An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 111-133 to require employees to use all accrued leave before receiving additional paid parental leave and would require additional paid parental leave to be treated as a repayable advance.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAID PARENTAL LEAVE ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 501 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 626.

                              {time}  1743


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 626) to provide that 4 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made
available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave, and for other
purposes, with Ms. DeGette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  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.

                              {time}  1745

  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

[[Page H6224]]

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. 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

[[Page H6225]]

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. 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.

                              {time}  1800

  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).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership in moving this bill to the floor and so many other areas in
this Congress. And I'd like to thank all of my colleagues that have
supported this on both sides of the aisle in its overwhelming passage
in the past Congress, and of course today, especially Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer who, with me, introduced this bill 15 years ago. And
Chairman Towns, who has led our committee so well, and Ranking Member
Wolf, Davis, Lynch, and former Congressman Tom Davis for all of their
leadership on this issue.
  We are here today to show that this Congress doesn't just talk about
family values; it values families. This bill, H.R. 626, that grants 4
weeks of paid leave for the birth or fostering or adoption of a child
is the first bill to pass balancing work and family since 1993.
  In 1993, we passed the landmark Family Medical Leave Act that
provided 12 weeks of unpaid leave, which allowed women to have children
and not lose their jobs. And this is very important since most women
have to work. Many are single heads of household, but it takes two
family incomes to make ends meet. This bill builds on those 12 weeks by
providing 4 weeks of paid leave.
  Many on the other side of the aisle have said that this economy is in
recession and we should not be doing this. But I'd like to point out,
in addition to the points that Mr. Lynch made earlier, that they have
been opposed to it in good times, bad times. They're just opposed to
it.
  But paid leave ensures that the birth of a child does not further
destabilize families who are struggling to make ends meet during these
troubled times. During this recession, working families need all the
help they can get. 11.6 million Americans are unemployed today, which
means that every paycheck counts more than ever.
  Millions of dual-earner couples were struggling to stay afloat on two
incomes before the economic crisis, and massive job losses mean that
many of those families are now scrambling to pay the bills on just one
income.
  Without paid leave, the birth of a child means that many working
families are left with no income at all. By extending benefits to
Federal workers, we can diminish the risk of real economic hardship for
the 1.8 million employees of America's largest employer, the Federal
Government.
  A new parent spends an average of $11,000 in additional spending in
the first 2 years of a child's life, according to a study by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. By ensuring that family incomes remain
steady while a parent is at home taking care of a new child, paid leave
ensures that new parents' consumption remains steady, too. This
consumption drives economic growth, which is precisely what our economy
needs to recover.
  In a downturn, workers who take parental leave without pay are at
risk of serious financial hardship. Those workers may qualify for
Federal or State benefits such as TANF or SNAP, which places an
additional burden on our systems that are already strained by
ballooning caseloads.
  I have a great deal more to say on this issue, and I will place in
the Record the remainder of my comments.
  We need common-sense reforms like this, that reflect the way families
live now. Many workers today, including Federal employees, simply
cannot afford to go without a paycheck for any length of time.
  Most families rely on two incomes to get by, and having one parent
stay at home may not be an option. Without paid leave, the birth of a
child can leave them with no income at all.
  The U.S. should be a leader in family friendly workplace policies,
but unfortunately we are

[[Page H6226]]

falling behind. 168 countries guarantee some form of paid leave. The
United States, along with Lesotho, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea,
does not.
  Federal employees are noticing the lack of family friendly work
policies in the Federal Government.
  The Office of Personnel Management's Federal Human Capital Survey for
2008 indicates that issues of work-life balance are becoming a major
concern for more and more Federal employees, because outdated leave
policies are not addressing their needs.
  At the same time, they report less support from their supervisors on
this issue than at any time in the past. Statistics like these are
clear evidence that this bill is overdue.
  Our Armed Forces are to be commended for taking the lead on this
issue. They already provide their new mothers with paid leave for the
birth of a child.

  My colleague Congressman Stark has introduced legislation which would
provide paid parental leave to employees in the private sector.
  It is time for us to bring the Federal Government up to speed.
  Opponents of this bill say it will cost too much, but H.R. 626 is
PAYGO neutral, and according to CBO ``enacting H.R. 626 would not
affect direct spending or receipts.''
  Let me be clear: There are no PAYGO implications for this bill. This
is not to say that implementing paid parental leave is free of cost.
  CBO says that providing 4 weeks of paid leave provided for in this
bill would total $140 million starting in 2011, which would increase to
$209 million if and only if the Office of Personnel Management chooses
to increase the amount of paid leave to 8 weeks.
  What this number represents is the value of the salaries of the
17,800 female and 12,000 male federal employees that the CBO assumes
will take 4 weeks of paid parental leave in the bill's first year of
implementation.
  In other words, it is what agencies currently save when those
employees go without pay under the current system.
  Not reflected in the CBO score is the money we can save by providing
paid parental leave.
  Over the next few years, providing paid parental leave will increase
employee morale and productivity while reducing turnover costs.
  It can also help boost the economy in general. New parents spend an
average of $11,000 in added expenses in the year a child is born. By
insuring that new families' incomes stay steady, paid leave insures
that their consumption remains steady too, and this is exactly what our
economy needs to recover.
  Critics of this bill have said that it sends the ``wrong message at
the wrong time'' to families and taxpayers.
  That is not the message I hear.
  Passing H.R. 626 today would send a strong message to hardworking
families across the country that healthy and happy families are central
to the well-being of this country, and that we never want a parent to
have to make the terrible choice between getting a paycheck and caring
for their new baby.
  I urge my colleagues to support working families and to vote ``yes''
on H.R. 626.
  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. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
work on this issue and many others in the Congress.
  Madam Chair, on Monday, June 1, 2009, in Ontario, Ohio, in our
district, 1,200 General Motors employees found out that they're losing
their job. The Obama task force said in 12 months from now 1,200
families will face the consequences of unemployment. Yet, here we are
today, ready to pass a new billion-dollar entitlement for Federal
workers at a time when our economy is in turmoil and millions of
Americans are struggling with joblessness.
  It is unconscionable that this Congress heap even more spending onto
the backs of American families and businesses. At a time when taxpayers
already have to tighten their belts, we are now asking them for an
additional $1 billion. And worse, the spending is unnecessary.
  Federal employees are already entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave
during any 12-month period because of a birth, adoption, or the taking
in of a foster child. In many cases, Federal workers can use accrued
sick leave and annual vacation leave. In fact, if you have been a
Federal employee for just 3 years, you already have 4 weeks of annual
leave and 2\1/2\ weeks of sick leave each and every year.
  With this new benefit for the Federal Government, we are also putting
small businesses at a disadvantage. Think about this. Only 57 percent
of the private sector offer any independently defined sick leave. Now
they will have to compete for workers against this expanded benefit for
government workers. This moves us exactly in the wrong direction.
  We need to incentivize the growth and renewal of a vibrant private
sector, yet instead we are subsidizing an ever expanding Federal
Government that will crowd out the private sector and, I think,
frankly, stifle innovation and entrepreneurialship.
  The American people are watching us. In these difficult economic
times, they expect their government to do exactly what they have done,
cut the waste and tighten our belts. That is the message I have heard
all across our district. It's what I've heard from families
experiencing unemployment and small businesses that have had to shut
their doors. Instead, this Congress continues to spend and spend and
spend.
  Rather than taking steps to improve the economy to create jobs for
the 14 million unemployed Americans, we are giving a better deal to the
2.7 million people who are already employed in the Federal sector. This
is the wrong message to send, and I encourage my colleagues to vote
against this legislation.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the full chairman of our
committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).
  Mr. TOWNS. I would like to thank the Federal Workforce Subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Lynch, for the outstanding job that he has done. I'd like
to thank Chairwoman Maloney for her leadership on this issue. I would
like to thank the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, for his work on it, and
I'd also like to thank Congressman Connolly for his work as well.
  The gentlewoman from New York has worked tirelessly to make the
Federal Government an environment that is supportive of working mothers
and fathers. I want to thank her for her efforts and, may I add, a job
well done.
  We need to recognize that the Federal Government is the largest
employer in the United States and that its policies should set a tone
for the country. H.R. 626 provides Federal employees with 4 weeks of
paid parental leave for the simple reason that no employee should have
to choose between caring for a new child or their paycheck.
  By providing 4 weeks of paid parental leave, H.R. 626 makes a
strategic investment in the Federal workforce. This bill will help the
government recruit and retain young, talented employees. As the Federal
Government prepares for a wave of upcoming retirements, we need to
attract this segment of the population to help us take on some of the
challenges facing this country.
  This bill also provides potential cost savings to the American
people. The taxpayers directly benefit when the government retains
existing employees rather than having to hire, retrain, hire, retrain.
That is expensive.
  Let me also add, the country is better served by an experienced and
productive Federal worker that is able to adequately provide for the
health and well-being of their newborn or newly adopted child. The
long-term societal benefits of promoting healthy families and early
child development are enormous.
  We in the Federal Government have a unique obligation to set an
example for the rest of the Nation, both in values that we promote and
in the way we responsibly manage taxpayer-funded programs. This bill
accomplishes both goals. It benefits children and families and will
enable us to recruit and retain top-notch Federal employees whose work
benefits the entire Nation.
  For all these reasons, I urge all the Members to support this family-
friendly legislation that says to the world we care about our children.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my friend and our ranking minority member, Mr.
Issa, for yielding the time and for his leadership here.
  In an earlier life of mine, when I was with the Select Children
Family Committee back in the eighties, my then boss--I was a Republican
staff director--my then boss, Dan Coats, was one of the Republicans who
supported the Family Medical Leave Bill, which I didn't agree with.

[[Page H6227]]

  But I remember when he told me I could sit in all the meetings and we
worked with how that law was going to be drafted. People said, Oh,
it'll never be paid. This is just to cover people for unpaid. You're
just a paranoid conservative because you keep talking about this
becoming paid.
  We watched this move into the government arena, and all of us
understand the tensions here. My daughter just had our second
grandchild. She's a schoolteacher. The struggle was how was she going
to deal with the time she was going to take off. Was it going to be
paid? Was it during a school year? What do you do when you have--
Grant's 2 and Reagan, which won't shock anybody that my daughter picked
the name Reagan. She has two little kids. How do you do this? What's
fair? My oldest son, Nathan, and his wife both work in the government.
They would love to have paid medical leave.
  But there's some problems here. Quite frankly, one of the most
controversial problems is what to do with the husband and should he be
able to get time off when a baby is born. Forget all the medical
questions. What do we do with air traffic controllers? What do we do
with DEA agents who may be working in the final bust on a drug case?
What about Homeland Security, where they've been working 2 years on the
case, the wife has a baby. Can they take sudden leave as this case is
going to trial?
  There are very complicated fundamental questions in the challenge of
how this would practically work.
  The second challenge is, in case people haven't heard, we've been
printing a lot of money or obligating a lot of future debt, and the
question is: Is this the time that the Federal Government should be
doing something that is, quite frankly, generous, would help many
families, but do we really have the money to do this at this time?
  I represent the number one manufacturing district in the United
States, both in jobs and percent of jobs, at least if you counted
before the recession started. I imagine I still may be there.
  My best county, where Fort Wayne is, the biggest city of around
260,000, has a 9.5 percent unemployment rate. Whitley County has 11.6;
Kosciusko, 12.2; DeKalb, 13.4; Noble County, 16.6, Steuben County,
15.1; LaGrange County, 17.7; Elkhart County, 17.8, where the President
went in for the first stimulus package.
  Now I'm supposed to go back to my district and say that government
employees are going to get paid parental leave when they're looking at
how they get unemployment and how they ever get a job.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I would yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. SOUDER. That generosity and kindness to families is important,
but we also have to balance is this going to be mandated on the private
sector, is this really workable. Have we thought through the
particulars in the Federal sector? Do we have the money to do this?
Lastly, is this the time, while millions of people are laid off, where
others don't know how they're even going to pay their house payments,
how they're going to pay their health care, to say, but we in the
Federal Government are going to be generous with our employees and give
them paid parental leave and family medical leave with their tax money?

                              {time}  1815

  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. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the distinguished subcommittee
chairman, and I also thank, Madam Chairman, the distinguished chairman
of the committee and Mrs. Maloney from New York for her leadership on
this very important issue.
  Madam Chairman, I thought we had finally identified an issue where we
could count on the support of the minority party. After enduring
decades of sanctimonious speeches about family values, here we are,
poised to take action. H.R. 626, the Paid Parental Leave Act, would
allow federally employed mothers and fathers to spend time with their
newborn children without sacrificing their income. Surprisingly, the
minority party objects to such a notion.
  In the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of which I am a
member, the minority actually proposed during markup to prohibit paid
parental leave being used for foster children. I can't even speculate
about what the origin of that antipathy toward foster children might
be; but I am reminded of a speech in this Chamber, Madam Chairman, made
not so long ago by former Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He
spoke passionately about the plight of foster children and implored
Congress to ``listen to the stories of these children and the stories
they tell. Study the broken system we've created for them, and help
them. For God's sake, help them.''
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 626 will not solve all or even most problems
with the foster care system, but it will allow more Federal employees
to spend more time with very young foster children. We have a wealth of
data that demonstrates that this parent-child interaction is essential
for the cognitive and emotional development of these children. Yet the
minority party introduced amendments in the committee that would
actually punish foster children.
  Now, here on this floor, the minority party endeavors to gut this
legislation and to prevent mothers and fathers from spending time with
their very young children. This bill is what real family values are all
about. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 626.
  You know, ladies and gentlemen, what we do here in the United States
House and in the United States Congress--the standards that we set and
the expectations that we have in terms of benefits--really sets a
precedent not only for the people whom we employ in the Federal
Government but also for whom small businesses and large businesses
around our country employ.
  Like everyone else, I enjoy Federal benefits. My employees here with
me enjoy our great benefits plan. Unfortunately, back home in central
Illinois, many individuals there are not employed by the Federal
Government. By and large, they're employed by the private sector.
Unfortunately for them, this is a time when they're not looking to
expand their benefit programs, when they're not going to their
employers and asking for more. They're thankful for the paychecks
they've got.
  It seems to me a little disingenuous by those in support of this
legislation that, at a time when we're talking about stimulating the
economy and at a time when we're talking about feeling the pain of the
American people, we know the truth--that our constituents are having to
do the opposite. They're having to cut back. They're having to do with
less. This bill and this measure seek to do the opposite.
  Expanding 4 weeks of paid parental leave will not only add a cost to
the Federal Government by the Congressional Budget Office's own figures
of $1 billion over the next 5 years, but it will undoubtedly set a
precedent for the private sector. Unfortunately, for the private
sector, they cannot print the money or tax the American people to pay
for their benefits.
  The unemployment rate in my State of Illinois was just over 9 percent
as of April. This includes over 24,000 jobs that were lost by my
hometown employer, Caterpillar. When I go back there this weekend, I
will have to tell those individuals who are now unemployed, not only do
they not have jobs, but my colleagues in this body decided that our
employees, who have not felt the economic impact of a downturn, are not
only getting to keep their jobs, but they will also have added benefits
at their expense as taxpayers.
  I don't know how we can honestly vote for more benefits, for more
pay, and for more cost to the Federal budget at the expense of
taxpayers and of those people who are cutting back and losing their
jobs.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California's Sixth District (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, America should be a world leader in

[[Page H6228]]

helping parents balance their work and family responsibilities.
  As the chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
I find it totally unacceptable that the country I live in--the United
States of America--is one of only four countries not providing paid
leave to new mothers and fathers. Today in the United States, 51
percent of new parents don't have paid leave. So, as a result, some
take unpaid leave if they can afford it; some quit; and some are fired
for taking too much time off.
  That's why I strongly support H.R. 626, so we can ensure that Federal
employees won't be forced to choose between their paychecks and their
families at one of the most important times of their lives--the birth
or the adoption of a child. Investing in our working families is the
best way to strengthen our workforce. It is the best way to stimulate
our economy, and it is the best way to strengthen our country.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this important
legislation authored by Congresswoman Maloney. Support working
families. Don't force them to choose between putting food on the table
and having dinner with their children and getting to bond with their
new babies. Vote for this legislation because the United States of
America needs to stand proud among other countries in this world.
  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.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. I said: for taking too much time off beyond the
family medical leave.
  Mr. ISSA. Beyond the 12 weeks?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes.
  Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It offers a
new $1 billion benefit to Federal workers. I have no doubt that the
Federal workers deserve this benefit, but to non-Federal workers, they
don't deserve having their paychecks docked $1 billion to pay for it.
That's what we're talking about. That's if the non-Federal Government
workers are fortunate enough to still have their jobs in this troubled
economy. Again, it's a great benefit. I wish every new parent could
have that. I want to create a more prosperous economy in America so
that every American could enjoy it, but this is absolutely nothing more
than a wealth transfer of $1 billion from non-Federal Government
workers to Federal workers. It is just patently unfair.
  Why would you want to dock the pay of everybody else in this troubled
economy to pay for this?
  Already, if you look at the benefits that Federal Government
employees receive--and listen, there are great Federal employees, and I
want to keep them, and many of them are incredibly dedicated public
servants. Yet look at the annual leave of the Federal Government versus
the annual leave, on average, in the private sector. Federal workers
are already receiving a better deal.
  Look at the annual sick leave of the Federal Government compared to
the average sick leave in the private sector. The Federal Government
worker is already receiving a better deal.
  Look at the family medical leave. You can see that Federal Government
workers already receive, on average, a better deal than those in the
private sector.
  So, again, on average, when they're enjoying greater benefits and
when they're enjoying greater job security, what a slap in the face to
every worker in America who doesn't receive a government paycheck to
see that, all of a sudden, they're going to have to pay for a new
benefit for Federal workers.
  This is on top of the fact that, today, the Federal Government is
already having to borrow, Madam Chair, as you well know, 46 cents on
the dollar. We are awash in red ink. Already, this body, under
Democratic control, passed a budget that will triple the national debt
in 10 years, costing taxpayers $148,926 per household. It will triple
the national debt in the next 10 years. We are about to see more debt
placed on this Nation, more debt in the next 10 years than in the
previous 220.
  You know, Madam Chair, there was a time in America's history where
you worked hard today so that your children could have a better life
tomorrow. Instead, a bill like this is saying: You know what? Let's go
ahead and let the government work easy today so that our children have
to work even harder tomorrow. Again, it's just unfair to everybody who
doesn't receive that Federal Government paycheck.
  At some point, Madam Chair, you have to ask: When does the debt and
the spending stop?
  We will never run out of good ideas. We will never run out of
opportunities to take money away from one group of citizens and give it
to another group of citizens. Those opportunities are there each and
every day. Again, if you care about all of the children in America, you
will quit placing an unconscionable burden of debt upon them.
  So this bill must be rejected out of fairness and out of fiscal
responsibility.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Representative
from Maryland's Fourth District, Donna Edwards.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R.
626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney)
for her long-time leadership on this legislation and for her ongoing
efforts to ensure family-friendly workplaces. That must begin at least
with the Federal Government.
  It is so tiresome and tedious to stand on this floor every day and to
listen to the demagoging of Federal employees. They are the people who
get up every single day and inspect our food. They make sure that we
have clean water. They process Social Security checks. They do all of
the business of this government, and it is so sad that, even when
offering a simple parental leave act, we have to demagogue Federal
employees in the process.
  The legislation provides 4 weeks of paid parental leave for new
mothers and fathers for the birth, adoption or fostering of a child.
America's 1.8 million Federal employees will benefit from this time to
learn how to care for and to bond with their new additions to their
families. It's what many in the private sector already do, and it's
what we strive for. The Federal Government needs to set an example.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LYNCH. I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional
minute.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. This will also help employee morale, and it
will allow the Federal Government to attract and to retain young and
talented employees in our aging workforce.
  Madam Chair, as a Representative of the Fourth Congressional District
of Maryland--proudly the home to at least 70,000 Federal employees--for
my neighbors, for my friends, for the people who work hard every day,
this important legislation will advance family-friendly policies. It
will allow new parents the time necessary to care for their children,
and it will set a standard for the Federal Government and for the
private workforce.
  There are times when it is simply the right thing to do, and this is
one of those times. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                              {time}  1830

  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. SCALISE. I want to thank my colleague from California for
yielding the time.
  Madam Chairman, some of the greatest joys in my life were the two
births of my daughter and son. Two years ago, my daughter, Madison, I
was able to be there for the birth with my wife, one of the great joys
of my life. And then just 4 weeks ago tomorrow, the birth of my baby
boy, Harrison, and I was there as well. Just wonderful, wonderful times
that every family should spend together. Those opportunities already
exist today in law. There is nothing in this bill that either takes
away or

[[Page H6229]]

gives the ability of parents to do that. They already have that right
today, as they all should.
  Why I rise in objection to this bill is it adds an extra $938 million
in new entitlements, in new debt, money that we don't have in this
country, to an already growing deficit. We're at a $1.9 trillion
deficit this year alone. Projections are that in the next 5 years, this
administration will double the national debt. And at what time do we
stop and look out for those children? My son that was born 4 weeks ago,
when do we look out for his future, his opportunity, so that he doesn't
have to inherit another billion dollars in debt that this bill will
give him?
  I think it's very ironic in the same week that General Motors became
``Government Motors'' because of primarily health benefits, benefits
that were added on and added on for employees to the point where the
benefits of the employees bankrupted the company. And so what's
Congress' answer to that? Congress' answer in the same week is to add
more benefits at a time when people are losing their jobs, money that
we don't have, almost a billion dollars. There used to be a saying ``a
billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real
money.'' I think the public has spoken out. They said, Enough is
enough. We've got to control spending and look out for our future
generations.
  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. MORAN of Virginia. I very much thank my good friend from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and Mrs. Maloney and my colleagues who have
fought hard for this bill.
  There are a couple of reasons why I am a proud cosponsor of this
legislation. One is that we are in the midst of an economic crisis in
this Nation, and who do we turn to? We turn to the Federal workforce to
reset our economy, to put our Nation's investments where they need to
be. We turn to them because we know that they are incorruptible. This
is the most professional, least corruptible organization, civil
service, in the world. We should be very proud of our civil servants.
  Now, as the corporate board of directors of the largest workforce in
the Nation, it's incumbent on us to let them know how we see them, to
recognize them, to incentivize them, to recruit the very best and
brightest people in this Nation and to retain them. And how do we do
that? By leading in terms of the benefits that other large corporations
provide. We should be leading by example. But the reality is that other
large workforces oftentimes provide much better benefits than the
Federal Government. We need to be in the leadership. This enables us to
catch up. We recognize these employees by doing things that are
tangible, and this is a tangible benefit.
  The second reason is that we recognize that the most important time
in anyone's life are those first few weeks after birth where a parent
has the opportunity to nurture, where the child can bond, where the
child's brain can be stimulated, where the child can understand they
will grow up in a secure, safe environment.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LYNCH. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I very much thank my good friend.
  And I would hope that those who are in kind of knee-jerk opposition
to this legislation would reconsider, because Mr. Wolf perhaps
expressed it best: These are the days that matter, the weeks that
matter. We want the healthiest workforce, we want the strongest society
possible. And if we are to do that when we are the corporate board of
directors of the largest workforce, we should lead by example by
providing paid parental leave so a child can bond with their parents,
so they can get them off to a healthy start. That's what this is all
about. A strong society, enabling every child born in America to have
the full opportunity to realize their potential.
  This legislation enables the Federal workforce to achieve that
objective. It's a noble national objective. It's what America ought to
be about. Let's get this legislation passed.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining
on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 6\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LYNCH. I am prepared to close, so I reserve at this time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the
balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, in a few short minutes we will complete general debate;
we will go to amendments. At that time, I'm hopeful that the amendment
offered by the committee, the Republicans on this committee, will be
considered favorably. If it is, then what seems to be unreconcilable as
our differences can be resolved.
  Clearly, we agree that 14 million Americans are out of work. We agree
that we're in a recession. We agree that Americans are suffering. We
agree that whether you're having a child, adopting a child, or bringing
a foster child in need into your home, that that bonding time is
worthwhile now, just as it was in 1993 when we overrode all States and
all employers to provide that option without fear of retaliation or
loss of a job.
  I think we agree that this bill is 12 weeks, 8 of which may be paid
by the use of sick and other leave. I know we agreed that if you serve
15 years in the government you'll have about 8 weeks a year of paid
leave already accrued. We only disagree on whether or not a new cost, a
new entitlement will be borne by the American people. We seem to
disagree on whether going from not paying somebody when they're off to
paying them is, in fact, a cost to the government. We certainly
disagree on whether or not when it becomes an additional 4 weeks of
pay, many will choose to take it. As a matter of fact, Madam Chair,
when the CBO scored, they made the assumption that half of all men
would not take any benefits under the Parental Leave Act as they
currently don't. But, of course, when you're offered 4 weeks free,
completely free of sick leave, perhaps it will be irresistible to take
some, in which case the $1 billion over 5 years could rise above that
figure.
  So there are some things we disagree on.
  But if we take what we agree on, which is the American people are
watching mounting deficits, the American people do believe that at
times we're out of touch, that we don't feel their pain. The gentleman
from Virginia talked about the Federal workers in his district. The
Federal workers have grown in his district at a time in which the
gentleman from Illinois has seen 40,000 workers lose their job at
Caterpillar. Those were good-paying jobs. They had benefits. They may
have even had some parental leave benefits. Today, they have no
benefits. They're not choosing between having a paycheck or being with
their child; they're choosing whether or not to go out and find some
minimum-wage job or do something to try to bring a little money into
the house, because in fact, they no longer have the good-paying jobs
that have evaporated in this recession.
  We did a stimulus package, and we disagreed on a lot of how it was
done, but we understood we needed to get Americans rolling again, we
needed to get them the opportunities. What those 14 million have given
up--and countless millions more have given up in loss of some of their
income--is what we disagree about.
  So, Madam Chair, I would ask that the CBO document scoring this be
placed in the Record so there is no question as to what we all agree
on, the NFIB letter opposing this, and the letter from the Independent
Electrical Contractors also be placed in the Record at this time.

[[Page H6230]]

       H.R. 626 Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009

       Summary: H.R. 626 would amend title 5 of the United States
     Code, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Family
     and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) by creating a new
     category of leave under FMLA. This new category would provide
     four weeks of paid leave to federal employees following the
     birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. In addition, the
     legislation permits the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
     to increase the amount of paid leave provided to a total of
     eight weeks based on the consideration of several factors
     such as the cost to the federal government and enhanced
     recruitment and retention of employees.
       Under current law, federal employees who have completed at
     least 12 months of service are entitled to up to 12 weeks of
     leave without pay after the birth, adoption, or fostering of
     a child. Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be
     returned to the same position or to an ``equivalent position
     with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and
     conditions of employment.'' Employees may get paid during
     that 12-week period by using any annual or sick leave that
     they have accrued. The leave provided by this bill would be
     available only within the 12-week FMLA leave period.
       CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 626 would cost $67
     million in 2010 and a total of $938 million over the 2010-
     2014 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds.
     Enacting H.R. 626 would not affect direct spending or
     receipts.
       The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
     (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or
     tribal governments.
       Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
     budgetary impact of H.R. 626 is shown in the following table.
     The costs of this legislation would fall in all budget
     functions (except functions 900 and 950).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                2010    2011    2012    2013    2014   2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level................................      69     215     219     221     224       947
Estimated Outlays............................................      67     209     218     221     223       938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
     626 will be enacted by October 1, 2009, and that the
     necessary amounts for implementing it will be appropriated
     each year. Under the legislation, the new category of leave
     would become available six months after enactment (that is,
     around April 2010). As a result, the cost of the legislation
     in 2010 reflects implementation for only half of the year.
     After 2010, CBO has included in its estimate a 50 percent
     probability that OPM will use its authority to increase the
     amount of paid leave available from four weeks to eight
     weeks. Costs in future years are projected to grow with
     inflation.
       CBO assumes that the potential users of the new leave would
     be primarily the roughly 700,000 civilian employees who are
     between the ages of 20 and 44 and have been employed at least
     12 months. (This figure excludes employees of the Postal
     Service because H.R. 626 amends title 5 of the United States
     Code, which does not apply to them.)
       Estimating an adoption rate based on data from the
     Department of Health and Human Services and applying birth
     rate information for the relevant age cohorts from the
     National Center on Health Statistics to the roughly 313,000
     women eligible for the new leave yields about 17,800 women
     who might give birth or adopt in a given year. Based on
     average salary information from OPM, CBO estimates that four
     weeks of paid leave--the maximum amount guaranteed by the
     bill--for female employees would cost between $2,800 (for
     those in the youngest age cohort) and $5,400 (for those in
     the 40-44 age cohort). Assuming that nearly all of those
     women took the maximum amount of leave, CBO estimates the
     cost of the leave to be $77 million this year (if it were
     available for the entire 12-month period).
       Applying those same calculations to the 390,000 men in the
     affected age groups, CBO estimates that roughly 24,000 men
     would be eligible for the four weeks of paid leave, at an
     average cost of between $3,100 and $6,000 per male employee.
     Assuming that eligible men would take the leave at about one-
     half the rate of women, CBO estimates that men would use
     another $54 million worth of leave this year (if it were
     available for the entire 12-month period), bringing the total
     to $130 million.
       Since CBO assumes that the new leave would not be available
     until half-way through fiscal year 2010, there would be no
     costs for 2009 and the 2010 costs would represent only six
     months of the year, totaling $67 million. Beyond 2010, CBO
     assumes a full year of availability and has included a 50
     percent probability that OPM would increase the amount of
     paid leave available to employees. As a result, anticipated
     costs increase to $209 million in 2011. (The 2011 costs would
     be about $140 billion if the benefit were kept at a maximum
     of four weeks.)
       The effects of this bill on the budget derive from the
     provision of a new form of paid leave. To the extent that
     such a new benefit enables people to take advantage of paid
     leave rather than taking leave without pay, the costs are
     clear. However, employees who would currently use annual or
     sick leave upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child
     may choose to use this new form of paid leave and save their
     accrued leave for a later date. CBO has no basis for
     estimating the magnitude of such substitution, but the
     deferral of annual and sick leave also represents a cost
     either in terms of increased availability of paid leave or
     cash payments upon separation.
       In addition, providing a more generous benefit to employees
     may enhance the federal government's ability to retain
     employees after the birth or adoption of a child and thereby
     lower recruitment and training costs. CBO estimates that such
     potential savings are likely to be relatively small over the
     next five years.
       Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: H.R. 626
     contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
     defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state,
     local, or tribal governments.
       Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Barry Blom, Impact on
     State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle,
     Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
       Estimate Approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
     Director for Budget Analysis.
                                  ____

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2009.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small
     business advocacy organization, I am writing to notify you of
     our opposition to H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid
     Parental Leave Act of 2009.
       The legislation mandates an alarming expansion of the
     Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), from an unpaid leave
     program into one that would provide partial paid parental
     leave for federal employees. By carving out 4 of the 12 weeks
     of FMLA as paid parental leave, NFIB is concerned that H.R.
     626 sets a precedent for future discussions over expansion of
     FMLA.
       In addition to creating a new paid leave component of FMLA,
     the bill does not require federal employees to first use
     accumulated vacation or sick leave before taking the paid
     parental leave. Currently, if an employee has accrued paid
     time off, an employer may require them to use some or all of
     their accrued paid time for some or all of the FMLA leave.
       Small businesses are struggling to survive in our tough
     economic times, and are very concerned that creating an
     expensive, new paid leave benefit for federal employees will
     eventually lead to new paid leave mandates on small business.
     I urge your strong opposition to this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Eckerly,
     Senior Vice President, Public Policy.
                                  ____

         Independent Electrical Contractors,
                                     Alexandria, VA, June 3, 2009.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the 2,700
     merit shop contractor members of the Independent Electrical
     Contractors (IEC), who urge you to oppose H.R. 626, the
     Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, which would expand
     the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as it applies to
     federal employees, to mandate four weeks of paid FMLA leave,
     on top of existing leave.
       Please let me be clear that our opposition to this bill is
     based solely on the precedent it sets for the private sector,
     and has nothing to do with the individuals who work for the
     federal government.
       IEC is concerned that, in radically expanding FMLA to
     include paid leave, Congress is laying the groundwork for
     mandating paid sick leave on private sector employers. One-
     size-fits-all leave mandates, such as the Healthy Families
     Act (H.R. 2460/S. 1152), fail to take into account the varied
     natures of our nation's industry segments, and the individual
     employers whose unique business models are exactly the factor
     that determines their success or failure.
       And, most importantly in this debate, it is paramount that
     Congress ascertain the real world impact of mandating paid
     sick leave on the private sector. Small business owners craft
     their pay, leave, and work rules based on the business model
     that keeps them competitive, grows their business, and
     creates more jobs. If Congress stunts the flexibility of
     these individual business models, then it will be directly
     threatening this competitiveness and the jobs that come with
     it.
       IEC encourages Congress to seriously consider the precedent
     that is set by this expansion of FMLA, and oppose H.R. 626.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Brian Worth,
                              VP of Government and Public Affairs.

  Lastly, Madam Chair, I believe that the intentions of the majority
are generally good, but I believe that this bill contains something the
American people may not have heard, and in closing, I want them to
hear.
  This bill not only gives 4 weeks of new paid leave for the mom who
may be coming home immediately following the birth of the child, but it
gives that 4 weeks of additional pay to the father. It does so whether
it's an adult child

[[Page H6231]]

they're adopting, someone 15 or 16 going off to school every day. It
does it for both mom and dad, and it does it on top of the 8 weeks they
can take in other ways already.
  So I want the American people to understand not only does it do that,
but it is anticipated by the majority that after an OMB study--which
they fully believe will show that on balance this is still a good
motivator and positive for the workforce--this benefit will rise from 4
weeks of additional pay to 8 weeks of additional pay for both men and
women in the Federal workforce at a time in which 14 million Americans
have no income at all.
  With that, Madam Chair, I hope that the majority will see that
they're out of touch if they don't think the American people are
concerned that this is, in fact, showing a disconnect between the
American people suffering and in fact, the new benefits to the one
portion of the workforce that is not suffering, the one portion that
has not seen a pay cut but in fact a pay raise, the one portion that
has not seen cuts in their numbers but in fact increases in their
numbers, and that's the wonderful men and women who make up the Federal
workforce in all areas. They're good people, but they understand. And
listening tonight, I believe the Federal workers in my district will
understand that in fact this is a time for them not to look for big
gains when, in fact, people on both sides of their homes are losing
their homes.
  So, Madam Chair, I would urge that we not support the bill in its
current form, and I look forward to the amendment that we plan to offer
being in fact favorably considered so we can make a bill that balances
this good effort with those 14 million people who today have no
solution for parental leave and in fact do not understand why we would
add 4 or 8 weeks of additional paid time for people at this time no
matter how well-intentioned.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my 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.

                              {time}  1845

  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. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.
  H.R. 626 provides four weeks of pay to federal employees to use while
they are on family or medical leave. Having this option is of special
importance to our younger employees and employees seeking to start a
family.
  As the federal workforce ages, the government will have to hire many
new workers. Indeed, by 2010, more than 50 percent of managers, and
almost 50 percent of other federal workers will be eligible for
retirement. The federal government will have to compete with the
private sector to attract the best and brightest to federal service to
replace them. But the federal government lacks an important benefit
enjoyed by 75 percent of Fortune 100 companies--paid leave for parents
of newborns.
  This legislation permits federal employees to take up to four weeks
of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. For younger
employees, the lack of paid leave forces them to choose between using
accrued sick leave or vacation time, which for newer employees is in
short supply, or to simply go without pay when having a newborn.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in helping to show the public
that the federal government values families. Support H.R. 626, the
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 626, the
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. As a long-time
advocate of paid family leave, I believe our nation's largest
employer--the U.S. Government--must also be our nation's model employer
and set a progressive example for healthy workplace policy. The
legislation on the floor today will provide real security to those who
serve our nation's government and their families.
  The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was landmark legislation
that established job-protected leave and it has helped millions of
workers care for their families without fear of losing their job. The
FMLA, however, requires only unpaid leave, and many workers must chose
between taking leave to care for their families or not paying their
bills. Research has shown that nearly 75 percent of FMLA-eligible
workers do not take leave because they cannot afford it. Even before
the hardship caused by the current recession, millions of workers could
not access family or medical leave because of financial constraints.
Paid leave is a vital resource to help workers balance their family and
work obligations.
  Paid parental leave provides benefits well beyond the purely
monetary. It also benefits our society as a whole. A 1999 report by the
President's Council of Economic Advisers found that since 1969,
children have lost 22 hours per week with their parents. Studies have
shown that increased parental involvement and care giving are linked to
gains such as shorter hospital stays, improved behavior, and higher
educational achievements for their children. Providing paid parental
leave will make leave more accessible, allowing parents to spend more
time with their children--clearly an investment worth making.
  Individual states have begun to successfully implement paid family
and medical leave programs. Since 2004, my home state of California has
led the country in the provision of paid leave and the law has been a
boon to both the state's families and businesses. According to a
Harvard study published four years after the enactment of California's
paid leave policy, California had a lower rate of foreclosures than
other states due to income loss arising from the need to care for a
household member. We can and should replicate this success nationwide.
  It is the responsibility of the Federal government to take the lead
in the promotion of workers' economic security and family-friendly
policies, which is why I am pleased to lend my full support to the
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. Providing parental leave to
federal workers is an important first step toward what must be our
ultimate policy goal of providing paid family and medical leave to all
workers, and I look forward to the day when all workers have the chance
to care for their families and still be able to pay the bills.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 626, the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. Let me thank my friend from
New York, Mrs. Maloney for her continued dedication to this issue. I
also applaud Chairman Towns and my colleagues on the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee for championing the cause of paid
parental leave for federal employees.
  This legislation helps families employed by the government, offering
up to four weeks of paid leave for parents to care for a new child. It
recognizes a fundamental and basic need of new parents, namely, the
importance of caring for and spending time with their young children.
  As Americans workers struggle to weather the economic storms that
have beset our nation, we need to ensure that our primary safety net--
the American family--remains strong and intact. In doing so, this bill
establishes the federal government--as an employer--as a champion for
the American family, making it a model for the rest of the country to
follow.
  The Federal government is one of the country's largest employers,
with over 1.8 million civilian employees. According to the Department
of Health and Human Services 18,000 women and 24,000 men will qualify
for parental leave this coming year.
  Under existing law, federal employees are allowed to take unpaid
parental leave. Sadly, in 2000, it was reported that as many as 78
percent of these eligible employees did not

[[Page H6232]]

take leave, simply because they could not afford it. Under present
economic conditions, the desire to remain at work and forgo unpaid
leave is even stronger. With the government playing such a significant
role in the American workforce, we can no longer afford to punish such
a large portion of our workforce for taking a few weeks leave to help
raise a child.
  Economic loss affects not just the worker, but all those who rely on
the head wage-earner for support, and oftentimes the hardest hit group
is the American family.
  Today, in the midst of a recession, it is essential that working
parents have the resources to care for and support both themselves and
their families. This bill provides a necessary lifeline for new parents
who must simultaneously provide round-the-clock care for their young
children and keep their jobs in an increasingly competitive and
shrinking economy.
  Too often, families are forced into a bind, having to choose between
earning enough to survive and caring for a child. No parent wants to
decide between a child and work, but under current conditions, many
federal employees must.
  Families are helpless in this situation, and it is both the employer
and employees that suffer for it. Federal employers have a high
turnover rate, due to families searching for employers with better
benefits or leaving the workforce to care for a child.
  Even more importantly, this bill encourages parents to provide care
during a period of crucial development for children. The education of
children starts from day one, and in many ways, it is the earliest
experiences of a child that will set the course for the rest of their
life. The care children receive in their earliest days can provide them
with the necessary building blocks to succeed in school and the
workforce later on.
  This bill also takes steps to accommodate the changing and often
varied types of households that make up the American family, which
current law does not take into account. Many families today don't have
a stay-at-home member, making it all the more difficult for working
parents to accommodate their family needs. Stay-at-home dads, friends,
partners, siblings, aunts, uncles, or grandparents are all assuming the
role of primary care-giver. Federal employee benefits need to take
these new family dynamics into account.
  This legislation will provide a gain to federal employers as well as
the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this
legislation accrues no extra cost for taxpayers. Federal employers can
save losses from turnover rates and improve retention of some of its
most reliable and adept employees.
  In times of economic turmoil we must keep families strong. By
strengthening the family, in turn we strengthen our workforce. Healthy
families make productive employees and raise engaging and innovative
children, giving an extra boost to the economy and the current and
future American workforce.
  Madam Speaker--this legislation is needed today, more than ever
before! It will create a more progressive and family-oriented benefit
system for the current federal workforce, setting an example for
similar positive developments within all sectors of the economy. It
will help working families to care for and support their young
children, during a time when economic struggles often overshadow
parents' most basic duties of childcare.
  On behalf of all those who have spent time in creating this bill, as
well as almost two million federal employees and their families, I urge
my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 626.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


      H.R. 626--Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009

      (Rep. Maloney, D-New York, and 55 cosponsors, June 3, 2009)

       The Administration supports the goal of H.R. 626, which
     would provide Federal employees with access to paid leave
     upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child.
       Being able to spend time at home with a new child is a
     critical part of building a strong family. The initial
     bonding between parents and their new child is essential to
     healthy child development and providing a firm foundation for
     the child's success in life. Measures that support these
     relationships strengthen our families, our communities, and
     our nation. The Federal government should reflect its
     commitment to these core values by helping Federal employees
     to care for their families as well as serve the public.
     Providing paid parental leave has been successfully employed
     by a number of private-sector employers, and can help to make
     job opportunities accessible to more workers.
       The Administration is currently reviewing existing Federal
     leave policies to determine the extent of their gaps and
     limitations. The Administration looks forward to working with
     Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make
     sure it meets the needs of Federal agencies and employees, as
     well as their families.

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 626, the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, which would provide four weeks of
paid parental leave and eight weeks of unpaid leave for all federal
employees after the birth or adoption of a child. Under this measure,
these employees may also use accrued annual or sick leave to receive
compensation for the unpaid weeks. Currently, employees may take up to
twelve weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to
care for a newborn or adopted child.
  H.R. 626 will help the United States Government compete with the
private sector in order to recruit the best and brightest employees and
retain that talent. In 2007, a Government Accountability Office report
found that countries offering paid parental leave experienced increased
employee retention and a reduction in the amount of time women spend
out of the workforce. Disappointingly, the GAO also reported that the
U.S. lags behind other industrial nations in providing policies that
support working parents and their children. In fact, 169 countries
guarantee women leave with income in connection with childbirth.
  The U.S. Census Bureau reports that women are more likely to work
before and after pregnancy than they were 30 to 40 years ago, and
Congress must legislate according to the changing makeup of our
workforce. So far, we have not met that mark. I know that many of my
colleagues have already met or exceeded the requirements of this bill,
and I applaud their efforts. I know from firsthand experience that
allowing new parents guaranteed paid leave helps balance the demands
between work and family. For the hard work they provide for us, we owe
our employees the time to enjoy the bonds that matter most in their
lives.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is time
that the Federal Government sets the standard for working parent
policies.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Chair, I rise today to express my strong support for
the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 (H.R. 626). As the
country's largest single employer, the Federal Government is
responsible for over 2.7 million employees. The Federal Government is
facing the retirement of 40% of its workforce over the next ten years
and must be able to compete with private sector opportunities in order
to attract talented new employees. Under current law, federal employees
who want paid time off for the birth or adoption of a child only have
the option of using their accrued sick days and vacation time to
supplement unpaid leave. It is difficult for relatively new employees
or those who experience reoccurring health problems to save up enough
time for paid parental leave. Even for older employees who rarely get
sick, unpredictable life events can make it equally difficult to accrue
sufficient parental leave time. Parents should not be forced to choose
between their new child and their paycheck.
  The Congress' Joint Economic Committee has found that Fortune 100
firms offer paid leave that typically lasts six to eight weeks. This is
also consistent with the amount of leave typically offered by
Congressional offices. The lack of a Paid Parental Leave policy for
newly born or adopted children puts the Federal Government in the
minority, not only in relation to U.S. companies but also among
developed nations. The European Union requires that member countries
offer 14 weeks of paid maternity leave and most offer more than the
required amount, and the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 165
surveyed that does not guarantee paid parental leave.
  The Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 will make the
Federal Government a more family-friendly, competitive employer. It
will cost relatively little compared to the benefit to American
families and workers that it would bring. It is past time for federal
employees to enjoy the benefits offered to employees of private
companies and fix a flaw in our current system.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I am proud to support this bill to strengthen
America's families. Strong families are the cornerstone of our Nation's
future. They enhance children's well-being, improve their self-esteem,
and significantly increase the odds that they will succeed in school
and grow up to be good parents themselves. And study after study shows
that a strong predictor of child well-being is the degree to which a
parent and child bond in the first months after birth. The more
constant and nurturing that bond is in the early months of life, the
better off that child will be in the years to come.
  One of the most important things Congress did to help parents and
children strengthen that bond was to pass the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA) in 1993. It was the first bill signed by President Clinton.
Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 weeks of leave every
year, so that they can care for a newborn or adopted baby, or help a
loved one recover from illness, or get better themselves--without the
worry that, when they return, their job will be gone.
  The FMLA has been an outstanding success. But it has not been enough.
Because

[[Page H6233]]

the FMLA does not entitle anyone to receive an income while on leave,
far too many people with the right to leave are unable to take it. They
rush back to the workplace after giving birth, or send their sick
children to school, or leave their ailing parents at home to somehow
make it through the day--because there is no other option. In fact,
when it comes to the failure to guarantee paid maternity leave, America
stands virtually alone in the world.
  It's time to realize that a right to paid leave, especially for new
parents, is more than a family matter--it is a public good that means
healthier families, more productive children, and, in the end, a
stronger economy for all of us.
  Today, we have a valuable chance to establish that right for some of
our most dedicated public servants: Federal employees. Currently, the
Federal Government does not provide them with paid parental leave. This
bill would change that--providing four weeks of paid leave to Federal
employees for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child.
  As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government has the
opportunity to set a valuable and lasting example for a responsible
leave policy. lt is time for America to catch up with the rest of the
world, and this bill is a vital step in that direction. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R.
626, the ``Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009.''
  This legislation will update federal employee benefits to reflect the
way families live today by providing four weeks of paid parental leave
for federal employees. The 90,000 federal employees living in my home
state of Georgia need us to pass this bill.
  A generation ago, the overwhelming majority of families had a mother
who stayed at home to provide full-time childcare.
  Today, tens of thousands of families depend on the income of more
than one income-earner to make ends meet.
  When these families prepare to welcome a new child into their homes
they are often faced with an impossible decision--forgo a paycheck or
forgo the most critical period of time to care for and bond with their
new baby.
  As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government should lead
the way in establishing family-friendly leave policies.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 626 to ensure that no federal
employee is forced to choose between their new child and their job.
  Mr. LYNCH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 626

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employees Paid
     Parental Leave Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE UNDER TITLE 5.

       (a) Amendment to Title 5.--Subsection (d) of section 6382
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (d)(1);
       (2) by striking ``subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or'' and
     inserting ``subparagraph (C) or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) An employee may elect to substitute for any leave
     without pay under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection
     (a)(1) any paid leave which is available to such employee for
     that purpose.
       ``(3) The paid leave that is available to an employee for
     purposes of paragraph (2) is--
       ``(A) subject to paragraph (6), 4 administrative workweeks
     of paid parental leave under this subparagraph in connection
     with the birth or placement involved; and
       ``(B) any annual or sick leave accrued or accumulated by
     such employee under subchapter I.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to
     require that an employee first use all or any portion of the
     leave described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) before
     being allowed to use the paid parental leave described in
     subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Paid parental leave under paragraph (3)(A)--
       ``(A) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund
     available for salaries or expenses for positions within the
     employing agency;
       ``(B) shall not be considered to be annual or vacation
     leave for purposes of section 5551 or 5552 or for any other
     purpose; and
       ``(C) if not used by the employee before the end of the 12-
     month period (as referred to in subsection (a)(1)) to which
     it relates, shall not accumulate for any subsequent use.
       ``(6) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management--
       ``(A) may promulgate regulations to increase the amount of
     paid parental leave available to an employee under paragraph
     (3)(A), to a total of not more than 8 administrative
     workweeks, based on the consideration of--
       ``(i) the benefits provided to the Federal Government of
     offering increased paid parental leave, including enhanced
     recruitment and retention of employees;
       ``(ii) the cost to the Federal Government of increasing the
     amount of paid parental leave that is available to employees;
       ``(iii) trends in the private sector and in State and local
     governments with respect to offering paid parental leave;
       ``(iv) the Federal Government's role as a model employer;
     and
       ``(v) such other factors as the Director considers
     necessary; and
       ``(B) shall prescribe any regulations necessary to carry
     out this subsection, including, subject to paragraph (4), the
     manner in which an employee may designate any day or other
     period as to which such employee wishes to use paid parental
     leave described in paragraph (3)(A).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
     shall not be effective with respect to any birth or placement
     occurring before the end of the 6-month period beginning on
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE FOR CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Amendment to Congressional Accountability Act.--Section
     202 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
     1312) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the
     following: ``In applying section 102(a)(1)(A) and (B) of such
     Act to covered employees, subsection (d) shall apply.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Special Rule for Paid Parental Leave for
     Congressional Employees.--
       ``(1) Substitution of paid leave.--A covered employee
     taking leave without pay under subparagraph (A) or (B) of
     section 102(a)(1) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
     (29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)) may elect to substitute for any such
     leave any paid leave which is available to such employee for
     that purpose.
       ``(2) Amount of paid leave.--The paid leave that is
     available to a covered employee for purposes of paragraph (1)
     is--
       ``(A) the number of weeks of paid parental leave in
     connection with the birth or placement involved that
     correspond to the number of administrative workweeks of paid
     parental leave available to Federal employees under section
     6382(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code; and
       ``(B) any additional paid vacation or sick leave provided
     by the employing office to such employee.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
     considered to require that an employee first use all or any
     portion of the leave described in subparagraph (B) of
     paragraph (2) before being allowed to use the paid parental
     leave described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Additional rules.--Paid parental leave under
     paragraph (2)(A)--
       ``(A) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund
     available for salaries or expenses for positions within the
     employing office; and
       ``(B) if not used by the covered employee before the end of
     the 12-month period (as referred to in section 102(a)(1) of
     the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C.
     2612(a)(1))) to which it relates, shall not accumulate for
     any subsequent use.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
     shall not be effective with respect to any birth or placement
     occurring before the end of the 6-month period beginning on
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
                   FOR GAO AND LIBRARY OF CONGRESS EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Amendment to Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.--
     Section 102(d) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
     (29 U.S.C. 2612(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
     following:
       ``(3) Special rule for gao and library of congress
     employees.--
       ``(A) Substitution of paid leave.--An employee of an
     employer described in section 101(4)(A)(iv) taking leave
     under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) may elect
     to substitute for any such leave any paid leave which is
     available to such employee for that purpose.
       ``(B) Amount of paid leave.--The paid leave that is
     available to an employee of an employer described in section
     101(4)(A)(iv) for purposes of subparagraph (A) is--
       ``(i) the number of weeks of paid parental leave in
     connection with the birth or placement involved that
     correspond to the number of administrative workweeks of paid
     parental leave available to Federal employees under section
     6382(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code; and
       ``(ii) any additional paid vacation or sick leave provided
     by such employer.
       ``(C) Limitation.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
     considered to require that an employee first use all or any
     portion of the leave described in clause (ii) of subparagraph
     (B) before being allowed to use the paid parental leave
     described in clause (i) of such subparagraph.
       ``(D) Additional rules.--Paid parental leave under
     subparagraph (B)(i)--

[[Page H6234]]

       ``(i) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund
     available for salaries or expenses for positions with the
     employer described in section 101(4)(A)(iv); and
       ``(ii) if not used by the employee of such employer before
     the end of the 12-month period (as referred to in subsection
     (a)(1)) to which it relates, shall not accumulate for any
     subsequent use.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
     shall not be effective with respect to any birth or placement
     occurring before the end of the 6-month period beginning on
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed
in House Report 111-133. Each amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Issa

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 111-133.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the
rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Issa:
       Page 3, strike lines 9 through 13 and insert the following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
     an employee may not use any paid parental leave described in
     paragraph (3)(A), in connection with a birth or placement,
     until such employee has exhausted all annual and sick leave
     which, as of the date of such birth or placement--
       ``(A) has been accrued or accumulated by such employee
     under subchapter I; and
       ``(B) may, under applicable provisions of law, rule, or
     regulation, be used for the purpose involved.
       Page 6, strike lines 17 through 22 and insert the
     following:
       ``(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
     this section, an employee may not use any paid parental leave
     described in paragraph (2)(A), in connection with a birth or
     placement, until such employee has exhausted all annual,
     sick, and other paid leave which, as of the date of such
     birth or placement--
       ``(A) has been accrued or accumulated by such employee
     under a formal leave system; and
       ``(B) may, under applicable provisions of such leave
     system, be used for the purpose involved.
       Page 8, strike lines 18 through 24 and insert the
     following:
       ``(C) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
     this section, an employee may not use paid parental leave
     described in subparagraph (B)(i), in connection with a birth
     or placement, until such employee has exhausted all annual
     and sick leave which, as of the date of such birth or
     placement--
       ``(i) has been accrued or accumulated by such employee
     under subchapter I of chapter 63 of title 5, United States
     Code; and
       ``(ii) may, under applicable provisions of law, rule, or
     regulation, be used for the purpose involved.
       Page 9, after line 15, add the following:

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL PAID PARENTAL LEAVE TO BE TREATED AS A
                   REPAYABLE ADVANCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any
     amendment made by any other provision of this Act, any paid
     parental leave under section 6382(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United
     States Code (as amended by section 2), section 202(d)(2)(A)
     of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (as amended
     by section 3), or section 102(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Family and
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 (as amended by section 4)--
       (1) shall be treated as an advance of paid leave; and
       (2) shall be subject to recovery by the United States to
     the same extent and in the same manner as any other advance
     of paid leave.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
  My amendment to H.R. 626 is a commonsense amendment. I believe the
legislation bridges the differences between the majority and the
minority, recognizing that the Federal workforce should, in fact, be
able to use accrued and earned time they have, recognizing that it is
already the policy of many, but not all, Federal agencies to allow all
accrued leave, both vacation, if you will, and sick leave, to be used
by somebody wishing to avail themselves of their 12 weeks of family
medical leave.
  Having said that, we do take away the question of 4 weeks of
additional paid or 8 weeks of additional paid leave. We recognize,
though, that not every person, particularly a young family new to the
Federal workforce, may have accrued leave sufficient to do 12 full
weeks. Therefore, my amendment allows for that worker to take an
advance against future sick leave and other leave in order to ensure
that they may remain with their new child for the full 12 weeks allowed
within the law. This would, in fact, eliminate the contradiction
between various government agencies. It would streamline the process.
It would make clear that no Federal worker would ever have to choose
between being with their newborn and receiving a paycheck.
  So with that, I urge the strong support of this amendment as a
commonsense middle ground.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
  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.

[[Page H6235]]

  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. 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. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, there's no more precious time than those
with your children. We want to be as compassionate as we can. But at a
time when we have literally millions and millions of people who are out
of work, when we are looking at a $1.8 trillion budget deficit just
this year alone, I don't want to saddle leave that new child who is
coming into the world with this unbelievable debt. So it's something
that I would like to do. But I think what Mr. Issa's amendment offers
is a very reasonable alternative to create the atmosphere and create
the program and create the way that our Federal employees can tap into
something that they have earned. But I think we have an obligation to
recognize the proper role of government. We have to remember for every
dollar, every benefit that we want to hand to a Federal worker, we're
going to have to take that money from somewhere; and we're going to
have to take it from the American people's pockets to give it to
someone else.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I appreciate what Mr. Issa is proposing here. Let's
remember that it's the American people's money. It's not Congress'
money. It's the American people's money. At a time of deficit, now is
not the time to go out and spend billions of more dollars when we're so
far in debt.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close and continue to
reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Massachusetts has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Madam Chair, I just want to review one more time why we believe that
doing this within the existing means of the program dollars that are
already available to the Federal workforce is a commonsense compromise.
  Meeting the majority halfway, recognizing that 14 million Americans
are making no money, except for their unemployment insurance, and those
who are making so much less this year demand that we find ways not to
increase our spending. So, Madam Chair, I would just like to review one
last time. The Federal workforce, if you've been in for only 3 years,
you have 4 weeks of paid vacation and 13 days, which is nearly 3 weeks,
of sick leave per year. You already have that every year. Isn't it
family values to be willing to give up some of that to be able to stay
with your family? Why wouldn't you use some of that first?
  Madam Chair, I want to recognize that the Federal workforce is a good
workforce, and we want it to be a great workforce. But at a time in
which 14 million Americans are looking for jobs, we are actually not
having a hard time finding people who would like to come to work for
the Federal Government. We're offering jobs. We're hiring. We're
growing. So if we're ever going to need an inducement, it will be at a
boom time, at a time in which we have to compete against higher
salaries and bonuses, not at a time in which Americans are suffering
and being laid off in record numbers.
  Lastly, Madam Chair, I would like to refer to the President's
statement, which was quite a weak statement, in support of this bill.
He recites the bill and then says, ``The administration is currently
reviewing existing Federal leave policies to determine the extent of
their gaps and limitations. The administration looks forward to working
with Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make sure it
meets the needs of the Federal agencies and employees, as well as their
families.''
  Madam Chair, what that says to me is, this is not the right bill.
They'd like to work with us to make it better. Hopefully this amendment
will make it better here today.
  I yield back the balance of my 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.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 30
seconds.

                              {time}  1900

  Mrs. MALONEY. I appreciate my colleagues' hard work and effort, but I
rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment would do absolutely
nothing but maintain the status quo. It asks Federal employees to
continue to cobble together sick and annual leave if they want to get a
paycheck while they care for their new child.
  This policy does not help relatively new employees, younger workers,
or those with health problems who have little accrued leave to draw on.
And it also puts the health and well-being of our employees and their
families at risk.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to place in the Record the Statement of
Administration Policy.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


      H.R. 626--Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009

             (Rep. Maloney, D-New York, and 55 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports the goal of H.R. 626, which
     would provide Federal employees with access to paid leave
     upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child.
       Being able to spend time at home with a new child is a
     critical part of building a strong family. The initial
     bonding between parents and their new child is essential to
     healthy child-development and providing a firm foundation for
     the child's success in life. Measures that support these
     relationships strengthen our families, our communities, and
     our nation. The Federal government should reflect its
     commitment to these core values by helping Federal employees
     to care for their families as well as serve the public.
     Providing paid parental leave has been successfully employed
     by a number of private-sector employers, and can help to make
     job opportunities accessible to more workers.
       The Administration is currently reviewing existing Federal
     leave policies to determine the extent of their gaps and
     limitations. The Administration looks forward to working with
     Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make
     sure it meets the needs of Federal agencies and employees, as
     well as their families.

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 111-133.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas:
       Page 4, line 19, strike ``and''.

       Page 4, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(v) the impact of increased paid parental leave on lower-
     income and economically disadvantaged employees and their
     children; and''

[[Page H6236]]

       Page 4, line 20, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(vi)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Al Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
  Madam Chair, this bill allows OPM, that is the Office of Personnel
Management, to increase the amount of paid parental leave up to 8
weeks. It allows this after considering a variety of factors: benefits
to the Federal Government, cost to the Federal Government, trends in
the private sector, the government's role as a model employer, and such
other factors as the director considers necessary.
  This amendment, Madam Chair, will require the Office of Personnel
Management to consider the needs of some of our lower-level employees.
This amendment would not require any additional funding. It merely
requires the office to consider the impact that increasing the number
of weeks will have on some of our lower-level employees.
  Now, I would like to introduce a term that I'm not exceedingly
pleased with. It is called a ``poverty spell.'' A poverty spell is
defined as entering poverty for at least 2 months. Twenty-five percent
of all poverty spells begin with the birth of a child, 25 percent. I
would also note that 78 percent of the persons who are eligible for
FMA, this leave that we have been discussing today, do not take it
because they cannot afford to lose a paycheck.
  No one should go into poverty because of the birth of a child if we
can prevent it. This bill will help many of our lower-level employees
avoid a poverty spell.
  I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, because there is no objection to this
commonsense evaluation as to the low-income and economically
disadvantaged, we claim in opposition and then yield back immediately.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I will yield to the manager such
time as he may consume.
  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. AL GREEN of Texas. At this time, Madam Chair, I'm grateful to Mr.
Lynch. I'm also grateful to Mrs. Maloney for her outstanding work on
this. It has been a tireless effort over many years, and I'm honored
that they are accepting this amendment. And I am going to ask all of my
colleagues to please vote for it if a recorded vote is called for. I
shall not be calling for one.
  I yield back.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bright

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 111-133.
  Mr. BRIGHT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bright:
       At the end of the bill insert the following:

     SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND
                   RESERVES.

       (a) Executive Branch Employees.--For purposes of
     determining the eligibility of an employee who is a member of
     the National Guard or Reserves to take leave under paragraph
     (1)(A) or (B) of section 6382(a) of title 5, United States
     Code, or to substitute such leave pursuant to paragraph (2)
     of such section (as added by section 2), any service by such
     employee on active duty (as defined in section 6381(7) of
     such title) shall be counted as service as an employee for
     purposes of section 6381(1)(B) of such title.
       (b) Congressional Employees.--For purposes of determining
     the eligibility of a covered employee (as such term is
     defined in section 101(3) of the Congressional Accountability
     Act) who is a member of the National Guard or Reserves to
     take leave under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 102(a)(1)
     of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (pursuant to
     section 202(a)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act),
     or to substitute such leave pursuant to subsection (d) of
     section 202 of such Act (as added by section 3), any service
     by such employee on active duty (as defined in section
     101(14) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) shall be
     counted as time during which such employee has been employed
     in an employing office for purposes of section 202(a)(2)(B)
     of the Congressional Accountability Act.
       (c) GAO and Library of Congress Employees.--For purposes of
     determining the eligibility of an employee of the Government
     Accountability Office or Library of Congress who is a member
     of the National Guard or Reserves to take leave under
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 102(a)(1) of the Family
     and Medical Leave Act of 1993, or to substitute such leave
     pursuant to paragraph (3) of section 102(d) of such Act (as
     added by section 4), any service by such employee on active
     duty (as defined in section 101(14) of such Act) shall be
     counted as time during which such employee has been employed
     for purposes of section 101(2)(A) of such Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bright) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BRIGHT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. Put simply, this amendment would
ensure that Federal employees called to active duty in the National
Guard or Reserves are not penalized for their service. It would clarify
the intent of the bill so that these individuals can count the time
they serve in active duty towards the time they are employed so they
may remain eligible for the benefits under this bill.
  Too often we have seen our servicemen and women across all branches
denied the benefits they rightly deserve due to governmental red tape.
There is absolutely no reason that National Guard or reservists should
be denied any of the benefits they deserve after honorably serving
their country.
  Again, this amendment will allow members of the Guard and Reserve to
be able to count the time they were deployed towards their total time
of employment. If passed, this amendment will give the men and women
who have served our country needed time with their newborns and tend to
their family responsibilities after a birth. This time is even more
important when you consider that these warriors have already spent
months on end away from their families.
  Madam Chair, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It
clarifies the intent of the bill for our guardsmen and our guardswomen
and our reservists and ensures that they won't be penalized for their
service to our great country.
  I urge its passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, although we do not object to this, we claim
the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, briefly, this amendment seems to be a good one
that would try to clarify some of the many, many, many, many elements
of this bill that were not worked through thoroughly in committee, so I
applaud the gentleman. I believe that, in fact, if we would have done
more of this in committee, if more people would have looked and said,
We want, as the committee that is charged by the Congress to fight
waste, fraud, and abuse, that, in fact, if we had tightened up this
bill much better earlier, we would have been more accountable to the
taxpayers.
  So I applaud the gentleman and recommend that this be voted
positively.
  I yield back all time.
  Mr. BRIGHT. Madam Chair, I would yield 1 minute of my time to Mr.
Lynch.
  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. BRIGHT. Madam Chair, in closing, I would like to thank
Congresswoman Maloney from New York. Thank you very much for your hard
work on this, and also Chairman Towns and his staff on the Oversight

[[Page H6237]]

and Government Reform Committee for their attention to this issue and
for working with my staff to draft this amendment. I would also like to
thank Chairwoman Slaughter on the Rules Committee for ruling in favor
of the amendment and allowing me to offer it on the floor today.
Finally, I want to thank my colleagues for their continuing support and
commitment on this issue. And, again, I urge all my colleagues to
support this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bright).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Issa

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 258, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--157

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--258

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Capuano
     Carter
     Courtney
     Davis (IL)
     Giffords
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Marchant
     Rogers (MI)
     Ruppersberger
     Sablan
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Skelton
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Wilson (OH)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.

                              {time}  1934

  Messrs. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, RODRIGUEZ, PALLONE, BERMAN, HILL,
SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and Mrs. MALONEY changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 308, had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 308, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 308, I arrived on the
floor and the vote had closed. Had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
  The CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeGette, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 626) to
provide that 4 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a
Federal employee shall be paid leave, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 501, she reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ISSA. In its present form, yes, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Issa moves to recommit the bill H.R. 626 to the
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
     instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith
     with the following amendment:


[[Page H6238]]


       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
     this Act, if the deficit for fiscal year 2009 or any
     subsequent fiscal year exceeds $500,000,000,000, the
     amendments made by this Act shall terminate as of the 30th
     day of the next fiscal year thereafter.
       (b) Deficit Defined.--For purposes of this section, the
     ``deficit'' for a fiscal year is the amount by which total
     outlays of the Government for such fiscal year exceed total
     receipts of the Government for such fiscal year, if at all.

  Mr. ISSA (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit would ensure that
nearly 14 million Americans who have lost their jobs will not see an
additional 1, 2 or $4 billion of the new benefits paid to Federal
workers unless this Congress is able to get its house in order.
  Under the motion to recommit, we recognize that according to the
Office of Management and Budget the deficit is currently approximately
$1.841 trillion. The motion will very simply tie the enactment of this
new and expensive and overly generous benefit to the national debt.
  The motion dictates that if the deficit for any fiscal year exceeds
$500 billion, the act will then terminate on the 30th day of the next
fiscal year.
  Madam Speaker, in a commonsense way, it means we can have this
expensive--we object to it--but this expensive new benefit go into
effect this year, but if this House and this Congress cannot get its
house in order in the following years, then this act would not
continue.
  We believe that this is the last and best effort to try to reach a
compromise to allow the majority to have its way on this expensive, new
benefit but not allow it to continue on the backs of 14 million
unemployed Americans, until or unless we're able to bring the deficit
at least in line with where it was just two short years ago.
  Madam Speaker, in closing I believe that the majority in this case
has ignored one after another commonsense opportunities to amend this
bill. In committee, we were shut out; here on the floor, each of our
amendments, including one that would have simply allowed for every
Federal worker to have 12 weeks of paid medical leave in the case of
the birth, adoption or taking on of a foster child, but to do so with
existing benefits, including sick leave, even allowing them to borrow
sick leave.
  Since that's been rejected, our motion to recommit seeks only to
recognize that this new benefit on the backs of 14 million unemployed
Americans and countless millions who are making much less this year
than last year cannot be sustained if we cannot bring our fiscal house
in order.
  And with that, I would urge passage of the motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
  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. ISSA. I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1945

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 241, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--171

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder

[[Page H6239]]


     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baca
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capuano
     Carter
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Davis (IL)
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kennedy
     Marchant
     Rogers (MI)
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Skelton
     Sullivan
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  2003

  Mr. HALL of New York changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ADLER of New Jersey and CUELLAR changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258,
noes 154, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               AYES--258

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--154

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H6240]]



                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1


     Kaptur


                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baca
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Camp
     Capuano
     Carter
     Courtney
     Davis (IL)
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Marchant
     Rogers (MI)
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Skelton
     Sullivan
     Waters
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  2011

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________