the importance of this. It's been a long time since 1993. This is well-established to be something in which people make the sacrifices without sacrificing their jobs, and we certainly have no objection to the current practice which is common throughout the Federal workforce to allow employees to take some or all of their sick leave.
As a matter of fact, an amendment which has been ruled in order, will be considered tonight, calls for employees, Federal employees to be not only able to use all of their accrued sick leave, but to borrow against future sick leave. So, if they want to take the whole
12 weeks and every single day receive a full paycheck, we're willing to
meet the majority more than halfway. We're willing to make the kind of compromise the American people would like us to make with the majority. It doesn't mean that this is the ideal solution. There are safeguards that are not in this legislation that we would like to see, and we will work with the Senate to see if we can't get that, but in fact, we offer an amendment that would at least cause there to be no net new cost to the American people.
And I know that the majority will come back and say this is PAYGO neutral. Well, PAYGO is a wonderful term but let's understand. If you create additional days the Federal workforce will be off, you can only have one of two choices. Either their labor wasn't needed and, as a result, doesn't need to be replaced, or their labor was needed and will be replaced. Replacement costs money. That ultimately will lead to a higher cost.
I believe CBO's scoring of approximately $1 billion over 5 years is, in fact, low, but I'm not going to argue with it. We accept theirs because they are, in fact, a neutral arbiter of these differences about what something costs or is worth.
So here the Republicans are going to offer to support codifying what many agencies are already doing in the Federal Government, but not without the American people understanding that if we add a new additional off-time benefit of 4 or 8 additional weeks, on top of the 5 weeks and nearly 3 weeks that are already granted to most Federal employees, I think that the American people, rightfully so, will send us packing. They will send us packing because we would be so out of touch, so inconsistent with what the small mom-and-pop and the not-so-small companies in America are experiencing.
Earlier, Madam Speaker, I said that 4,353,000 net jobs have been lost since the last time this bill was considered. That's not the true story. The true story is reflected in the State tax revenues and now in the Federal tax revenues, where we realize it's not just those who lost their jobs; it's those who lost a great percentage of the earnings they were making on their job. Overtime is gone, and in fact, profits, profit-sharing and additional commissions are generally gone. As a result, people aren't just out of work, but people who were still technically fully employed may be making less than half of what they were making just a year or two ago.
So, Madam Chairman, we on this side of the aisle will oppose the bill in its current form but not without offering viable alternatives, reasonable alternatives, some ruled, some not ruled, so that we can make this at least a bill that America can understand why we would consider doing it at a time in which so many Americans are suffering.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, in a few short minutes we will complete general debate; we will go to amendments. At that time, I'm hopeful that the amendment offered by the committee, the Republicans on this committee, will be considered favorably. If it is, then what seems to be unreconcilable as our differences can be resolved.
Clearly, we agree that 14 million Americans are out of work. We agree that we're in a recession. We agree that Americans are suffering. We agree that whether you're having a child, adopting a child, or bringing a foster child in need into your home, that that bonding time is worthwhile now, just as it was in 1993 when we overrode all States and all employers to provide that option without fear of retaliation or loss of a job.
I think we agree that this bill is 12 weeks, 8 of which may be paid by the use of sick and other leave. I know we agreed that if you serve 15 years in the government you'll have about 8 weeks a year of paid leave already accrued. We only disagree on whether or not a new cost, a new entitlement will be borne by the American people. We seem to disagree on whether going from not paying somebody when they're off to paying them is, in fact, a cost to the government. We certainly disagree on whether or not when it becomes an additional 4 weeks of pay, many will choose to take it. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, when the CBO scored, they made the assumption that half of all men would not take any benefits under the Parental Leave Act as they currently don't. But, of course, when you're offered 4 weeks free, completely free of sick leave, perhaps it will be irresistible to take some, in which case the $1 billion over 5 years could rise above that figure.
So there are some things we disagree on.
But if we take what we agree on, which is the American people are watching mounting deficits, the American people do believe that at times we're out of touch, that we don't feel their pain. The gentleman from Virginia talked about the Federal workers in his district. The Federal workers have grown in his district at a time in which the gentleman from Illinois has seen 40,000 workers lose their job at Caterpillar. Those were good-paying jobs. They had benefits. They may have even had some parental leave benefits. Today, they have no benefits. They're not choosing between having a paycheck or being with their child; they're choosing whether or not to go out and find some minimum-wage job or do something to try to bring a little money into the house, because in fact, they no longer have the good-paying jobs that have evaporated in this recession.
We did a stimulus package, and we disagreed on a lot of how it was done, but we understood we needed to get Americans rolling again, we needed to get them the opportunities. What those 14 million have given up--and countless millions more have given up in loss of some of their income--is what we disagree about.
So, Madam Chair, I would ask that the CBO document scoring this be placed in the Record so there is no question as to what we all agree on, the NFIB letter opposing this, and the letter from the Independent Electrical Contractors also be placed in the Record at this time.
This will help the government retain and attract young talented employees; and in so doing, it provides potentially an ultimate savings to the American people since there's a direct benefit when the government retains existing employees rather than having to hire and retrain new ones. We are all familiar with the revolving door in the Federal Government, where we bring in people, we train them, they become very competent in their areas of expertise, and then private industry steals them away because they can offer them much greater benefits and much, much higher pay. This provides a basic and decent benefit of 4 weeks for the occasions that I mentioned.
Before closing, I'd like to also point out that the Obama administration, in their recently issued statement of administration policy on H.R. 626, also recognized the benefits of supporting families during the birth of a child, adoption of a child or for foster care. According to the President's policy position, the Federal Government should reflect its commitment to helping Federal employees care for their families as well as serve the public. Measures such as H.R. 626 support this commitment and strengthen our families, our communities and our Nation. Given that statement alone, I urge my fellow Members to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 626.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
My amendment to H.R. 626 is a commonsense amendment. I believe the legislation bridges the differences between the majority and the minority, recognizing that the Federal workforce should, in fact, be able to use accrued and earned time they have, recognizing that it is already the policy of many, but not all, Federal agencies to allow all accrued leave, both vacation, if you will, and sick leave, to be used by somebody wishing to avail themselves of their 12 weeks of family medical leave.
Having said that, we do take away the question of 4 weeks of additional paid or 8 weeks of additional paid leave. We recognize, though, that not every person, particularly a young family new to the Federal workforce, may have accrued leave sufficient to do 12 full weeks. Therefore, my amendment allows for that worker to take an advance against future sick leave and other leave in order to ensure that they may remain with their new child for the full 12 weeks allowed within the law. This would, in fact, eliminate the contradiction between various government agencies. It would streamline the process. It would make clear that no Federal worker would ever have to choose between being with their newborn and receiving a paycheck.
So with that, I urge the strong support of this amendment as a commonsense middle ground.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.
Madam Chair, I just want to review one more time why we believe that doing this within the existing means of the program dollars that are already available to the Federal workforce is a commonsense compromise.
Meeting the majority halfway, recognizing that 14 million Americans are making no money, except for their unemployment insurance, and those who are making so much less this year demand that we find ways not to increase our spending. So, Madam Chair, I would just like to review one last time. The Federal workforce, if you've been in for only 3 years, you have 4 weeks of paid vacation and 13 days, which is nearly 3 weeks, of sick leave per year. You already have that every year. Isn't it family values to be willing to give up some of that to be able to stay with your family? Why wouldn't you use some of that first?
Madam Chair, I want to recognize that the Federal workforce is a good workforce, and we want it to be a great workforce. But at a time in which 14 million Americans are looking for jobs, we are actually not having a hard time finding people who would like to come to work for the Federal Government. We're offering jobs. We're hiring. We're growing. So if we're ever going to need an inducement, it will be at a boom time, at a time in which we have to compete against higher salaries and bonuses, not at a time in which Americans are suffering and being laid off in record numbers.
Lastly, Madam Chair, I would like to refer to the President's statement, which was quite a weak statement, in support of this bill. He recites the bill and then says, ``The administration is currently reviewing existing Federal leave policies to determine the extent of their gaps and limitations. The administration looks forward to working with Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make sure it meets the needs of the Federal agencies and employees, as well as their families.''
Madam Chair, what that says to me is, this is not the right bill. They'd like to work with us to make it better. Hopefully this amendment will make it better here today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit would ensure that nearly 14 million Americans who have lost their jobs will not see an additional 1, 2 or $4 billion of the new benefits paid to Federal workers unless this Congress is able to get its house in order.
Under the motion to recommit, we recognize that according to the Office of Management and Budget the deficit is currently approximately $1.841 trillion. The motion will very simply tie the enactment of this new and expensive and overly generous benefit to the national debt.
The motion dictates that if the deficit for any fiscal year exceeds $500 billion, the act will then terminate on the 30th day of the next fiscal year.
Madam Speaker, in a commonsense way, it means we can have this expensive--we object to it--but this expensive new benefit go into effect this year, but if this House and this Congress cannot get its house in order in the following years, then this act would not continue.
We believe that this is the last and best effort to try to reach a compromise to allow the majority to have its way on this expensive, new benefit but not allow it to continue on the backs of 14 million unemployed Americans, until or unless we're able to bring the deficit at least in line with where it was just two short years ago.
Madam Speaker, in closing I believe that the majority in this case has ignored one after another commonsense opportunities to amend this bill. In committee, we were shut out; here on the floor, each of our amendments, including one that would have simply allowed for every Federal worker to have 12 weeks of paid medical leave in the case of the birth, adoption or taking on of a foster child, but to do so with existing benefits, including sick leave, even allowing them to borrow sick leave.
Since that's been rejected, our motion to recommit seeks only to recognize that this new benefit on the backs of 14 million unemployed Americans and countless millions who are making much less this year than last year cannot be sustained if we cannot bring our fiscal house in order.
And with that, I would urge passage of the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source