Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank you all for this moment and this minute. I represent a great many tribes in California, none of whom will be adversely affected if this casino goes in or doesn't go in. I come to the floor as a supporter of tribal and historic rights and their gaming rights. I have absolute support for Native Americans having gaming on their tribal lands. I also have absolute support for private property. As the gentlewoman from Michigan would like to have private property respected, then the State of Michigan can license a casino on that site to anyone they want, including those Indians on lands that are not in trust. We, as Federal officers, are being asked to put land in trust for purposes of a casino which has no historic link to the tribes receiving it. We should insist that tribal land be given appropriately in Michigan as close to as possible their historic land or in areas that are for some purpose other than manipulating and distorting the intent of our laws to create a casino.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3195, ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The ADA Amendments Act is a needed step in addressing improper judicial interpretation of the original Americans with Disabilities Act. Courts interpreted the Act more narrowly than Congress had intended resulting in decreased protection under the Act. It is especially gratifying that in crafting the legislation before us today the disability community was able to come to an agreement with private industry on appropriate legislative language. More specifically than the legislation at hand, I bring attention to the lack of Americans with Disability Act, ADA, compliance in the historic Capitol complex, specifically the use of door handles within personal House offices. The purpose the ADA is to ensure nondiscrimination for persons with disabilities including but not limited to public accommodations. The ADA specifically states the use of lever operated mechanisms, push-type mechanisms, or U-shaped handles are acceptable designs for all to operate. Enacted in 1990, I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to every extent reasonable, to install appropriate usable hardware by all those that wish to access the halls of Congress. Beginning with my first term in office in 2000, I have made requests to have my personal House office located in the Cannon building outfitted with ADA appropriate door handles. It is unfortunate that 8 years after my initial request and 18 years following the enactment of the ADA, Congress has chosen to remain out of compliance with the ADA. Congress must lead by example by making these buildings accessible to all Americans, regardless of disability. I urge you to read my attached most recent correspondence requesting this appropriate and necessary change. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 20, 2008. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: I wanted to make you aware of a request that I submitted to the Committee on House Administration for the installation of Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, compliant lever-style door handles in my office, room 211 in the Cannon House Office Building, and throughout the House campus. I am concerned that nearly 18 years after the passage of the Act, Congress remains significantly out of compliance. I have attached a copy of my letter to Chairman Robert Brady and Ranking Member Vern Ehlers for your review. Thank you for your attention to this important request. Sincerely, Darrell Issa, Member of Congress. Enclosure.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of the City of Wildomar on their official incorporation as a city on July 1, 2008. Located in southwest Riverside County within the 49th Congressional District, Wildomar stands to be the 456th city in the great state of California. I commend the citizens of Wildomar for their decision to take the responsibility of self governance by utilizing the fundamental principles of democracy, a tradition that goes back to the founding days of our nation. Established as a community in 1891, Wildomar has a long and rich history in California. The three founders constructed the name ``Wildomar'' from their first names, ``Wil'' from William Collier, ``Do'' from Donald Graham and ``Mar'' from Margaret Collier. Once a common stop for the Pony Express on the Butterfield Stage route, Wildomar provided a much needed break for the express riders. Thanks to the establishment of a rail line and stop at Wildomar, the village has continued to grow throughout the last century. Today, the area of Wildomar consists of many custom built homes set on large ranches and communities along the hillsides with sweeping views of the valley. Wildomar remains a relaxing and naturally beautiful area of California. Wildomar is home to 27,000 people, many of them first time home buyers and long time residents. On February 2, 2008, the citizens of Wildomar voted to incorporate the city, while at the same time electing the leaders that will set the standards for future growth and stability in a rich area of California. It is my honor to recognize the first city council of Wildomar: Council Members Ms. Sheryl Ade, Mr. Bob Cashman, Mr. Scott Farnam, Ms. Bridgette Moore, and Ms. Marsha Swanson. I look forward to working with the new council on issues important to their new and growing community. As the Representative of the 49th Congressional District of California in the United States House of Representatives, I wish the new city of Wildomar great success as it begins the next chapter of Wildomar's storied history.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this hammered- out compromise bill. You know, Madam Speaker, elections matter. The current balance in the House and the Senate played an important part in the administration, House Republicans, House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Senate Republicans coming together and figuring out what was needed, what was constitutional, in a very much bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, there are those who want to have it both ways, those who will talk about how this is balanced, it meets the needs of the administration, as the administration is assuring us, and it meets all of the constitutional requirements. But there are those who want to also play to the other side. While making sure that we are protected by a good piece of legislation, there are those who will come on the floor and denounce this and then vote against it. Madam Speaker, I ask the American people to look long and hard at how people vote on this. This is in fact worked out to assure the American people, and properly so, that we will protect all of their constitutional rights while doing everything we can to ensure their safety. This is good legislation worked out over a long period of time, and a lot of thoughtful work went into it on both sides. But I ask the American people to hold accountable those who would want to know that the American people are protected, and then vote against it in order to play to special interests. Madam Speaker, that is the bad part of what will happen today. The good part is that America will be safer and the Constitution will be secure because of what we are doing here today. I thank you and urge support.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, in just 1 minute it's impossible to assure the American people of everything this bill will do. But I would like too, if you will, react to something that was said on the other side that just simply isn't true. Yes, during J. Edgar Hoover's day, there was warrantless surveillance, even on political enemies of the people who were President at the time. Those days are behind us. This act, long since we've taken care of domestic wiretap, but this goes one step further. It insures Americans and particularly, I think, Arab Americans like myself who might go back and forth between here or have relatives in the Middle East, that their conversations will not be the subject of warrantless wiretaps, that, in fact, they can be very confident that America is going to observe the Constitution for them, both when they are here and if they are visiting abroad. So it's not easy to undo some of the statements that talk about the past, but the truth is, this will protect what has already been established for Americans here.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I rise to claim time in opposition in order to engage in a colloquy with my colleague.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw my opposition and urge support for the amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill in search of benefits that in fact do not exist in any great numbers in the private sector. This is a new perk, at a time in which the American people are having to make cutbacks. They are driving less. They are very clearly suffering under the incredible cost of rising energy prices. So this is a bill whose time should not be coming. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, so if the gentleman would assure me that if the GAO does not agree to do a study that is commensurate with the one described in the legislation, that he would join with me in asking for that nuance-specific study, then I'd be happy to withdraw because I think his amendment is fully in order if we can assure that.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, it's amazing that the gentlelady from New York would make the case that this isn't going to cost much. Of course, no dynamic scoring. They're sort of just looking at track history and then want the dynamic scoring for some intangible savings in Federal worker retention. It's very clear this is going to cost $850 million or more and that it is likely to grow. More importantly, I'm not somebody who spends a lot of time preaching family values from the dais. But if we're going to talk family values here today, let's talk them. Family values are about family making sacrifices to make things work. Unlike the gentlelady, I find that her example is an excellent example for my point, not her point. No Federal worker is forced to come back with an open wound. In fact, that woman would have been allowed to continue getting paid leave. Additionally, with more than 2\1/2\ weeks of accrued paid medical leave every year, there is no reason that she wouldn't have likely had accruals in her own bank. I love anecdotal examples because they usually make the case for the person delivering them; I would say just the opposite. This woman didn't have to come back. She could use medical leave, and contrary to what the gentlelady from New York is saying, Federal workers are allowed to use their medical, their sick leave in other ways, and they do regularly. Additionally, there is a whole system within the Federal workforce not really understood by the private sector but supported by this Member which is I can put my unused sick leave into banks to help others. I can even put my vacation, under certain circumstances, in banks to help others. So Federal workers can, in fact, share this very generous more than 2\1/2\ weeks of sick leave and 2 weeks of vacation if they choose to. So when we talk about the Federal family, the Federal family has plenty of resources to help with this. What we're talking about here is a multibillion-dollar new spending program at a time of recession, at a time of threatened tax increases by the Democrat majority, and at a time when the American people are striving just to fill up the tank with gas and try to figure out how to pay health care benefits. We're looking at new opportunities to increase our own well being. But we don't and shouldn't come first. The taxpayers and hardworking men and women out there come first. So for this Member, I'm going to tell you I'm not going to put us first, I'm going to put the taxpayers first and vote against this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to correct the Record. Mr. Speaker, less than one-third of Fortune 100 companies offer fathers paid leave. Approximately half offer some amount of disability or pregnancy leave in the birth of a natural child. So when you mix and match the richest companies in this country you're going to get less than a third offer anything close to what we're offering here today, not more than half. We're not following. In fact, when you quote the Fortune 100, by definition, what you're quoting are the very large companies that are normally disparaged by my Democrat colleagues as gouging the public on making too much on oil and other resources. In fact, what we normally talk about on the House floor and pay tribute to are the small businesses, the entrepreneurial, mom and pop businesses. They're not giving this. They can't afford to. As a matter of fact, a big part of the 44 million uninsured are because small businesses can't afford health care. They can't afford health, dental, eyeglass. And yet we're giving this benefit. Now, there was a proposal Mr. Van Hollen said that I think was very appropriate. We do have boomers retiring. In committee we have talked about ways to extend the careers of those baby boomers. The easiest way, one which would be fiscally responsible, as a matter of fact, it would even be a benefit to us and to them, those 6 months that are often used as terminal leave on a retiring senior member of government, if we would simply pay them those 6 months when they retire, it would be the least expensive way to get six additional months from the baby booming retired workforce. That proposal is dead on arrival apparently for the Democrat majority. That proposal would be a way to extend these significant amount of Federal workers at the time we need them most, which is when they really are senior people able to pass on to the next generation. That soft landing, dead on arrival. A new costly program, one that less a third of Fortune 100 companies, the richest companies, can even afford in fact is what we're being faced with here today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I think the leadership said it very well. Of course, they didn't say anything about what we're actually doing here today. This isn't about family unity or bonding. It isn't about mom and dad or the child. This is about a new spending, a new irresponsible spending proposal coming from the Democrats after they promised us fiscal responsibility. The fact is, we will have our taxes raised. The American people will pay for this in higher taxes in the coming years. They will pay for this after we said it was about your family. The reality is that there will be layoffs in the private sector. There will be people in the private sector who say, with these new taxes, can we still afford to have health care benefits while, in fact, Federal workers who not only enjoy good health care benefits, good vacation policies, also get more than 2\1/2\ weeks a year to be sick. Now, when the American people discover that an organization, the U.S. government, gives their people 2\1/2\ weeks to be sick, and allows them to accrue 6 months of that in case they're ever really sick for a long period of time, and does not require a physician's proof that they actually are sick, and then, when given the opportunity to say, let's use these 2\1/2\ plus weeks a year of sick benefits, since they're usable for anything you want to use in the way of time off, let's use them for time off when you have a child, that, in fact that was turned down as not good enough by the Democrat majority. It was turned down as clearly we have to add the dollars on top of this, wrongfully estimating $850 million when, in fact, this is billions. This could be fiscally responsible and family-oriented by simply allowing this well-accrued sick leave to be used for this, since it's going to be either used for sick leave, or it's going to be used at the end of a career or before someone leaves government as a general practice. It is seldom simply not used and turned back in. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the Democrat leader, that, in fact, this new expense leading to new taxes is, in fact, something that he supports, but calls it family-oriented. It's not family-oriented to the taxpayers in America, to the private sector. It is simply family- oriented to big government. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Sick leave of Federal workers is not limited to people who are sick. The common practice at the end of a career of simply retiring 6 months early to use up accrued sick leave speaks loudly to the fact that sick leave is simply 13 additional days that can be used on a discretionary basis. The chairman of the full committee knows this very well. And, in fact, we attempted to make it explicit that not only would you be able to use your 13 days plus any accrual, but even borrow in order to make this fiscally neutral, fiscally responsible at this time. This bill is not about whether or not we allow people to take 4, 6, 8 or 12 weeks of paid leave. In fact, we were more than willing to have the entire 12 weeks of family medical leave be usable, to be able to use its current or even borrow some of its future sick leave. What this bill is doing here today is saying, you get to keep 3, 4, 5 months of sick leave you already have in the bank. You get to keep your many weeks of vacation, and you get this additional amount. This is something the American people are not prepared to pay for. If we're going to be responsible, we're not going to make the American people pay for this additional back-door increase at this time. The majority knows this very well, so I, again, repeat, it is disingenuous to say that they can't use their sick leave. In fact, that was something that could have been handled in committee, would have been handled by the amendments that were not ruled in order by the Rules Committee on a purely partisan basis. In fact, we are considering a bill today that is designed to cost the American people money. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the majority providing us reference to the 2006 House Compensation Study that shows even with other people's money, and perhaps no guidance on how to spend it, about 20 percent of the House offices offer little or no, or actually offer no paid leave. The amazing thing to me is we are here today talking about a new paid leave. I just want to explain for a moment, when congressional offices choose to do paid leave, they do so out of a fixed budget. The majority would have you believe here that we are going to do this out of some fixed budget. We are not. This is going to run up the cost of every office that does everything, from post offices to the Secret Service to the IRS. It is going to run up the cost of these Federal employees. It is going to run it up by quite a bit. With all due respect to my colleague from California, I am not implying that having foster families is bad; just the opposite, it's good. The question is if you have an active foster parent family and they are being given 4 weeks of paid leave, who is to assume that they won't take it. I believe they will. That will mean for every 12 people doing it, you will have basically the need for an additional Federal worker with all the compensation and benefits that go with it. That is the reality we have here today. In committee we attempted unsuccessfully to have this be fiscally responsible, recognizing that there are 13 days of paid sick leave every year, fully accumulable so that a typical worker need only borrow from the sick leave that they were eventually going to cash out by not coming to work the last 6 months they are in the Federal workforce, simply use it for this. I am not implying that the birth of a child is sick, but it is fully usable under the amendments we tried to offer. So it is a little disingenuous for my colleague from California to say that the military can use it and somehow Federal workers couldn't. That could have been taken care of in committee, and it was clearly fought on a partisan basis. The fact is this bill should be before us today clarifying and taking care of some technical problems in the families being able to take full advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act by being able to use all of their sick leave, perhaps even borrow against future sick leave, which was proposed, and in fact have their colleagues give them sick leave in order to facilitate their staying home for those 4 weeks or more and not be without pay. The fact is we are here today dealing with a problem which we should not be spending new money on at a time when the Federal deficit and the Federal spending is far in excess of what the private sector can afford. As people here in Washington and people in California find it impossible to make ends meet with $5 a gallon gasoline, it is irresponsible for us to be adding this multibillion-dollar perk at a time in which, with only technical corrections, we could have provided these people the opportunity to use resources they already had in the way of sick leave and vacation. With all due respect to Federal workers, I think the majority of Federal workers would say that if they had their choice of this many billions of dollars of new spending, they would just as soon get it up front in pay and they would care of their choices in children, adopted or natural birth, they would take care of it out of their sick leave if they were given the additional dollars. So I think in fact we are doing them a disservice, if we are going to spend the money, of not spending it straightforward in a proper way, and I look forward to attempts to make this technically correct. And I once again regret that the Rules Committee chose not to allow these technical amendments not to be even considered, but in fact have kept them from debate on the House floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers on our side spoke in favor of the bill. I would like to honor their speaking in favor of the bill by saying that the bill is well intended, even if it is fatally flawed. People are talking about 10 years of wanting to achieve what they hope to achieve here today. I would say to you and certainly would ask that Federal workers take note of what we do here today. We are not talking about making sure that someone who has a child or adopts a child has the opportunity to take the time off for bonding. We already ensure 12 weeks of that and have for that decade. We are not talking here about anything except as it is presently written and not allowed to be amended, a bill that simply grants 4 weeks every single year to those individuals who choose to have a child, who choose to take time off in relation to a sick Federal employee, as was originally presented, or, more importantly, someone who takes on a foster child. Now I am all for people taking on foster children, but let's look at this from a practical standpoint. You are running a Federal department. You have somebody who you need, and every single year, as often happens, they take on a new foster child that they keep for 3 to 5 years and they have, let's say, three foster children. That means that that individual will be gone on paid leave over and above their vacation, over and above their 13 days of sick leave a year, they are going to be gone 4 weeks every year, conceivably for a full 20 years. So by having not just the birth, of a woman, but the husband, and not just birth, but foster children, we can conceivably go so far beyond the $850 million scoring, we could easily end up in the tens of billions of dollars. Let's consider our Federal workers at a time when we are considering whether this is appropriate to do. Our Federal workers receive 13 days of sick leave a year. Our Federal workers can accumulate those for 6 months, meaning that when they retire, as is often the case, Federal workers simply don't show up to work for the last 6 months. The reason? They are using up their sick leave. They can't be paid for it. They additionally have in the neighborhood of 2 weeks plus of vacation that they can cash out if they don't use it. Now, in the private sector, it is not, in almost any case, a use-it- or-lose-it policy on sick leave. Additionally, a little-known practice, but well used in the Federal service, is the giving away of somebody's sick leave. For example, if somebody in your department or somebody in your organization or the Federal Government were to take on a foster child, there can be a campaign to raise sick leave for that individual so that they would not be unpaid if they had a need for it. No problem, but it comes out of the bank of 13 days per employee per year. What this bill seeks to do is to grant something that is almost unheard of here in Congress or in the private sector. And I would like to take a little exception with the gentlelady from New York; we did go and look at the existing programs, and there is no support for 86 percent of House offices provide paid leave, not at all. Paid parental leave as a written policy does not exist in many of the offices, and I would ask the gentlelady to bring proof of her statement because quite frankly she has been misled if she thinks 86 percent of House offices have a formal written policy granting already this privilege that we seek to grant here this year. The scoring, as I said, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. It is not going to be $850 million, it will be billions of dollars. It will be billions of dollars at a time when Americans are being laid off. It will be billions of dollars at a time when Fortune 100 companies offering either pregnancy-related or disability leave, it is less than one-third of the Fortune 100 companies, which are the most wealthy, most generous companies in America, and less than one-third typically will offer that. The fact is that unpaid parental leave has become widespread. The leadership of the U.S. House and Senate in passing a bill that granted that to Federal workers is to be commended. The opportunity at one's expense using one's resources to take care of and bond in regards to a choice such as a birth or adoption of a child, is commendable and has become widespread. If this becomes widespread, we might someday look back and commend it. But today, what we are doing is we are offering Federal workers, workers who, like ourselves, are often chastised by people in the private sector who have to make a payroll, are being given things which they cannot afford. As is often said on the House floor, 44-plus million Americans don't have health care, and yet we are asking that every Federal worker, in addition to 13 days of paid sick leave, accumulable or borrow-able or giveaway-able, be granted additionally another, what is basically twice that amount, each and every year if they choose to use it. Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong to do it. In committee we aggressively tried to amend this to allow them to use resources already available more flexibly. Those were voted down on primarily a party- line basis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in anticipation of more things that need to be corrected on the House floor.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if he has no other speakers.

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Davis, I hope I understood you correctly so that I could withdraw any objection. I, too, share a belief that the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, since we ordered the GAO to make these studies and they routinely, of course, grant them, I don't see that it should be in the bill. But I'm a little bit confused about whether or not your request and the acceptance matches the study that was described in the bill. I yield to you so you could clear that up for me.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield as much time as he would consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the time I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you have noticed I have spoken with great passion here today about this bill. I would wish that I could be speaking with the passion in the positive, because the Federal workers deserve a bill that we didn't bring to the floor today. They deserve one that would allow for flexibility of sick leave, transferability, transparently to people who are having families, whether by adoption or by natural birth. That is what we should be bringing to the floor. We could do so at a time of shortages around the country at no cost to the taxpayer. We could do it exactly the way the gentlelady from New York described. Mrs. Maloney does not get new money for a new perk for her people. She chooses within a budget to in fact provide that benefit. And I commend her for that, and I commend the other Members who make decisions how to allocate a fixed pie of money, whether it's to go on sending constituent mail or providing paying benefits to the employees that answer the mail from constituents. So today we are not being given the bill we should be given. The bill we should give is to guarantee the ability to not lose pay when taking family medical leave but to use resources that are already available within the Federal system. That's not happening today. I regret that that's not happening. Had we been allowed to bring the amendments that we wanted to bring, we would have accomplished that. Had we been allowed to even bring the technical corrections that would have made this a less-imperfect bill, one that would not cause deadbeat dads to be able to take advantage of this, we would be doing that. We're not allowed to do that today. I regret that. I hope that this bill is defeated here and/or in the Senate and that we can bring up a truly bipartisan bill, one that would pass, quite frankly, on suspension if it was structured right, and would provide Federal workers this opportunity without additional costs to the taxpayers. I thank the Speaker, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for a spirited debate. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Then I continue to reserve.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I would inquire of the majority if they have any additional speakers.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Resolution 31, recognizing the Honorable Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr. and congratulating him on his selection as the First Endowed Chair of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law Trial Advocacy Program at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas. Mr. Jefferson, a graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, served as an assistant criminal district attorney for Bexar County, a chief assistant United States attorney for the Western District of Texas, and a trial counsel and labor relations counsel for Humble Oil & Refining Company. He was later elected judge of the 208th District Court in Harris County before returning to private practice. Mr. Jefferson received the Anti-Defamation League National Torch of Liberty Award, the League of United Latin American Citizens National Community Service Award, and the Community Service Award from La Raza. I join my colleagues in congratulating Mr. Jefferson, and in recognizing his distinguished career and community service. I yield back the balance of my time.