Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans keep citing the Simpson- Bowles Commission in support of the bill. The Simpson-Bowles Commission was a comprehensive deficit-reduction proposal that called for shared sacrifice from all groups of Americans. I see only one group of Americans being asked to sacrifice in this bill, and that's Federal employees. The studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation rely upon U.S. Census Bureau's current population survey, which consists of self- reported data from surveys of households. This data is not as reliable as the data tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is used by the President's Pay Agent to set the annual Federal pay adjustments. I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how much time we have.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch mentioned a nurse taking care of veterans. I just want to say that it's not about somebody being unskilled. She's taking care of some folks who have served us and need skillful workers, and $27,000, I don't know whether anybody has looked at daycare here lately, but just daycare can cost you $27,000.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend, the chairman of our committee, has several times talked about loyal opposition. I am not the loyal opposition. I am someone who believes in what I'm talking about, and I'm not standing here opposing legislation just to be opposing it because I'm a Democrat. We have to put a human face on all of this. I live in an area in Baltimore where a lot of these employees who are making $40,000, $45,000 or less take the early bus, and they are the ones who believe in what they do. The Social Security Administration is smack dab in the middle of my district. I think about the people who make $100,000 or more, but we have to remember who those employees are. Many of them we see every day. These are employees who are highly skilled professionals, and I think Mr. Wolf and Mr. LoBiondo talked about them. These are folks, such as doctors on staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs, who treat our wounded warriors. They're the lawyers at the Department of Justice and at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and we've heard their testimony before our committee. These are folks who deal with some very, very complex issues, and almost any law firm would be willing to pay them far more than what they are earning to work for the agencies for which they work. These are the folks who investigate and prosecute complex fraud and criminal cases. These are some of the most famous scientists in the world and air traffic controllers who help navigate our planes. Just a few months ago, the ranking member and the chairman of the committee and I went to an awards ceremony at which Federal employees, who contribute so much to our society and who could earn far more than what they're earning, were getting awards for doing some very magnificent and awesome things. I want to just spend some time on this one issue. It's not so much again that Federal employees don't mind sacrificing. They don't mind sacrificing. The question is will others sacrifice, too, those who are making far more money than they're making. But yet and still they're asked over and over and over again to pay more and more and more. And so this is a very deep-felt situation with most of the people who have spoken--all of them. And as I listened to Mr. LoBiondo and I listened to Mr. Wolf, what they were basically doing was making a case and reminding us that Federal employees go into the business of being our Federal employees because they want to make a difference. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The gentleman talked about the employees on our committees taking a pay cut. That's true that they took a pay cut, and every single one of my employees who took a 5 percent pay cut--and sometimes a little bit more--said one thing to me: We don't mind sacrificing. We will. This was from every single one of them. But they said: Others have sacrificed, too. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, a fellow Marylander, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield just 1 minute to myself. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I hope that our Members before they vote on this bill will take a moment and talk to their own employees and find out why they're in Federal Government and why they really work for the government. That's all I want them to do. And I guarantee you nine out of 10 of them will say, because we love what we do, because we want to make a contribution. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6726, which would extend the pay freeze on Federal employees through the end of 2013 and eliminate the pay adjustment for Members of Congress. I think we need to be very careful in this discussion. As my distinguished colleague from Virginia just stated, I don't think there's any Member of Congress that is against freezing the pay of Members of Congress. If I had known about the bill, I would have cosponsored it. I don't know when it was filed, but I would have cosponsored it, as he said he would have also. But this is a different issue. I cannot understand why the House is considering this bill right now. The Senate just approved a landmark deal to avert the fiscal cliff with widespread bipartisan support--a vote of 89-8. Acting on the fiscal cliff legislation as soon as possible should be our first and most urgent order of business this afternoon. But instead, this bill--which is yet another assault on very hardworking, middle class American workers--was introduced not very long ago. Is this really the way the majority wants to begin the new year? Members of Congress certainly can do without a pay adjustment. And the bill passed by the Senate last night to resolve the fiscal cliff already includes a provision freezing Members' pay. I plan to vote for the package that came out of the Senate, assuming it stays in its present form. But Federal workers are the backbone of our government. Let me say that again: Federal workers are the backbone of our government. They're the ones who support our troops in the battlefield. They are the ones who provide care to our veterans. They're the same ones that bring about cures for dreadful diseases at NIH. They are the ones that protect our borders and safeguard our food supply. They're the same ones that ensure our seniors get their Social Security checks and help hunt down terrorists like Osama bin Laden. They're the same ones. In return for their hard work and dedication, the majority has rewarded Federal workers with an unprecedented assault on their compensation and on their benefits. This has included proposals to arbitrarily cut the number of Federal workers. All you've got to do in my district, when you go and visit a place like Social Security and you talk to the employees--many of whom are my constituents--employee ranks are being decimated. People are working harder and harder without the help that they need. Our colleagues have gone on to slash retirement benefits and now with the most recent proposal to extend the current 2-year pay freeze for yet another year. I know all kinds of studies are presented to say that Federal workers are making a whole lot of money. Well, maybe we need to walk around and do a little survey of our own and talk to some of the people who work around here. Go to some of these Departments, Agriculture, the various Agencies, and talk to them. Talk to some of the ladies who may be a single-mother household making $45,000 a year; talk to her about a pay freeze. Talk to the gentlemen who moved our offices--we've seen them all in the House throughout our buildings--ask them about the pay freeze. Talk to them, and I think they will tell you another story. Millions of middle class Federal workers have already sacrificed more than $100 billion in the name of deficit reduction and to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits to millions of other workers; yet our House Republicans insist on raiding their pay and their benefits again. Enough is enough. We need to put aside this legislation and take up the fiscal cliff legislation immediately. The Senate has done its work, and now it is our responsibility. The one thing we should not do is let the markets open tomorrow without the fiscal cliff being resolved. As I listened to my good friend, Mr. Fitzpatrick, talk about this provision with regard to making sure that Members of Congress not get a pay increase--and I agree with him totally--I hope that he will also join me when I vote for the legislation that has been sent over here by the Senate since it contains that very, very important provision. With that, I wanted to thank again the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Today, I am incredibly pleased to congratulate my dear colleague, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, for her ascension to the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Mikulski's commitment to our great State is undeniable. She has worked tirelessly throughout her prestigious career to serve her fellow Marylanders, first as a social worker, and now as one of the most influential Members of the United States Senate. Senator Mikulski is a leader that Maryland and, truly, our Nation, can be proud of. She was the first woman elected to the Senate who was not preceded by her husband or father and has continued breaking barriers ever since. This trend continued yesterday when she became the very first female Senator in the history of our Nation to become the chair of the powerful Appropriations Committee. I'm honored and proud to serve alongside her here in the United States Congress, and I look forward to continuing to work together with her for the betterment of our Nation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of the Hatch Act Modernization Act. Senator Akaka and I introduced this legislation, along with a number of our distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The bill incorporates recommendations for reform that the Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner sent to Congress last year. I want to thank Senator Akaka not only for his work on this bill, but for everything he has done for Federal workers. I would also like to take a moment to thank my good friend Representative Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the National Security Subcommittee, for his very hard work in support of this legislation, as well as Chairman Issa for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. This legislation makes commonsense reforms to the Hatch Act that are much needed. The Hatch Act was passed to ensure that Federal Government employees work on behalf of the American people rather than whatever political party is in power. The law works well most of the time, but it has had some unintended consequences. Currently, the Hatch Act prohibits State and local government employees from running for partisan political office if they work on programs that receive Federal funding. This can and has led to some unfair and absurd results. For example, Matthew Arlen, a transit officer in Philadelphia, was barred from running for his school board because his canine partner was paid for by a Federal grant. Officer Arlen told The Washington Post: I was upset because I truly believed I had something to offer my community. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times op-ed by Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. In her op-ed, Special Counsel Lerner wrote: Increasingly, the act is being used as a political weapon to disqualify otherwise well-qualified candidates even when there is no indication of wrongdoing. This bill will fix that. The Hatch Act Modernization Act also creates a range of penalties for Hatch Act violations. Currently, the only available penalty for violation of the Hatch Act, no matter how minor the violation, is termination, unless the Merit Systems Protections Board votes unanimously to impose a lesser penalty. Under this legislation, the Board will have the ability to impose a punishment that fits the crime. This legislation also ensures that the District of Columbia employees are treated similarly to State and local government employees rather than as Federal employees. The Hatch Act Modernization Act makes reforms that are much needed, that are bipartisan, noncontroversial, and widely supported. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and send it to the President for his signature. Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues for joining in on this effort to make this commonsense bill law. [From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 2011] A Law Misused for Political Ends (By Carolyn N. Lerner) Washington.--The federal agency I lead, the United States Office of Special Counsel, enforces a law that is broken and needs to be fixed. The law, the Hatch Act of 1939, was intended to keep improper politics out of the federal workplace. At its best, it prevents people in political power from abusing their positions. It prohibits coercion by a government supervisor-- such as pressuring employees to volunteer for or contribute to a campaign--and shields the civil service and the federal workplace from politicking. But at its worst, the law prevents would-be candidates in state and local races from running because they are in some way, no matter how trivially, tied to a source of federal funds in their professional lives. Our caseload in these matters quintupled to 526 complaints in the 2010 fiscal year, from 98 in 2000. We advised individuals on this law 4,320 times in 2010. Matthew P. Arlen is a police officer for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. A Republican, he wanted to run for the school board, but we told him in June he could not because his bomb-sniffing dog is funded through the Department of Homeland Security. The Port of Albany, in New York, got stimulus funds to rebuild its dock and wharf, so we told Terrence P. Hurley, who is the port's chief financial officer, that he could not run in last month's Democratic primary for the county legislature. Increasingly, the act is being used as a political weapon to disqualify otherwise well-qualified candidates, even when there is no indication of wrongdoing. An allegation that a candidate has violated federal law--simply by stepping forward to run--can cast a cloud. Of course, the would-be candidate could give up his day job. But the day job usually pays the rent, and many of the elective offices being sought pay little or nothing. Forcing people to resign in order to participate in the democratic process is unfair and bad policy. Sheriffs' offices are especially affected. Since 9/11, federal grants to state and local law enforcement have soared. Deputies are commonly the most knowledgeable and capable potential candidates, but they are ineligible to succeed their bosses because of the influx of federal money. Anthony C. Nelson is on next month's ballot for sheriff in Lowndes County, Miss. He stepped up after the previous Democratic nominee, an acting police chief, left the race over a Hatch Act problem. Then Mr. Nelson, the head of the local juvenile detention center, was himself accused of violating the act. An investigation by our office found that the center got no federal funding, so he remains on the ballot. I have sent Congress proposed legislation to fix the Hatch Act by removing restrictions on state and local government workers who want to run for elected office. This would not cost taxpayers anything. It would demonstrate respect for the independence of state and local elections, and would allow qualified candidates to serve their communities as elected officials.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Chairmen Mica and LoBiondo and Ranking Members Rahall and Larsen for their work on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 and for their leadership. I also thank our colleagues in the Senate for their work. The bill before us contains provisions in Section 301 that are substantially similar to H.R. 3202, the American Mariners Job Protection Act, which I introduced with Congressman Jeff Landry. These provisions will significantly expand transparency surrounding the issuance of waivers allowing non-Jones Act qualified vessels to carry cargoes between two ports in the United States. While the Jones Act can be waived in the interest of national defense, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) is required to assess whether Jones Act-qualified vessels are available to carry the cargo under consideration. However, recent experience suggests that such assessments have been cursory at best. The provisions included in Section 301 will require MARAD to publicize the results of such assessments, including detailing the actions that could be taken to enable American vessels to carry the cargo for which a waiver is sought. MARAD will also be required to publish its determinations on its website and provide notification to Congress when a Jones Act waiver is requested or issued. I thank my colleagues for working with me and Congressman Landry to make these important improvements in the administration of the Jones Act. While I applaud the inclusion of these provisions, the bill before us does contain provisions that I do not support. In particular, I am deeply disappointed that this bill eliminates provisions in the Coast Guard Authorization of 2010 that I authored to establish an ombudsman in each Coast Guard District. These ombudsmen were intended to serve as liaisons between the Coast Guard and ports, terminal operators, shipowners, and labor representatives to enable these stakeholders to seek further review of disputes regarding the application of Coast Guard regulations. They would have given the port community another mechanism to engage with the Coast Guard to ensure that the application of regulations achieves critical safety and security objectives while having the least possible impact on commerce. I am also disappointed that this legislation delays the introduction of modern survival craft that ensure that all parts of the body are out of the water. Instead, the bill allows the continued use of equipment that pre-dates World War II. We would never think of using pre-World War II technology in other aspects of our lives when significantly more advanced technology is available. For that reason, I am shocked that my colleagues believe such antiquated equipment is appropriate for those whose lives are at risk at sea--particularly the disabled, the elderly and children. This is not a subject that needs more study. It has been studied numerous times--and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) explicitly opposes the continued use of life floats and non-inflatable buoyant apparatus as primary lifesaving devices. Similarly, I am disappointed by provisions in this bill that delay the requirement that fishing vessels undergo dockside exams--and that will reduce the frequency of such exams once they are implemented. Five years between dockside examinations will do little to reduce the unconscionably high casualties suffered by commercial fishermen in what remains our nation's most dangerous profession. Finally, I am disappointed that we could not include legislation Congressman Landry and I introduced to restore the cuts to cargo preference programs made in the MAP-21 legislation. Cargo preference requirements are critical to the maintenance of a robust U.S.-flagged fleet and these cuts should never have been made. While I will not oppose this legislation, I believe it could have been significantly better than it is in its current form--and I hope we can address these matters promptly in the 113th Congress.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This bill will significantly expand the protections available to government whistleblowers. Whistleblowers risk their careers to challenge abuses of power and the mismanagement of government resources. Protecting the rights of whistleblowers is critical for rooting out waste and fraud within the government. I applaud the leadership and commitment of all of the Members of Congress and the advocates who have worked on this legislation. The bill we are considering today was introduced by Senator Akaka. This bill should be a proud addition to his legacy as he closes out his long and distinguished career in Congress. Congressman Todd Platts and Congressman Chris Van Hollen also deserve credit for getting us here today. They have both worked to find a bipartisan path forward on this bill. I also want to thank Chairman Darrell Issa for working with me and the other Members to get this bill to the House floor. Here are just a few of the ways this bill strengthens current law. This bill will protect all lawful disclosures of waste, fraud, and abuse. Court decisions have narrowed the scope of protected disclosures in a way that the Office of Special Counsel says handcuffs it in its efforts to protect whistleblowers. For example, federal employees are currently not protected for blowing the whistle in the course of their job duties. This bill closes that loophole so that federal auditors and safety inspectors will be protected when they blow the whistle. This bill provides whistleblower protections to Transportation Security Administration employees. Current law leaves TSA employees unprotected. Giving Transportation Security Officers the same protections as other federal employees will encourage the disclosure of issues that may threaten the safety of our airports. Under this bill, whistleblowers can appeal a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to any federal court of appeals. Currently, all appeals go to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which has consistently misinterpreted the intent of Congress with regard to the Whistleblower Protection Act. This bill also protects government scientists for disclosures about agency censorship or other problems with the integrity of the scientific process. This bill does a lot of good things but I will be honest. The bill that we are considering today is not as strong as I hoped it would be. Even if this bill passes we will still have work to do. We need to provide meaningful rights to whistleblowers in the intelligence community and we need to amend the law to allow whistleblowers the ability to go to court and have their case heard by a jury. I know this bill represents a compromise based on the political realities of today. But the fight is not over. I will continue to fight for the protections that are not in this bill and hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in that fight. The journey of this legislation has been a long and frustrating one for the advocates of whistleblower protections who have been trying for almost a decade to get a strong bill enacted. We have been so close so many times only to have another roadblock get in the way. Mr. Speaker, I hope that today is different. I hope that this bill will have a clear path to the President's desk and become law. I urge every Member of Congress to stand up for whistleblowers, to stand up for good government, to pass this legislation, and then to join me tomorrow to continue the fight for whistleblower protections.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this fall we will walk to voting booths in every community across this Nation to elect our leaders. Our right to vote is one of many rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Yet every election cycle, millions of young Americans fail to exercise this right, often because they do not realize the importance of doing so. On September 17, we will celebrate the 225th anniversary of the signing of our Nation's Constitution. To mark that momentous anniversary, this week I introduced the Constitution and Citizenship Day Act of 2012, H.R. 6390. This bill would support expanded education about our Constitution by enabling high school students to organize special events to mark Constitution and Citizenship Day. Our young people should be given every opportunity to learn what our democracy means and to partake in it. The Congress is the living embodiment of our Constitution's provisions. I invite all Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in cosponsoring this legislation to ensure that future generations understand their rights, duties, and responsibilities.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program on its 10th anniversary. The Program was established by the Long-Term Care Security Act, and I am proud to have been the lead Democratic cosponsor of that legislation. The Program provides long term care coverage to active and retired federal and postal workers and uniformed servicemembers who participate in the program, and it covers care received at home, an assisted living facility, or a nursing home. Since the Program's implementation in 2002, it has become the largest private long-term care insurance program in the nation with about 270,000 enrollees. Although it is an employer-sponsored program, 100% of its costs are funded by enrollees, not the federal government or taxpayers. The Program has increased awareness in the federal community about long term care issues and needs, helped enrollees provide for the high cost of long term care, and provided participants with the opportunity to take control of their future long term care needs. Before we created the Program, long term care services were not covered by Medicare or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Department of Veterans Affairs offered only limited benefits, while Medicaid provided coverage only to the very poor. Since 2002, the Program has paid out almost $200 million in claims, with a claim approval rate of 97-98%. As the American population, and the baby boom generation in particular, continues to age, there will be an increased need for vital long term care services in this country. In 2009, more than $250 billion was spent nationwide on long term care services, including nursing home and other assisted-living services. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, at least 70% of people over age 65 will require some long term care services at some point in their lives. I am very pleased to recognize the great achievements of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program in assisting enrollees and their families in financing their future long term care needs and in shielding their retirement savings and assets from the increasing costs of long term care services. I look forward to the continued success of the Program as it begins its second decade of voluntary coverage for our dedicated federal community of civilian and postal workers and members of the armed services.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I hope that the body will vote against this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, after hearing the arguments of the other side, I'm going to rest on what I've already said. I think I've made it abundantly clear why this is not an appropriate amendment. With that, I hope that the House will vote against it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, how much do I have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.