Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with Mr. Hall of Texas in bringing forth this important resolution, and I ask all Members to support unanimously the resolution at hand. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. LYNCH. I just want to clarify. The way this has been scored by CBO is that the salaries are paid to the employees already. The cost and/or savings recognized in the CBO estimate that has been cited here reflect the fact that by forcing Federal employees to take leave without pay, they realize a savings from that. But there is no new debt acquired here. What the savings here that CBO is recognizing is the fact that they have budgeted for these salaries but then people take a certain amount of time off without pay, and that realizes a gain in the budget that's recognized in the CBO estimate. At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LYNCH. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. LYNCH. I am prepared to close, so I reserve at this time.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, this bill is narrowly tailored to specific circumstances. It would provide 4 weeks of paid parental leave. The specific instances are the birth of a new child, an adoption, or someone taking a child into foster care. That's how you qualify for receiving these 4 weeks of benefits. And I think that this makes a strategic investment in the Federal workforce. This will help the government retain and attract young talented employees; and in so doing, it provides potentially an ultimate savings to the American people since there's a direct benefit when the government retains existing employees rather than having to hire and retrain new ones. We are all familiar with the revolving door in the Federal Government, where we bring in people, we train them, they become very competent in their areas of expertise, and then private industry steals them away because they can offer them much greater benefits and much, much higher pay. This provides a basic and decent benefit of 4 weeks for the occasions that I mentioned. Before closing, I'd like to also point out that the Obama administration, in their recently issued statement of administration policy on H.R. 626, also recognized the benefits of supporting families during the birth of a child, adoption of a child or for foster care. According to the President's policy position, the Federal Government should reflect its commitment to helping Federal employees care for their families as well as serve the public. Measures such as H.R. 626 support this commitment and strengthen our families, our communities and our Nation. Given that statement alone, I urge my fellow Members to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 626.

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

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit for the basic reason that it guts the entire bill. If this amendment were to pass, we would leave Federal employees exactly where we find them today. I also want to comment on the mechanics of the motion to recommit. It basically prohibits paying parental leave to Federal employees until the deficit is below $500 billion. I view it, I guess, that somehow that is the justification for not extending these benefits. However, history and the evidence before us does not support this position. It's disingenuous. I just want to point out a couple of things. Briefly, I just want to lay out what the record is here. My friends from the other side of the aisle have been consistent, and I give them credit for that. Whether we have been projecting a surplus or a deficit, the Members from the Republican Party have been opposed to this parental leave under every circumstance that we could possibly face here. When during the Clinton administration we had projected surpluses, the Republican Members opposed parental leave. In June of 2008 when the majority of the Republicans opposed this important benefit, the unemployment rate was only 5.6 percent, and we had a very strong economy. During the 109th Congress when Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate was never higher than 5.4 percent. During the 108th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring parental leave to the floor, the unemployment rate was averaging about 5.8 percent. During the 107th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate never rose above 6 percent and was below 4.5 percent for most of 2001. And again, during the 106th Congress when Republicans refused to bring legislation to the floor for parental leave, the unemployment rate hovered around 4 percent, which most economists believe is near full employment. So, regardless of the circumstances, my friends--and again, I commend you for your consistency--you have opposed parental leave, which is a basic and decent benefit for folks in three circumstances: When they have the birth of a child, Federal employees have a birth of a child; the adoption of a child; or taking a child in for foster care. Those are the narrow set of circumstances that this benefit is applied to. Madam Speaker, this is the 15th year--15 years ago this bill was brought to this floor, and it's been opposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle for that 15 years, and we all know our positions, and with that, I ask the Members to support this measure.

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

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank the gentleman from Alabama for his thoughtful amendment. This amendment makes certain that Federal employees who are members of the National Guard or Reserve will remain eligible for this benefit and be able to care for their newborn children in the same manner as all other employees. I thank the gentleman for his astute observations and his clarification. I urge the Members to support this amendment.

Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank the gentleman for his thoughtful and prudent amendment, and we are prepared to accept it at this time.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, for the purpose of closing, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who, along with Congressman Hoyer, has championed this bill for the past 15 years.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I just want to address a single point that's been made by a number of the speakers on the other side who I have great respect for, the gentleman from Texas earlier and now the gentleman from California. There is a drumbeat of justification that seems to be grounded in the fact that the economy is not in good shape right now, and that's a fact in my State, in my district, as well as all across America. But before we accept the argument that this is why it's being opposed, this bill is being opposed at this time, I just want to give a little brief history. This bill has been presented for 15 years. This bill has been presented for 15 years before this body. In 2008, when a majority of the Republicans opposed this important benefit, the unemployment then was 5.6 percent, pretty good. During the 109th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this bill to the floor, the unemployment rate was never higher than 5.4 percent. During the 108th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate ranged between 5.4 and 6 percent, relatively low. During the 107th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this legislation to the floor again, the unemployment rate never rose above 6 percent, and was below 4.5 percent for most of the year. During the 106th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate never rose above 4.4 percent. So there's a whole history here of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposing this bill, during good times and average times, and now in lousy times. But that is not the underlying reason that they're opposing the bill. The evidence does not support that. At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the lead sponsor of this bill, who has been there for the entire 15 years fighting for this measure, our chairwoman from the 14th District, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the full chairman of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close and continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I absolutely cannot support the amendment at hand, as it totally goes against the bill's fundamental purpose. To begin, this amendment actually guts the bill. It does little more than restate the status quo with regard to the type and amount of leave that is currently available to new parents in the Federal Government. To be clear, I support H.R. 626 because I want to support working families across the country. I oppose the amendment because we should not replicate the current inadequate system that forces new moms and dads to choose between their paycheck and caring for a newborn. The gentleman's amendment, however well intended, would strike the bill's core requirement that Federal employees receive 4 weeks of paid parental leave. Instead, it would require new mothers and fathers to take advance leave in order to take care of their newborn or newly adopted child. In other words, new employees would be required to go into debt in their available leave as a cost of caring for their child. I do want to point out an odd result of the gentleman's amendment. For the new employees who have unpaid leave right now, it would force them to take unpaid leave at a point in time--for instance, for a new mom right after she has the baby, it would force her to take unpaid leave; and then later on after the 8 or 12 weeks had expired, at a point maybe when that mom was ready to come back to work, it would then give those employees, mom and dad, 4 weeks of paid leave. So rather than come back to work, they'd be facing the opportunity to take paid leave at that point; and I think in some cases it may turn out that this may increase the cost. While it actually devalues the benefit to the employee up front, it also, by perhaps getting a higher utilization rate, in the end may cost the government more money. So it's sort of a lose-lose situation. Longer-term employees would be required to exhaust any available prior leave before being eligible to take the additional advance leave; and under most circumstances, they may already do this. So the amendment's only alleged new benefit to employees is to allow newer hires to go into a deficit on their leave in order to get some days paid during their parental leave. But, again, Federal agencies can already offer employees advance leave, so there's really no new benefit here. The true effect of this amendment is to gut the primary purpose of the bill, which is to support families and child development by providing 4 weeks of unconditional paid leave to new mothers and fathers in the Federal workforce. In addition to gutting the bill, the amendment is inequitable because it would impact new employees and older employees differently. Moreover, the amendment is not good policy because employees should not be forced to use up all of their accrued annual sick leave to care for a new child. This can leave employees in a desperate situation if any emergency arises or if they become seriously ill down the road. This amendment is somewhat short-sighted. It ignores the strategic investment that H.R. 626 makes in the Federal workforce at a time that we need to be attracting young talented employees to prepare for a wave of upcoming retirements. Currently we have about 315,000 Federal employees that are eligible to retire; and unfortunately those are the most experienced and, in some cases, the most ablest employees that we have in the Federal Government. This amendment ignores the social benefits to society as a whole that result from supporting families with progressive work-life policies, such as a paid parental leave program. Because this amendment guts the pending legislation, I do have to oppose it for all the reasons that I have stated in spite of the gentleman's good intentions. I ask that Members continue to support the bill and oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Representative from Maryland's Fourth District, Donna Edwards.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, which was introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, on January 22, 2009. As chairman of the subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of Columbia, I'm proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this bill, along with 55 other Members of Congress. H.R. 626 takes an important step toward improving the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce by providing paid parental leave to Federal and Congressional employees for the birth, adoption or placement of a child for foster care, which is a benefit that is extended to many in the private sector as well as to all government employees in other industrialized countries. In considering H.R. 626, the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia marked up the bill on March 25, 2009, and favorably recommended the measure to the full Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The full committee then held markup on H.R. 626 on May 6, 2009, and ordered the bill to be reported to the floor by a voice vote. The bill being considered today will allow all Federal and congressional employees to receive 4 weeks of paid leave taken under the Family Medical Leave Act, also called the FMLA, for the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child. As many of my colleagues are aware, the current FMLA statute provides workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child with an employee. Madam Chairman, the bill before us does nothing more than permit those Federal employees, first, to receive paid leave for 4 weeks out of the 12 weeks to which they already have access and if the leave is connected to the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child; and secondly, provides employees the option to use accrued sick or annual leave, if available, for the remaining 8 weeks. Let us be clear. The bill currently being considered does not provide Federal workers any additional time or expand beyond the 12 weeks already given under current law. The bill before us has also been strengthened by granting the director of the Office of Personnel Management the authority to increase paid parental leave from 4 weeks to 8 weeks after considering a thorough cost and benefit analysis. Parental leave is a pertinent concern around the world, and unfortunately, America is lagging behind in offering paid leave for parents. The governments of 168 countries offer guaranteed paid leave to their female employees in connection with childbirth. Ninety-eight of these countries offer 14 or more weeks paid leave. Currently, the Federal Government, as an employer, guarantees zero paid leave for parents in any segment of the workforce. However, H.R. 626, once enacted, will, in fact, change that. While the 12 weeks of unpaid leave, as authorized by the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, has helped millions of families during some of the most precious moments or, in some cases, the most challenging times of their lives, most Federal employees cannot afford to take unpaid leave. This often forces these employees to choose between spending more time with their newborn child or maintaining an income to support their families, which is a difficult decision that Federal workers will hopefully not have to make after the passage of this Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. The United States of America, and in particular, the Federal Government, is supposed to be a world leader in this area. Yet, for years, we have been followers. I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that it is high time for us to catch up with the rest of world and provide our dedicated employees with paid parental leave of this limited time. Providing Federal employees with paid parental leave will increase worker morale and improve productivity by creating a more family friendly environment for Federal employees. Further, providing 20 days, or 4 work weeks, of paid leave to our dedicated Federal employees should not be described as an overgenerous or excessive fringe benefit, but rather, as a necessary benefit to help strengthen American families and promote the healthy development of our children. We also need to recognize that the Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States, and its policies in this area do set a tone for the country. No employee should have to choose between caring for a newborn child or their paycheck. This is especially true during an economic downturn. Therefore, Madam Chairman, I'd like to once again reiterate my support for H.R. 626, the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this measure. I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of our newest but most energetic and dynamic members of the subcommittee (Mr. Connolly) from the 11th District of Virginia.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Thompson, the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, for his great work on this bill. Specifically, this amendment that I have offered would address a difficult situation that is faced by our transit security officers, especially those on the Mexican border, but in every port of entry in the United States. We have about 50,000 of these officers that actually come in contact, physically wanding and screening travelers. As you may remember, after the outbreak of the H1N1 virus, the epicenter was actually in Mexico City; yet the officers that we put on the border, especially Laredo, Texas, and other affected States, were not allowed--they were not allowed to wear masks, to wear gloves, or to use hand sanitizer as they proceeded to screen travelers coming through from Mexico. A bizarre situation developed where our officers actually were able to look across at the Mexican security officers who all had masks on, they all had gloves on, yet our own TSA did not allow our workers to wear masks or gloves. In fact, when our officers actually took the initiative to protect themselves, they were told by their superiors, Take off those gloves. Take off those masks. You're alarming the traveling public. Many of these officers actually screen up to 2,000-3,000 visitors, travelers, per shift. So, to a high degree, they were actually exposed to people who were exhibiting influenza. There are a couple of stark instances we received on the committee, affidavits from officers who actually confronted travelers who were visibly sick. Yet they were told, even in those instances, they were not allowed to wear gloves and masks. So what this amendment would do would be to direct the Transportation Security Administration to basically issue guidance that would allow these workers to protect themselves. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the odd situation we have here. We have the World Health Organization that has actually brought us up to a level 5. They are now considering going to a level 6 on this influenza. Yet you have the Transportation Security Administration and DHS saying they did not think it was medically necessary for our folks to wear these. You have the Centers for Disease Control here in the United States, in Atlanta, alerting Americans just generally to cover their mouths, to avoid unnecessary travel to Mexico, to take prudent steps to protect themselves. Yet we have these officers on the border who are screening 3,000 people per day, and they aren't allowing these individuals to wear masks. I think it points out a terrible incongruity in our policy. We've been trying to get them to change that policy. They would not do it voluntarily, so we have been put in a position where we have to do this legislatively. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. LYNCH. I will reserve my time at this point.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out something that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) just raised. On several occasions, there have been justifications for not allowing people to wear masks and for not allowing these screeners to protect themselves on the border. The justification seems to be that the airlines and transportation officials don't want to alarm the public. I just want to point out that, when you travel around the globe, these are not large, evil-looking devices. These are very simple dust masks that can be used, and they look fairly common. You see them a lot overseas. It's quite a common thing. As they become more widely used, it will sort of, I think, become commonplace, and it will not bring alarm. The last point I want to make is this: these employees don't have the right to collectively bargain. They don't have the right to send in a representative to file a grievance when they're told to take off their masks or gloves or when they refuse to allow them to use Purell or anything to protect themselves. If these folks had had a collective bargaining representative, they wouldn't have had to come to me. I feel like I'm the business manager for the Transportation employees. While I'm honored to have that responsibility, I think it would be much better handled if they had the right to collectively bargain and if they had the right to have their own employee representatives intervene on their behalf when their own personal safety and the safety of their families are threatened. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.