Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, today I recognize and pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Schwind, United States Army, on the occasion of his transfer to the 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. I, and many other members of this chamber, have had the pleasure of working with him over the past three years that he has served as a part of the U.S. Army Office of Legislative Affairs and as a Liaison Officer in the Army Liaison Office in the U.S. House of Representatives. Lieutenant Colonel Schwind enlisted in the United States Army in 1989, attended Basic Training, Advanced Individual Training, and served three years as an Aero-Scout Observer with the 101st Airborne Division, AASLT. In that time, he deployed with his unit to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991. After redeploying in 1991, he attended Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia and was commissioned a Field Artillery Lieutenant on January 30, 1992. The next day he married the former Darlene Hendrix of Columbia, Tennessee. They have been married over 18 years and have a daughter, Jennifer, and son, Dylan. Through the years, LTC Schwind's assignments have taken him to Kentucky, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Virginia, Texas, Kansas, New York, and Washington, DC. Lieutenant Colonel Schwind's deployments include Operation Desert Shield/Storm; Restore Hope, Haiti, IFOR, Bosnia; and Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan. Matt is a graduate of the Aero-Scout Observer Course, the Air Assault School, the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Combined Logistics Captain's Career Course, Combined Arms and Staff Services School, and the Command and General Staff College. He has a Masters Degree in Logistics Management from the Florida Institute of Technology. During his assignment to the Army House Liaison Office, Lieutenant Colonel Schwind developed outstanding rapport with senior Members of Congress and their staffs--both personal and committee. He was often a by-name request from committee chairmen to plan, coordinate, and escort their fact-finding and oversight delegations. He served as the Army representative on 20 congressional and staff delegations to locations within the continental United States, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other overseas locations. Lieutenant Colonel Schwind leaves OCLL for Fort Campbell, Kentucky, this July. He will work on the staff of the 101st Sustainment Brigade, and then take command of the 426th Brigade Support Battalion in the summer of 2011. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues please join me in recognizing the outstanding accomplishments of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Schwind in serving the United States Army and the Nation.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, the United States Postal Service's CSRS Obligation Modification Act of 2010, is intended to remedy a unfair and inequitable methodology for allocating the Postal Service's share of Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, retirement benefit liabilities for employees that provided service to this country under both the Post Office Department and the independent United States Postal Service. According to a January 2010 report by the United States Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, USPS-OIG, the Postal Service paid more into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund that it would have paid if a more equitable methodology were used to allocate CSRS retirement benefit liabilities between the Federal government and the United States Postal Service. As a result of the USPS-OIG report's findings, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service submitted a request, in accordance with section 802(c) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC, calling for an independent and objective review of the methods used to allocate benefit liabilities between the Postal Service and the Federal government under generally accepted actuarial practices and principles. The independent actuarial firm hired by the PRC, The Segal Company, determined that the current methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, for allocating such retirement benefits between the United States Postal Service and the Federal government follows an antiquated methodology that fails to incorporate current actuarial best practices and accounting standards as recognized and codified by the Financial Accounting Standard Board. Accordingly, to remedy this unjust treatment, this legislation I am introducing today directs OPM to update and modernize the actuarial methodology to be used in allocating CSRS retirement benefit liabilities between the United States Postal Service and the Federal government in accordance with The Segal Company's recommendation. Under this approach, the Federal government's portion of an individual's CSRS annuity will be based on the CSRS benefit accrual formula and the conventional individual's ``high-3'' average salary. By utilizing this methodology, this legislation will ensure that OPM is using modern actuarial practices and accounting standards to apportion the benefit liabilities that are codified by the independent Financial Accounting Standard Board under FASB ASC 715.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 1722, back to the House with an amendment.

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

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points here that I would like to make at the outset, and I appreciate the spirit in which the gentleman has offered these amendments. Many of the concerns that the gentleman has raised in his motion to recommit have been addressed in the bill. I would like to begin by saying that right now, with respect to tax delinquency and enforcing the tax laws against Federal employees, we have greater protections right now in place against those Federal employees than exist against any other employee in America today. We have the ability to remove them from their jobs. We have the ability to garnish their wages. We have the ability to demand of them compliance with the tax law that is much more difficult to implement against the average private sector employee. So I do not think that the measures here and the ``seriously delinquent'' category that does not exist under the IRS Tax Code well serves the underlying purpose of this bill. I do want to say that prohibiting collective bargaining activity while teleworking is also a question of possible violation with other statutes that I believe may be infringed upon by this motion. So I would be very, very concerned about--obviously we were given this motion about a minute ago--well, a couple of minutes ago, so I'm not so sure how that would affect Taft-Hartley collective bargaining rights. But it would appear that they would do a carve-out here for those workers who are teleworking and yet unable to exercise the rights that otherwise might exist in those employees. So I am very, very concerned about that. I understand the restrictions. Further, the amended version of H.R. 1722 already incorporates language to restrict allowing employees to telework based on previous disciplinary issues that might have been presented. With respect to the concern raised by my friend and colleague with respect to accessing pornographic sites, I should note that history has shown us that those who rail against weaknesses of the human spirit are usually the very people who succumb to those very weaknesses. But we would certainly agree that that is inappropriate behavior and it should be punished. I tend to think that that is a point of agreement, but I think it's just a matter of how to implement that prohibition. There is also a difficulty at the heart of this, which is that the gentleman's motion to reconsider requires us to demonstrate a savings now at this level. Here's the problem: We are not in an Appropriations Committee. We have not appropriated any money for this. We don't have the ability to do that. This is authorization. So how are we supposed to know where the break point on savings might be when we don't know, in this forum, how much money might be spent? Those are structural flaws, I think, in the bill that prevent us from accepting the amendment at this time. However, I understand that some Members may see one or two of these issues as decisive on their behalf, and I would understand and respect the Members' rights to vote as they might on this measure. But because of the issues that I have raised-- one, because it creates a level of impossibility for us to demonstrate savings when we don't know how much money is going to be used in implementing this measure. That will be decided by the appropriators. And, as well, we realize that to set this up, in order to establish the teleworking protocols, there will be an expenditure to begin with, but the savings will result at a later time. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. LYNCH. No.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I do want to note that we do have one study here that I think is probably the most extensive one done on comparing private sector jobs to Federal jobs, and that is by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they compared occupation to occupation. They took an engineer in private sector versus an engineer working for the Federal Government, and they have reported that Federal employees are paid 22 percent less than their private sector counterparts. At this point, I yield 5 minutes to an energetic and diligent member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has been a long-time advocate on this issue.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the sheet, but I do want to note this does not compare job-to-job, nor does it indicate that there is anything close to a $60,000 delta between the private and the public employee. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), who also has been an energetic worker on this issue.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1509, I call up the bill (H.R. 1722) to improve teleworking in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 2 administrative workweeks, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, from the District of Columbia.

Mr. LYNCH. If the gentleman would produce some type of--that fact's not in evidence at all. I'm sure that we have kids that are working for $30,000, $40,000 a year. How are they making $60,000 more than their counterparts?

Mr. LYNCH. The typical Federal employee makes $60,000 more?

Mr. LYNCH. Sixty thousand dollars more.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask for a clarification, did the gentleman say that the Federal employees make an average of $60,000 more than their counterparts?

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his thoughtful comments. At this time I yield 1 minute to our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the full committee chairman, energetic and wise chairman of the Oversight Committee.

Mr. LYNCH. I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the lead sponsor of this measure, Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland.

Mr. LYNCH. For the record, Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks with respect to H.R. 1722.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. General Leave

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Federal workforce, postal service, and the District of Columbia, I'm pleased to offer H.R. 1722 for consideration. This legislation seeks to improve and expand access to telework for Federal employees in the executive branch. The bipartisan measure before us today was introduced by Congressman John Sarbanes of Maryland, along with myself and Representatives Frank Wolf, Gerry Connolly of Virginia, Jim Moran of Virginia, Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, and Danny Davis of Illinois back in March 2009. The bill was then amended and ordered reported favorably by our subcommittee on March 24, and again shortly thereafter by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on April 14, 2010. Madam Speaker, despite the evolving nature of the way the Federal Government conducts its affairs, telework, which allows an employee to regularly perform work from a remote location other than their usual workplace, continues to be underutilized by Federal agencies. Experience has consistently demonstrated that the private and public sector employers who utilize telework experience increased productivity and retention rates. More specifically, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Defense Information Systems Agency have successfully used telework programs, which shows potentially how telework can transform and enhance agencies' customer service offerings for our citizens and do so with greater efficiency and lower costs. H.R. 1722 provides for improvements to increase the number of Federal employees that participate in telework programs by requiring agencies to develop comprehensive telework policies within 1 year that allow authorized employees to telework and by directing the Office of Personnel Management to develop regulations on overall telework policies and to annually evaluate agency telework programs. H.R. 1722 also seeks to elevate the importance of incorporating telework into the continuity of operations planning for our Federal agencies. For example, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry estimated that the use of telework reduced the estimated cost of lost productivity during the recent snowstorms this past winter in the District of Columbia by approximately $30 million per day. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of moving telework forward by passing H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvement Act. This legislation has long enjoyed bipartisan support in the Oversight Committee and in the House over several Congresses and will help ensure the government operates more efficiently and effectively as a modern-day employer. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. I object. I reserve a point of order.