Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

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.

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I now proudly yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the subcommittee, somebody who is very aware of family values and the importance of this legislation, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. ISSA. In its present form, yes, I am.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and somebody who well knows about the challenges that people face in the workforce today.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I trust the gentlewoman from California was only misunderstood or had misspoken when she said someone would lose his job for taking parental leave. That would be a crime under the 1993 act. I would yield to the gentlewoman to correct that.

Mr. ISSA. At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to a ranking subcommittee member and somebody who has worked very hard on trying to make this bill better, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, the author of the bill, Marsha Blackburn.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join with the other Members, primarily of the Tennessee delegation, who so aptly are wishing a happy birthday to the Governor today on his 88th birthday. And I do support strongly the naming of this post office after a public servant of such a unique character and longevity of service. And now that we have dispensed with this portion, the suspension, the noncontroversial part, as is the tradition of this committee, sometimes we make a point of other things on this allocated time. And today I believe that it's appropriate to speak about the impending, before August, cap-and-tax scheme that has been proposed by the Speaker and is likely to come to a vote. We on this side of the aisle are deeply concerned about a system which is designed to raise the cost of all utilities in America, with no offset, no offset, for the ultimate CO2 that is likely to be created by moving those jobs overseas. It's very clear that cap-and- tax, if not uniform and enforced, would simply move American jobs overseas. And the bill, which is being considered by the Global Warming, otherwise sometimes called the Junket Committee here, is in fact something that I oppose, and I oppose because it is very clear that we cannot, in this body, simply make a decision that we're going to stop producing a certain amount of CO2 in the United States. And this, I might mention, while Air Force One consumes an incredible amount of CO2 or produces an incredible amount of CO2 while flying empty over New York City. The world and the air around us is not isolated. If we go forward with a cap-and-trade initiative that is not globally enforced by every single nation, we simply are pollution laundering. We're saying we're going to have cleaner cars here, we're going to have cleaner this here, and yet CO2 will be produced in other places. Already it is very clear that China, for every single product it produces, is more energy intensive than the same product produced in the United States. Literally, when you import the same product from China that would otherwise be made here, although it may be cheaper, it produces more CO2 and a great many other pollutants. I've been to China. I've been to Hanoi. I have been to many of these countries, and what I generally see are leaves blackened from the burning of coal, with not even scrubbers, much less any sequestration. So, Madam Speaker, as we do not disagree one bit on the naming of this post office, this side of the aisle has to make it very clear that we do object to the present form that is being proposed without any real inclusion of Republicans and with the American jobs at stake. And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to introduce yet another friend of the former Lieutenant Governor, Jimmy Duncan, a member of the committee and a fellow Tennesseean. I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, at this time due to the entry of the Ronald Reagan statue here in Statuary Hall, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) be able to control my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize May as Huntington's Disease Awareness Month. In support of those with Huntington's Disease and of finding a cure, I have cosponsored H.R. 678, ``Huntington's Disease Parity Act of 2009.'' This bipartisan legislation sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA-41) would eliminate the 24-month waiting period for Medicare eligibility for those suffering from Huntington's Disease. Huntington's Disease is a progressive degenerative neurological disease that causes total mental and physical deterioration in as few as 12 years and currently no cure exists. Already 20,000 Americans have been diagnosed with Huntington's and 6.5% of the population, or 200,000 individuals, are at risk for this disease. The physical, emotional, and mental alterations a victim of Huntington's Disease undergoes are extreme to say the least. Even in the initial stages, patients are unable to continue employment and they must rely on family care and Social Security Disability Income. A similar neurological disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, received a waiver for the 24-month waiting period in 2000. H.R. 678 would help to alleviate suffering that those diagnosed with Huntington's Disease must face every day. Implementing this legislation would not only help those diagnosed with Huntington's but also the families that have been financially devestated by this degenerative disease. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues in Congress and the public at large to recognize this important month.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 438, ``Expressing support for designation of September as `National Child Awareness Month.' '' This bipartisan resolution sponsored by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA-47) and cosponsored by me, would recognize the efforts of our community leaders as they participate in growing the hopes and dreams of our children; the future of our Nation. September, a month characterized by the return to school, signifies the start of the new school year. All around the country, corporations and businesses gear-up to highlight our youth and support children's charities and youth serving organizations. Declaring September as National Child Awareness Month will provide an excellent collaborative platform for these charitable groups to bring national attention to issues of vital concern to our children such as education, health, social services, sports, arts, and character development. H. Res. 438 would recognize these efforts as a positive investment for the future of our Nation. National Child Awareness Month is supported by many regional and national youth organizations among which are the Make-A-Wish Foundation and Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Madam Speaker, I applaud my colleagues in recognizing the efforts those children's charities and youth serving organizations have put forth and also honor children for their widespread participation in these groups.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join with the chairman in urging all Members to vote for this important correction piece of legislation. I say ``correction'' because, in fact, we in Congress make mistakes. It wasn't out of malice that we spent $800 billion without asking the question of where would the money for oversight come from. These kinds of things happen in every organization where you're in such a rush to do one thing that it's not until later on in the light of the next day, or in the case of Chairman Towns and myself, it's when we held a field hearing in his district in Brooklyn and people said, Thank you very much for the money, but here is A, B, C, D--what's really happening? I commend Chairman Towns for quickly reacting to this and to some other issues that were found to be less than optimal in the stimulus package. In the case of this legislation, H.R. 2182, we seek to empower with existing funds State and local governments to not have to reach into other money in order to do oversight. This is not to say that we wouldn't prefer that the oversight be done at all times even without Federal money, but at a time in which the stimulus needs to be spent quickly and accurately, this legislation recognizes that money in short supply in States and in cities is likely not to go into the oversight necessary. Particularly with the chairman's initiative to ensure that transparency be greater than in any previous Congress, I recognize--and he has recognized--that if we want greater transparency, we are going to have to ensure that we not only supply the funds to do the oversight but that we supply the new technology and means to do the oversight. This legislation is deliberately intended to allow for cities and States to make investments in hardware or software that allows for them to better dig down into their procurement process, their spending, to work smarter, not just harder. Having no other speakers at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Merchant Mariners who served during World War II. Tasked with delivering troops, tanks, food, airplanes, fuel and other supplies to war theaters, Merchant Mariners suffered the highest casualty rate of any of the branch of the service. Their bravery for our country deserves recognition. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 23, the ``Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2009.'' This legislation will provide certain honorably discharged U.S. Merchant Marine veterans with a monthly $1,000 benefit. With each passing year, there are fewer surviving Merchant Marine veterans. I urge my colleagues in the House and the Senate to join me in supporting H.R. 23 to give these veterans their recognition.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this legislation is a combination of two well thought-out compromises. First of all, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, in fact, is going to take the place of a piece of legislation that is far more reaching and, in my opinion, overreaching, that passed out of Judiciary just this past week. In fact, by making this narrower, what we do is help the whistleblowers and those who would support them, while not going too far as to cripple the legitimate enforcement by cities and States and the right for them to discover waste, fraud and abuse themselves, make those in corrections without seeing both punitive fines and perhaps 30 percent going to plaintiffs' trial lawyers. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this narrowing is a good compromise coming from the Senate, and I want to thank all of those in both parties who worked on this. I think it makes moot the legislation that was passed under Judiciary. Secondly, another compromise, and one that I want to speak to, this 9/11-style commission, something that, as you can see, many people on both sides of the aisle--on both sides of the Capitol--thought was necessary. Over the last period of months, we have seen the Speaker of the House going from not supporting, and supporting only that her committee chairmen do the work, to supporting the concept of a House committee, to then a House-Senate committee, and, finally, I believe today, support for something that gets it almost right. Mr. Speaker, I believe that, on nearing the third anniversary of the 9/11 Commission, we should begin looking at what we did in the 9/11 Commission. In 2007, on the third anniversary, Speaker Pelosi praised the bipartisan, independent commission for its work, calling the recommendations made by the commission earned and achievable, and, in fact, speaking to its bipartisan nature. This year, as we pass legislation to make a similar-type commission to deal with the meltdown last year in our markets, I would call on Speaker Pelosi to help make the balance right. As was previously stated, based on the current nominating system in the ordinary course, this would end up being a 6-4 split and be questioned by the American people as to whether or not it was Democratically led and Democratically dominated. The Speaker has the ability, with her three appointments, to make this right, either by appointing one Republican and one Democrat, or, in this case, two; or I might suggest that even if she cannot find a Republican appropriate to be appointed from her allocation, that she could look to an independent or somebody independent of party politics. I have previously supported, when asked, Sandra Day O'Connor, a retired Justice, or somebody of her stature who rises well above party politics, who may be considered to have some Republican background but who, clearly, in the eyes of the American people, would be a consensus- builder, able to look for the truth and look for compromise so as to reach the consensus, not a majority decision, but a consensus of this commission, as in almost every case--I believe in every case--the 9/11 Commission did. I understand that this bill is the best bill we can get here today and I intend to vote for it, support it, and urge my colleagues to support it; not because I don't believe it should be above party politics and should be a 5-5 split, but because this is so much better than nothing at all and because I believe that the Speaker has it within her appointment powers to make this a perfectly good commission, one that we can all be proud of, and one that lives up to exactly what Speaker Pelosi asked for when the shoe was on the other foot after September 11, when we were looking at the need to get above party politics and we were looking to find people of stature to appoint. Mr. Speaker, I hope my suggestions over and above my support for this legislation will be heeded. Mr. Speaker, S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, improves current criminal and civil fraud statutes to help the federal government bring predatory lenders and unscrupulous financial institutions to justice. Judiciary Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith sponsored the companion legislation in the House, H.R. 1748, the Fight Fraud Act of 2009. The bill before the House today is a true example of bipartisan, bicameral cooperation. S. 386, as amended, merges these two important pieces of legislation together to provide comprehensive and effective solutions to combating mortgage fraud, securities fraud, and other financial crimes. In times of crisis, crime often flourishes. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, unscrupulous people chose to exploit these tragedies to pad their pockets with money intended to help the victims. The country's housing crisis is no exception. America's economic downturn, brought on by the housing crisis and other factors, exposed a significant amount of fraud and corruption within the mortgage, banking, and securities industries. The drive for expanded homeownership along with unchecked lending practices and inflated property values, encouraged mortgage fraud, predatory lending, and institutional corruption. Mortgage fraud comes in many forms, including deceptive practices by borrowers, predatory lending and institutional fraud. And now, the fraud is spreading to schemes targeting homeowners who are facing foreclosure as a result of the plummeting housing market. Foreclosure scams are targeting cash-strapped consumers on the verge of losing their homes. Victims are lured into the fraud scheme with promises of financial assistance that never materializes. S. 386 amends federal fraud statutes to specifically prohibit false statements by mortgage brokers and agents of mortgage lending businesses. The bill also expands the major fraud statutes to include fraud against the Troubled Assets Relief Program, economic stimulus funds, or other federal rescue or recovery plans. The Fight Fraud Act authorizes additional funds for federal law enforcement agencies, the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This legislation promotes the ongoing investigative partnerships between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The bill also supports programs that provide critical training and investigative support services, intelligence services, research support and other resources necessary to investigating these financial crimes. Additionally, this legislation will strengthen the liability provisions of the False Claims Act as well as make some necessary technical changes to the Act. The False Claims Act provisions in this bill will undoubtedly enhance the Federal government's ability to recover government money and property that would otherwise be lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. What's more, these provisions do so in a responsible manner that will not encourage the filing of frivolous or unfounded False Claims Act cases. Simply put, the False Claims Act provisions in this bill go the proper distance in ensuring that the Act remains a viable tool in the government's continuing fight to protect taxpayer dollars from fraud. (COMMISSION) The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act also contains provisions to create a bipartisan, independent ``Financial Markets Commission.'' This Commission will examine the questions of ``Why?'' and ``How?'' the current financial and economic crisis occurred. We have seen the success of past blue-ribbon panels, such as the 9/11 Commission. In 2007, on the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 Commission report, Speaker Pelosi praised the bipartisan, independent Commission for its work--calling the recommendations made by the Commission ``urgent and achievable'' making the country more ``unified'' and ``effective.'' Speaker Pelosi is right. A bipartisan, independent commission can produce valuable results. Which is why I proposed a similar bill last fall and again this Congress, H.R. 74. I view the effort to create this commission as a vehicle for this Congress to demonstrate a willingness to set aside partisanship and put the interests of our country first. As with the 9/11 Commission, the Financial Markets Commission report should be free of accusations of political showmanship and a partisan slant that have tainted current investigations. This Commission is not the place for partisanship OR Congressional meddling. It is a place for the American people to get answers. Ideally, in today's bill, the composition of this Commission would have been bipartisan down the line, with a 5-5 split like the 9/11 Commission that was adopted by a Republican Congress instead of the 6-4 divide that has come to the floor today at the direction of the Democratic Leadership. Speaker Pelosi said in 2005, when discussing a possible Commission to review Hurricane Katrina events, a ``real commission'' is bipartisan and independent. The decision to depart from the 5-5 model of the 9/11 commission in favor of a commission whose composition has a partisan slant is disappointing. But I believe the credibility of this commission's report will still depend on its ability to deliver conclusions and recommendations that all the members of the commission will embrace. I am hopeful that the members of Congress who will be responsible for appointments to this Commission will ensure that the panel's composition is bipartisan, independent, and focused on producing a nonpartisan report--not scoring political points. In closing, The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 is a good government bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. At this time, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to close on my side by thanking the gentleman from Tennessee. Memphis is a long way from the southern or the northern border, and yet he has helped us in moving this piece of legislation along because, in fact, our borders ultimately, once somebody is over our border in America, they can go anywhere virtually without ever being stopped. And so I thank all the Members who, whether they are a border district like myself or far inland, have seen that human trafficking is something we need to end. And I again ask all of us to support this bipartisan legislation. And I yield back the balance of my time.