Dennis Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 501.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 501 provides for the consideration of H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule makes in order three amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, I rise today not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a father. Nothing can replace the first few days and weeks between a parent and a newborn or a newly adopted child when the bond that is forged is critical and sets the foundation for the child's entire later life. It is in these first few moments that a child's emotional and physical health and development is established--time which cannot be made up for later in life once it's lost. Yet many parents are unable to forge this bond simply because they cannot afford to take unpaid leave from their jobs. In fact, a 2000 Labor Department survey showed that 78 percent of employees chose not to take unpaid leave because they just couldn't afford it. And they certainly cannot do so in the trying economic times we face today when hardworking families are struggling just to get by. No parent should be placed in the position of having to choose between bonding with their new child and forgoing these formative moments in their child's life in order to keep a roof over that same child's head or to put food on the table, especially when the fate of a child is ultimately at stake. This is a moral and societal situation that has legislators, parents and as protectors of God's children, we must get right. The Federal Government, I believe, has a moral obligation to set the stage for making changes across the table. We need to do more than just help in the care and development of a child. We must take the reins and lead by example. We should be setting the standard in family-friendly workplace policies across the Nation, not lagging behind. H.R. 626 is quite simple. Current law requires that new parents be given up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. If they wish to be paid, they must use any unused accrued sick time or vacation time. This bill helps families by providing 4 weeks of paid parental leave for Federal employees for the birth, adoption or fostering of a child and allowing employees to use that accrued vacation or sick time for that parental leave. This small change in law will hopefully entice other employers to follow suit but, more importantly, have an immeasurable impact on the countless parents and the well-being of their children. Madam Speaker, I can speak to this from my own experience. My dear wife Kathie and I have three beautiful children--one biologic and two that we adopted out of the foster care system. These children we love as much as they were our biological daughter. I will tell you from our own experience, however, that by adopting a child, especially one out of foster care, it requires special care and attention and additional time for bonding. This is not an option in their case. It is an absolute necessity. Our children--in fact, all foster children have faced and will continue to face significant challenges in their lives from the abuse that they incurred when they were in foster care. They will forever carry those unspeakable scars that every parent fears and no child should ever bear. Yet the only hope and chance that you have to save these children is to give them time to bond with those very new parents that are the ones that will be, in fact, trying to save their lives and rub away those scars. There is no other choice than to immediately give them all the love they can take and more than they've ever known; food, nutrition they desperately need, and the health care they have never had. They need the unflagging support and nurturing that they get from these new adoptive parents in order to establish a pattern of survival in their lives. I also know that without the time to forge this bond immediately after adoption, they have no hope of overcoming the enormous obstacles that they face. Madam Speaker, you can put a price tag on a piece of legislation, but you cannot put a price on the importance of not having to worry about a paycheck and having the full and undivided attention of both parents lavishing boundless love on a disadvantaged child. I can think of no greater gift that we can give as parents to our children than the gift of time. Without it, far too many children will simply slip through the cracks, and for many more, all hope will be lost. As legislators, it is our imperative that we do what is morally right, not to let hope be lost, but rather to let hope spring eternally and to give these children, who already have so many things working against them, as I mentioned in the case of adoption and foster care, the chance at life that they deserve. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I just will respond to the gentleman that this is less than $100 million a year for the entire country. While every dollar that the taxpayers pay is significantly important, I would say that this particular bill is much more important in some ways than many expenditures this Federal Government makes. It is also something that I believe is fundamentally important in many sectors, especially in the area that I talked about with adopting new children. The gentleman says that the Federal employees are some of the most stable workforce that we have in this country. Well, that is exactly the kind of people you want to adopt children, people in stable homes that have jobs that they are not going to lose, that can take the time to do what we have set forth in this bill. While leave policies in the government generally may compare favorably with some private sector employment, the Federal Government's paid parental leave policy simply does not. Seventy-five percent of the Fortune 100 companies offer at least 6 weeks of parental paid leave and make them much more attractive to young working families who cannot afford to go without pay for that length of time. Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this time, yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I respond to my colleague from California and my colleague from Texas in this way. My colleague from California knows that I support him in his efforts to try and solve the California water crisis, and, in fact, I have been a leader in trying to do that. I don't always agree. I have come to this House floor and argued with my own leadership with regard to the issues that have dealt with the causes of the California regulatory drought. I would also like to remind the gentleman, who loves to blame the Democrats for everything that goes wrong, that it was a Republican bill and a Republican judge that put both of those concerns that are causing much of our water problems on the map. With regard to my friend from Texas and his claim that this is all about the cost, I can tell you that as an adoptive parent, if I hadn't taken the actions I did by adopting two children, they would not have filled the place they hold in my heart, but they would have also cost the Federal Government much, much more. When we take kids out of an abusive home and put them into foster care, we do so in order to try and recapture their lives. My children came out of a home where they were being neglected and abused by a drug-addicted mother. The scars that they will carry from that time in their lives are profound. Had I not had the ability to spend time with them, the challenges that we face with the emotional difficulties of those young people that I love so much would be, in fact, much worse than they are even today. The gentleman can talk about how this is a cost issue, but let me tell you, if people can't get the time to do what is right about adopting young kids, they won't do that. And it will cost the Federal Government much more. We argued this in a bill last year where we gave the opportunity for our troops to adopt young people and take that leave. It was the right thing to do then, and it passed. Last year, this bill was on the floor, and 58 of the gentleman's colleagues from Texas voted in support of this. This is the right thing to do for our country. It is the right thing to do for our kids. I believe in it profoundly. And, yes, this government wastes a lot of money in many different ways, but I can tell you that money spent in this area on this particular set of young people that I have talked about so much today is money well spent and will pay dividends many times over in the future. I have no question about that. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

Mr. CARDOZA. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I've sat here and listened this evening to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) talk about how this is a terrible waste of dollars, and how the Republicans are saying that this is a terrible waste of money. But I'd wish to correct the gentleman. Today this isn't a partisan issue. In fact, I would predict that there are a number of his colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, on the Republican side of the aisle, like Mr. Wolf, who understand what this is about. This is about America's children, about children coming into this world and bonding with a mother and a father and having the opportunity to do that in this hectic world that we live in today. It's about foster parents that come in and do the right thing, taking care of abused and victimized children, and needing that time to do it right. It's about adoptive parents who, when they reach out and bring into their home permanently children who have been victimized by society's ills, having the opportunity to do it right so we can start healing those children. There are a number of Republicans on that side of the aisle that are going to do the right thing tonight. They're going to vote for this rule, and they're going to vote for this bill because it's the right thing for America and building families. They call themselves the ``Family Values Party.'' Tonight they can prove it by coming in here and voting to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, tonight I'd like to submit for the Record the statement of administration policy. Statement of Administration Policy The Administration supports the goal of H.R. 626, which would provide Federal employees with access to paid leave upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. Being able to spend time at home with a new child is a critical part of building a strong family. The initial bonding between parents and their new child is essential to healthy child development and providing a firm foundation for the child's success in life. Measures that support these relationships strengthen our families, our communities, and our nation. The Federal government should reflect its commitment to these core values by helping Federal employees to care for their families as well as serve the public. Providing paid parental leave has been successfully employed by a number of private-sector employers, and can help to make job opportunities accessible to more workers. 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 Federal agencies and employees, as well as their families. You know, the gentleman from Texas talks about how much money this government has wasted. He's right, there's a lot of money that gets wasted. But over the last 8 years, as our country was being absolutely raped by those defense contractors in the Middle East with no accountability, where was the gentleman to stand up against that? No, ladies and gentlemen, he's not willing to stand up against that, or wasn't during the last 8 years. But tonight he will criticize us spending a few dollars to get it right for our families in America. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that while most parents wish to stay home with their new child, they just can't afford to take unpaid leave, which directly affects that child's well-being. We can start with having the Federal Government lead by example to set the stage for making changes across the table. To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, we must be the change we wish to see in this world. I believe that couldn't be more true. I ask the Members of both sides of the aisle to support the parents of America, to support the children of America, and be the change that we wish for our world. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 490 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule today is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 490.

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 490 provides for consideration of H.R. 31, the Lumbee Recognition Act, under a closed rule, and also for separate consideration of H.R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009, under a structured rule. Both bills are debatable for 1 hour, each equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule for H.R. 1385 makes in order two amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions on both bills. Mr. Speaker, the two bills before us today will right several wrongs in our country's history and bring closure to the issue of full Federal recognition of the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina and six Indian tribes in Virginia. Since the late 1800s, the Lumbee Tribe has been seeking Federal recognition despite the fact that congressional hearings and the Department of the Interior's studies have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct, self-governing Indian community. In fact, the Lumbees were first recognized as a tribe in 1885 by their home State of North Carolina. In that time, however, various bills to recognize the tribe failed due to opposition from the Department of the Interior. Most importantly, in 1956, Congress formally acknowledged the Lumbee Tribe with passage of the Lumbee Act. However, it was passed during a period of Federal Indian policy known as the Termination Era. As such, while Congress acknowledged the Lumbee, it effectively ended its relationship with the tribe at the same time by denying them access to the benefits and privileges that accompany Federal recognition. This termination has subsequently prevented the Lumbees from receiving recognition from the Department of the Interior which has maintained that only Congress can restore that relationship. A similar injustice has occurred in Virginia. Records exist documenting a relationship between the six Indian tribes, local governments, and the Commonwealth of Virginia for centuries. It has long been established that ancestors of these six tribes resided in Virginia when the first white settlers landed in Jamestown, yet their history is fraught with deliberate discrimination and document destruction. During the Civil War, most local records and tribal documentation were destroyed in fires at government buildings. At that time, many Indians began adopting Anglo-American names, language, and customs to conceal their tribal identity and ensure their survival. In addition, Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act--pushed by a noted white supremacist--was responsible for the deliberate and systematic destruction of over 46 years of any records that traced and recorded the existence of vast Indian tribes. The Department of the Interior has generally not questioned the tribes' ancestry or tribal government status. But despite the wealth of documentation that exists for each tribe, it is not clear whether they could obtain proper documentation to be acknowledged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I would add that each of these six tribes was recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia between 1983 and 1989. Mr. Speaker, the circumstances surrounding all of these tribes are certainly unique and warrant special attention by Congress. Congress has passed bills recognizing all of these tribes several times, including last session. The Lumbee bill passed with strong bipartisan support while the Virginia Tribes bill passed by voice vote. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again support these long-overdue bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire from my friend and colleague from California if he has any further speakers.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would yield.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from California, and I understand that he has concerns about this process and these measures. I would just like to remind the entire body that the Lumbee bill has, in fact, been before the Congress before. This Congress has acted on it. Despite the claims to the contrary, Congress has traditionally taken the lead in recognizing Indian tribes. In fact, Congress has recognized 530 of the 561 Federally recognized tribes. Despite the fact that the Department of the Interior established certain administrative procedures in 1978, Congress has stepped in and recognized tribes nine additional times due to extraordinary circumstances, much like this. I think that this is an appropriate rule, and I think we will have an opportunity to debate the issues during the debate time that has been allotted. I would ask my colleagues to support the rule, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to once again take an important step forward in correcting hundreds of years of injustice which are long overdue. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. CARDOZA

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 406 provides for consideration of H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, under a structured rule. The rule makes in order 14 amendments, which are listed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. Five Republican amendments, eight Democratic amendments, and one bipartisan amendment have been made in order. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, except the manager's amendment, which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, I would like to take a moment to make a clarification regarding the description of one of the amendments that has been made in order under the rule, specifically amendment No. 2 by Chairman Frank. The Rules Committee report inadvertently listed a description from an earlier version of this amendment. The amendment was later modified, but the change to the description was not updated. I want to emphasize that the actual amendment text which was made in order is correct. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the correct description for the Frank amendment listed as No. 2 in the Rules Committee report.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, as we all know, our country is at a significant crossroads, the likes of which we have never known. Businesses continues to shed payroll, job losses continue to mount, and hardworking families across America continue to struggle. Many economists have correctly stated that the foreclosure crisis is the root of our economic meltdown, and I firmly believe that until the housing market is stabilized, the economy will continue to worsen and people will continue to spend less, more businesses will shut their doors, and mass layoffs will further spread. Until that happens, however, more and more American families are at risk of losing their homes. In the first quarter of 2009, more than 800,000 mortgage loans entered into the foreclosure process, with over 340,000 in March alone. Both are record highs, which goes to show that the foreclosure crisis is far from over. I can personally attest to the damage the foreclosure crisis has left in its wake and the long effects it will have into the future. I have the honor of representing California's 18th Congressional District, which encompasses the San Joaquin Valley, but today my district is suffering like no other. My district has the highest rates of foreclosure in the Nation and a loss of 70 percent of home equity over the last 3 years. And with each passing month, it seems that the numbers are worsening. As a result of the rampant foreclosures in my district, once vibrant neighborhoods have become vacant yards overgrown with weeds, and houses are crumbling from vandalism and disrepair. Swimming pools are abandoned at these houses and have become havens for mosquitos. Crime and vandalism are on the rise in what were previously safe neighborhoods. Yet that's not all. Home values in surrounding areas are also beginning to plummet, and what started out as a foreclosure crisis in my district is quickly spinning out of control, creating economic disasters. In many parts of my district, they now face unemployment rates of over 20 percent. Small businesses and neighborhood restaurants which were once packed with customers are now almost empty and are shutting their doors at alarming rates. Our longest-serving community bank was swept up in the foreclosure crisis and recently closed. On top of that, my dairy farmers are in crises and we have one of the worst droughts in the country. Madam Speaker, as I have been saying for quite some time, the devastation that has hit my district is massive and widespread and is somewhat similar to what Katrina left behind, only it was not caused on a single day by an extreme event but over the course of weeks, months, and years. Long after the foreclosure crisis has come and gone, the Central Valley will continue to cope with the aftermath of this economic devastation for many years to come. My district and our Nation will not overcome this crisis overnight, and it will take unprecedented action to help us rebuild and recover. Congress has taken several important steps and actions not just to combat this crisis but to ensure a housing crisis of this magnitude will never happen again. The bill before us today is one more step in that direction. Some say the foreclosure crisis can be traced back to the rapid increase in subprime mortgages and risky underwriting practices, most of which were made with no Federal supervision. Many of the families targeted by subprime lenders were, in fact, low-income families with poor credit histories who felt this was the only opportunity for them to achieve the American Dream. They were lured into low ``teaser'' introductory interest rates which morphed into loans which they had little chance of repaying once rates increased, starting the uptick in the foreclosure market. H.R. 1728 is aimed at preventing these predatory practices in the future. Among other things, H.R. 1728 requires lenders to prove borrowers can actually repay their loans in order to ensure that vulnerable consumers aren't pressured into loans at terms that they can't meet. It eliminates incentives to steer consumers into high-cost loans. It also provides much-needed regulation of the lending industry. H.R. 1728 is not a cure for the foreclosure crisis, but it is an important component in eliminating the unscrupulous practices that ran amok and helped lead the collapse of the housing market. I want to thank Chairman Frank for once again bringing this bill forward and for his continued commitment to turning the tide on our Nation's foreclosure crisis. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Frank for working with me to insert language into the manager's amendment of this bill that would create and make publicly available a national database of foreclosure and default statistics, which we don't currently have. The Federal Government keeps track of many economic indicators, including home price declines and unemployment, but right now there is no government agency that keeps tabs on defaults and foreclosure rates. As the foreclosure crisis has taught us, foreclosure and default rates are critical statistics not only for monitoring the Nation's economy but also for determining which areas of the country have been hardest hit in the downturn. My amendment calls on the Secretary of HUD to create this database so that the Federal Government and Congress can better detect and assess the housing crisis so that we can respond in a timely and targeted manner. Again, I thank Chairman Frank for incorporating my amendment, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the manager's amendment and the underlying billing so we can stop predatory lending and establish a federally maintained database on foreclosures and defaults. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 406 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 406.

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would just respond briefly on a couple of points and say that the gentleman continues to advocate for the policies that got us into this crisis. And, in fact, we need to regulate this industry, not because all mortgage bankers are evil; they are not. There are some very good ones. But the few have caused significant pain to both the economy, to our Federal Treasury and to individual homeowners. Mr. Frank has designed a 5 percent solution that, in fact, I believe keeps the mortgage bankers with having skin in the game, so that they can't just sell off these loans, give bad ones and absolve themselves of responsibility and let the problem fall on the taxpayers. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would just reply to the gentleman from Texas that I anticipate that this bill will get wide bipartisan support. So we will in fact see if it does and see who comes forward and supports this bill further today. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas. At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Watt.

Mr. CARDOZA. I'd like to inquire at this time how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would at this time yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).