[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 206 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7187-S7188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 748
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his
request so that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of
Calendar No. 157, H.R. 748. I further ask unanimous consent that the
Toomey amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as
amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Let's get clear about what is happening here. The first thing is we
did something momentous as a group. We, on a bipartisan basis, decided
to provide paid parental leave of 12 weeks for the Federal workforce--
2.1 million Federal workers--so that individuals who are new parents
don't have to make that impossible choice between receiving a paycheck
and being a new dad or a new mom. Now, this is catching us up with the
rest of the world. The rest of the industrialized world understands
that this isn't just a humane thing to do for families. This is the
right way to manage the workforce because you get higher productivity;
you get better morale; and you get lower turnover. This is a smart
thing to do.
There were 2.1 million people covered by this momentous change of
Federal policy agreed upon over the last 48 hours on a bipartisan
basis. There was a technical problem, and so the following Federal
employees are not going to be covered unless we make this technical
fix: employees of the DC courts, public defenders, Presidential
appointees, FAA, and CSA employees, and article I judges. Everybody
else is going to get 12 weeks of paid parental leave, except for these
people. We can solve that today.
That is what my unanimous consent request is all about. What the
Senator from Pennsylvania has decided to do is take a hostage and say,
These are the only Federal employees who are not going to get this
benefit because of a technical and drafting error because I didn't get
something totally unrelated that has to do with a tax bill that was
passed on purely partisan lines in a hurry, written primarily by
lobbyists in the middle of the night.
Now, I do not mind entertaining a change to the Tax Code to deal with
this question of how you expense the renovation of restaurants and
retail operations, but I think Senator Wyden is exactly right. I guess
the Senator from Pennsylvania thought this was a talking point on the
Republican side. Heaven forbid if there should be a negotiation. Heaven
forbid something that is as important to the Republicans that is as a
result of their screw-up and would cost tens of billions of dollars
would not be given away for free.
The argument being made is, hey, technical for technical. This is an
actual technical fix. This is a bill we just enacted in the last 48
hours. I am not even sure if the President has signed it yet, but it is
about to be enacted into law, and nobody is arguing that we should not
cover some small portion of the Federal workforce.
Nobody is arguing that was the legislative intent. Nobody is arguing
that is public policy. What the Senator from Pennsylvania is saying, If
I don't get my thing, then these people don't get the help that they
deserve. These people, by happenstance of a drafting error, don't get
paid parental leave. Now, this has human consequences.
I object to the Senator's modification of my unanimous consent
request, and I am deeply disappointed that we can't fix this simple
thing. I am happy to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania on a quick
fix. I think we will get there at some point next year, but this has to
be part of a broader bipartisan deal, and he knows that.
This is going to cost tens of billions of dollars, and no one gives
tens of billions of dollars for nothing. Everything of that magnitude
has to be negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is not what
he is trying to do. He is trying to say because we made a technical
error that was monumentally wrong and, as a result of the flawed
process, why don't we trade technical fixes. This is a relatively small
technical fix, and he wants to trade it for a massive technical fix
that is now 2 years old.
The only thing I would say is this may be small in the context of how
we operate in the U.S. Senate. It is not small if you work for the FAA
and you are a new dad. It is not small if you are an article I judge
and you are a new mom. It is not small for these people who deserve
paid parental leave like every other Federal employee will get soon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard to the modification.
Is there an objection to the original request?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am kind of shocked by what I just heard,
that I am characterized as taking a hostage. Let's just be very clear.
I am the Senator on the floor who is proposing that both Senators get
their way, that the outcome works for both sides. This is a Democratic
priority. Some Republicans support it; some don't. It is a Democratic
priority on a mistake that was made, and I am suggesting let's fix it.
Let's take the opportunity to also fix something that 66 Senators
have supported. They cosponsored it. There is even broader support--
much broader in the House where it is massive. I do not know what is
more reasonable than a very broadly bipartisan technical fix that
scores at zero and helps every single community in America and tying
that with an opportunity to do something that is a very high priority
for my colleague from Hawaii.
[[Page S7188]]
Since my colleague from Hawaii refuses to allow us both to be able to
accomplish this, I am going to have to hope that we can do it another
time, and I will object to his request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.