Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill in search of benefits that in fact do not exist in any great numbers in the private sector. This is a new perk, at a time in which the American people are having to make cutbacks. They are driving less. They are very clearly suffering under the incredible cost of rising energy prices. So this is a bill whose time should not be coming.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield as much time as he would consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers on our side spoke in favor of the bill.

I would like to honor their speaking in favor of the bill by saying that the bill is well intended, even if it is fatally flawed. People are talking about 10 years of wanting to achieve what they hope to achieve here today.

I would say to you and certainly would ask that Federal workers take note of what we do here today. We are not talking about making sure that someone who has a child or adopts a child has the opportunity to take the time off for bonding. We already ensure 12 weeks of that and have for that decade.

We are not talking here about anything except as it is presently written and not allowed to be amended, a bill that simply grants 4 weeks every single year to those individuals who choose to have a child, who choose to take time off in relation to a sick Federal employee, as was originally presented, or, more importantly, someone who takes on a foster child.

Now I am all for people taking on foster children, but let's look at this from a practical standpoint. You are running a Federal department. You have somebody who you need, and every single year, as often happens, they take on a new foster child that they keep for 3 to 5 years and they have, let's say, three foster children. That means that that individual will be gone on paid leave over and above their vacation, over and above their 13 days of sick leave a year, they are going to be gone 4 weeks every year, conceivably for a full 20 years.

So by having not just the birth, of a woman, but the husband, and not just birth, but foster children, we can conceivably go so far beyond the $850 million scoring, we could easily end up in the tens of billions of dollars.

Let's consider our Federal workers at a time when we are considering whether this is appropriate to do. Our Federal workers receive 13 days of sick leave a year. Our Federal workers can accumulate those for 6 months, meaning that when they retire, as is often the case, Federal workers simply don't show up to work for the last 6 months. The reason? They are using up their sick leave. They can't be paid for it. They additionally have in the neighborhood of 2 weeks plus of vacation that they can cash out if they don't use it.

Now, in the private sector, it is not, in almost any case, a use-it- or-lose-it policy on sick leave. Additionally, a little-known practice, but well used in the Federal service, is the giving away of somebody's sick leave. For example, if somebody in your department or somebody in your organization or the Federal Government were to take on a foster child, there can be a campaign to raise sick leave for that individual so that they would not be unpaid if they had a need for it. No problem, but it comes out of the bank of 13 days per employee per year.

What this bill seeks to do is to grant something that is almost unheard of here in Congress or in the private sector.

And I would like to take a little exception with the gentlelady from New York; we did go and look at the existing programs, and there is no support for 86 percent of House offices provide paid leave, not at all. Paid parental leave as a written policy does not exist in many of the offices, and I would ask the gentlelady to bring proof of her statement because quite frankly she has been misled if she thinks 86 percent of House offices have a formal written policy granting already this privilege that we seek to grant here this year.

The scoring, as I said, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. It is not going to be $850 million, it will be billions of dollars. It will be billions of dollars at a time when Americans are being laid off. It will be billions of dollars at a time when Fortune 100 companies offering either pregnancy-related or disability leave, it is less than one-third of the Fortune 100 companies, which are the most wealthy, most generous companies in America, and less than one-third typically will offer that.

The fact is that unpaid parental leave has become widespread. The leadership of the U.S. House and Senate in passing a bill that granted that to Federal workers is to be commended. The opportunity at one's expense using one's resources to take care of and bond in regards to a choice such as a birth or adoption of a child, is commendable and has become widespread.

If this becomes widespread, we might someday look back and commend it. But today, what we are doing is we are offering Federal workers, workers who, like ourselves, are often chastised by people in the private sector who have to make a payroll, are being given things which they cannot afford.

As is often said on the House floor, 44-plus million Americans don't have health care, and yet we are asking that every Federal worker, in addition to 13 days of paid sick leave, accumulable or borrow-able or giveaway-able, be granted additionally another, what is basically twice that amount, each and every year if they choose to use it.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong to do it. In committee we aggressively tried to amend this to allow them to use resources already available more flexibly. Those were voted down on primarily a party- line basis.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in anticipation of more things that need to be corrected on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the majority providing us reference to the 2006 House Compensation Study that shows even with other people's money, and perhaps no guidance on how to spend it, about 20 percent of the House offices offer little or no, or actually offer no paid leave.

The amazing thing to me is we are here today talking about a new paid leave. I just want to explain for a moment, when congressional offices choose to do paid leave, they do so out of a fixed budget. The majority would have you believe here that we are going to do this out of some fixed budget. We are not. This is going to run up the cost of every office that does everything, from post offices to the Secret Service to the IRS. It is going to run up the cost of these Federal employees. It is going to run it up by quite a bit.

With all due respect to my colleague from California, I am not implying that having foster families is bad; just the opposite, it's good. The question is if you have an active foster parent family and they are being given 4 weeks of paid leave, who is to assume that they won't take it. I believe they will. That will mean for every 12 people doing it, you will have basically the need for an additional Federal worker with all the compensation and benefits that go with it. That is the reality we have here today.

In committee we attempted unsuccessfully to have this be fiscally responsible, recognizing that there are 13 days of paid sick leave every year, fully accumulable so that a typical worker need only borrow from the sick leave that they were eventually going to cash out by not coming to work the last 6 months they are in the Federal workforce, simply use it for this.

I am not implying that the birth of a child is sick, but it is fully usable under the amendments we tried to offer. So it is a little disingenuous for my colleague from California to say that the military can use it and somehow Federal workers couldn't. That could have been taken care of in committee, and it was clearly fought on a partisan basis.

The fact is this bill should be before us today clarifying and taking care of some technical problems in the families being able to take full advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act by being able to use all of their sick leave, perhaps even borrow against future sick leave, which was proposed, and in fact have their colleagues give them sick leave in order to facilitate their staying home for those 4 weeks or more and not be without pay.

The fact is we are here today dealing with a problem which we should not be spending new money on at a time when the Federal deficit and the Federal spending is far in excess of what the private sector can afford. As people here in Washington and people in California find it impossible to make ends meet with $5 a gallon gasoline, it is irresponsible for us to be adding this multibillion-dollar perk at a time in which, with only technical corrections, we could have provided these people the opportunity to use resources they already had in the way of sick leave and vacation.

With all due respect to Federal workers, I think the majority of Federal workers would say that if they had their choice of this many billions of dollars of new spending, they would just as soon get it up front in pay and they would care of their choices in children, adopted or natural birth, they would take care of it out of their sick leave if they were given the additional dollars. So I think in fact we are doing them a disservice, if we are going to spend the money, of not spending it straightforward in a proper way, and I look forward to attempts to make this technically correct.

And I once again regret that the Rules Committee chose not to allow these technical amendments not to be even considered, but in fact have kept them from debate on the House floor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Sick leave of Federal workers is not limited to people who are sick. The common practice at the end of a career of simply retiring 6 months early to use up accrued sick leave speaks loudly to the fact that sick leave is simply 13 additional days that can be used on a discretionary basis.

The chairman of the full committee knows this very well. And, in fact, we attempted to make it explicit that not only would you be able to use your 13 days plus any accrual, but even borrow in order to make this fiscally neutral, fiscally responsible at this time.

This bill is not about whether or not we allow people to take 4, 6, 8 or 12 weeks of paid leave. In fact, we were more than willing to have the entire 12 weeks of family medical leave be usable, to be able to use its current or even borrow some of its future sick leave.

What this bill is doing here today is saying, you get to keep 3, 4, 5 months of sick leave you already have in the bank. You get to keep your many weeks of vacation, and you get this additional amount. This is something the American people are not prepared to pay for. If we're going to be responsible, we're not going to make the American people pay for this additional back-door increase at this time.

The majority knows this very well, so I, again, repeat, it is disingenuous to say that they can't use their sick leave. In fact, that was something that could have been handled in committee, would have been handled by the amendments that were not ruled in order by the Rules Committee on a purely partisan basis.

In fact, we are considering a bill today that is designed to cost the American people money.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the leadership said it very well. Of course, they didn't say anything about what we're actually doing here today. This isn't about family unity or bonding. It isn't about mom and dad or the child. This is about a new spending, a new irresponsible spending proposal coming from the Democrats after they promised us fiscal responsibility.

The fact is, we will have our taxes raised. The American people will pay for this in higher taxes in the coming years. They will pay for this after we said it was about your family.

The reality is that there will be layoffs in the private sector. There will be people in the private sector who say, with these new taxes, can we still afford to have health care benefits while, in fact, Federal workers who not only enjoy good health care benefits, good vacation policies, also get more than 2\1/2\ weeks a year to be sick.

Now, when the American people discover that an organization, the U.S. government, gives their people 2\1/2\ weeks to be sick, and allows them to accrue 6 months of that in case they're ever really sick for a long period of time, and does not require a physician's proof that they actually are sick, and then, when given the opportunity to say, let's use these 2\1/2\ plus weeks a year of sick benefits, since they're usable for anything you want to use in the way of time off, let's use

them for time off when you have a child, that, in fact that was turned down as not good enough by the Democrat majority.

It was turned down as clearly we have to add the dollars on top of this, wrongfully estimating $850 million when, in fact, this is billions. This could be fiscally responsible and family-oriented by simply allowing this well-accrued sick leave to be used for this, since it's going to be either used for sick leave, or it's going to be used at the end of a career or before someone leaves government as a general practice. It is seldom simply not used and turned back in.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the Democrat leader, that, in fact, this new expense leading to new taxes is, in fact, something that he supports, but calls it family-oriented. It's not family-oriented to the taxpayers in America, to the private sector. It is simply family- oriented to big government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to correct the Record.

Mr. Speaker, less than one-third of Fortune 100 companies offer fathers paid leave. Approximately half offer some amount of disability or pregnancy leave in the birth of a natural child. So when you mix and match the richest companies in this country you're going to get less than a third offer anything close to what we're offering here today, not more than half. We're not following.

In fact, when you quote the Fortune 100, by definition, what you're quoting are the very large companies that are normally disparaged by my Democrat colleagues as gouging the public on making too much on oil and other resources.

In fact, what we normally talk about on the House floor and pay tribute to are the small businesses, the entrepreneurial, mom and pop businesses. They're not giving this. They can't afford to.

As a matter of fact, a big part of the 44 million uninsured are because small businesses can't afford health care. They can't afford health, dental, eyeglass. And yet we're giving this benefit.

Now, there was a proposal Mr. Van Hollen said that I think was very appropriate. We do have boomers retiring. In committee we have talked about ways to extend the careers of those baby boomers. The easiest way, one which would be fiscally responsible, as a matter of fact, it would even be a benefit to us and to them, those 6 months that are often used as terminal leave on a retiring senior member of government, if we would simply pay them those 6 months when they retire, it would be the least expensive way to get six additional months from the baby booming retired workforce.

That proposal is dead on arrival apparently for the Democrat majority. That proposal would be a way to extend these significant amount of Federal workers at the time we need them most, which is when they really are senior people able to pass on to the next generation. That soft landing, dead on arrival.

A new costly program, one that less a third of Fortune 100 companies, the richest companies, can even afford in fact is what we're being faced with here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, it's amazing that the gentlelady from New York would make the case that this isn't going to cost much. Of course, no dynamic scoring. They're sort of just looking at track history and then want the dynamic scoring for some intangible savings in Federal worker retention. It's very clear this is going to cost $850 million or more and that it is likely to grow.

More importantly, I'm not somebody who spends a lot of time preaching family values from the dais. But if we're going to talk family values here today, let's talk them. Family values are about family making sacrifices to make things work. Unlike the gentlelady, I find that her example is an excellent example for my point, not her point. No Federal worker is forced to come back with an open wound. In fact, that woman would have been allowed to continue getting paid leave.

Additionally, with more than 2\1/2\ weeks of accrued paid medical leave every year, there is no reason that she wouldn't have likely had accruals in her own bank. I love anecdotal examples because they usually make the case for the person delivering them; I would say just the opposite. This woman didn't have to come back. She could use medical leave, and contrary to what the gentlelady from New York is saying, Federal workers are allowed to use their medical, their sick leave in other ways, and they do regularly.

Additionally, there is a whole system within the Federal workforce not really understood by the private sector but supported by this Member which is I can put my unused sick leave into banks to help others. I can even put my vacation, under certain circumstances, in banks to help others. So Federal workers can, in fact, share this very generous more than 2\1/2\ weeks of sick leave and 2 weeks of vacation if they choose to.

So when we talk about the Federal family, the Federal family has plenty of resources to help with this.

What we're talking about here is a multibillion-dollar new spending program at a time of recession, at a time of threatened tax increases by the Democrat majority, and at a time when the American people are striving just to fill up the tank with gas and try to figure out how to pay health care benefits. We're looking at new opportunities to increase our own well being.

But we don't and shouldn't come first. The taxpayers and hardworking men and women out there come first. So for this Member, I'm going to tell you I'm not going to put us first, I'm going to put the taxpayers first and vote against this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the time I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you have noticed I have spoken with great passion here today about this bill. I would wish that I could be speaking with the passion in the positive, because the Federal workers deserve a bill that we didn't bring to the floor today. They deserve one that would allow for flexibility of sick leave, transferability, transparently to people who are having families, whether by adoption or by natural birth. That is what we should be bringing to the floor.

We could do so at a time of shortages around the country at no cost to the taxpayer. We could do it exactly the way the gentlelady from New York described. Mrs. Maloney does not get new money for a new perk for her people. She chooses within a budget to in fact provide that benefit. And I commend her for that, and I commend the other Members who make decisions how to allocate a fixed pie of money, whether it's to go on sending constituent mail or providing paying benefits to the employees that answer the mail from constituents.

So today we are not being given the bill we should be given. The bill we should give is to guarantee the ability to not lose pay when taking family medical leave but to use resources that are already available within the Federal system. That's not happening today. I regret that that's not happening. Had we been allowed to bring the amendments that we wanted to bring, we would have accomplished that. Had we been allowed to even bring the technical corrections that would have made this a less-imperfect bill, one that would not cause deadbeat dads to be able to take advantage of this, we would be doing that. We're not allowed to do that today. I regret that.

I hope that this bill is defeated here and/or in the Senate and that we can bring up a truly bipartisan bill, one that would pass, quite frankly, on suspension if it was structured right, and would provide Federal workers this opportunity without additional costs to the taxpayers.

I thank the Speaker, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for a spirited debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I yield to you so you could clear that up for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw my opposition and urge support for the amendment.

I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule which makes in order no Republican amendments and the only amendment that it does allow is a Democrat manager's amendment, and to this legislation, which would provide government bureaucrats with benefits in excess of what four out of five hardworking private sector employees enjoy.

I disagree with the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think Federal Government work is very important to this country, but I believe that we do not need to extend benefits, to further ask for or to make ourselves available to as an incentive for hardworking people to come to work for the Federal Government. Thus, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, one of whom is a person with Down's syndrome and whose birth was more medically complicated than most children's, I understand the importance of families and their ability to deal with their problems. I return home each week to Dallas, Texas, after votes to be with my family, and families are important. I, like every other Member, understand the importance of family and how strong families are important to our country.

The question is not whether Congress should support families, but whether it makes sense when so many American families are already struggling with the high price of gas and other economic concerns to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that Federal workers don't really seem to need it or even be asking for it.

Currently, Federal Government employees between the ages of 20 and 45, those employees most likely to take advantage of this benefit expansion, have an average combined leave of over 7 weeks a year. But for even those workers with the least amount of Federal service, between 1 and 2 years, this program is duplicative because on average they already have a balance of 3.4 weeks of combined leave already at their disposal.

These generous paid leave policies already in place are why 88 percent of the 221,000 respondents to the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey described themselves as ``very satisfied'' or ``satisfied'' with their paid leave for illness, including family care situations, for example what is talked about in this bill, childbirth, adoption or elderly care, and less than 5 percent described themselves as dissatisfied in any way.

What a shame we are trying to give away a benefit that taxpayers are going to pay for when it is not needed, and most of all, not even asked for.

Of course, creating this new, extra paid leave perk following the birth, adoption or fostering of a child, and include a provision that would allow the Office of Personnel Management to double the amount of paid leave to a total of 8 weeks, comes at a high cost. By the way, that 8 weeks may be asked for with no excuse or no reason necessary at all, simply by requesting it.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit in search of a problem would cost $850 million over 5 years. Pretty tough for a new majority that thinks that they want to have pay-as-you-go rules when now we are going to add a new $850 million worth of cost.

Madam Speaker, at a time when the average hardworking American families are already struggling and working more hours to fill their tanks because of this Democrat Congress's refusal to do anything constructive to address the high cost of energy, I don't believe it is appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels, and using taxpayer dollars.

As an alternative to today's legislation, the administration has proposed a fiscally responsible but functionally similar program: short-term disability insurance which would assist employees who need to use large amounts of time due to pregnancy, recovering from childbirth, accident or illness.

Because the majority of Federal employees, almost 60 percent, are not within the standard childbearing age, this proposal would be a better and more efficient fit for both employees and for the taxpayer and the Federal Government in dealing with the needs and costs associated with employees that need an extended period of time away for a number of reasons.

By providing Federal agencies with additional benefits that better meet the needs of the 21st century worker, the administration's short- term disability insurance proposal would safeguard Federal employees during a period of temporary inability to perform normal occupational duties while also safeguarding the pockets of the American taxpayer.

Despite the Office of Personnel Management providing this commonsense legislation proposal to Speaker Pelosi on March 4, 2008, today this Democrat-run House will only have the opportunity to vote on one functionally closed rule and the underlying legislation, with all of the other good ideas provided by Republicans completely shut out on this debate.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this rule and the egregious underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts' characterization of Republicans wrecking the economy and all these things, negative things that the Republicans have done at the expense of the American taxpayer.

And yet I think that the American public understands who balanced the budget back in 1997. It was the Republican-led Congress. It was the American people who said we ought to balance the budget.

When I first came to Congress some 12 years ago, I did this under the pretext of balancing the budget and, secondly, growing the economy, growing the economy through the creation of new jobs.

So how well did Republicans do? Let's see. Balanced the budget in 1997 because we forced it; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. In 2001 this country was struck by terrorists. That's right. We've not balanced the budget since. But what we have done during that period of time is created economic opportunity, economic opportunity for millions of Americans, created 5.3 million new jobs. That was the free enterprise system that did that, but it was done through the policies of this body, lowering taxes, giving working families more money back home, taking 5 million people completely off the tax rolls so they could take care of themselves.

And now, here today what we see is a bigger government, a government that will cost almost a billion dollars more as a result of what we're doing here.

So it's amazing to see how my good friends on the other side come and talk about how irresponsible we were, and yet, what we've done, when Republicans led, was to create new jobs in this country, to make sure that we grew our economy.

I see nothing, nothing in the Democratic budget or the bills that they've passed that have created new jobs. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to the Republicans and President Bush wrecking the economy.

In fact, what happened is, you can just look at it directly on a calendar. The day America began having economic problems was the day this new Democrat majority was elected; came in and promised higher taxes, promised the opportunity for a new direction, higher gas prices.

Then what are we told?

We're told by the leaders of the Democratic Party, America, you're going to have to change the way you live your life. This sounds a lot like the mid 1970s when we had President Carter around. We're going to have to change the way you live your life.

Government knows best. That's what we're here on the floor talking about today. Government knows best. We're going to give a group of very faithful Federal employees a new opportunity that will cost almost a billion dollars more to Federal employees. And yet, my colleagues will stand up and talk about Republicans ruining the economy.

Now that's not what ruins the economy. What ruins the economy is bigger government, bigger government, more spending and continuation of the assault on the investor in this country.

So the Republican Party, once again, is in favor of a balanced budget. We're not in favor of wrecking the economy.

The Republican Party is in favor of us allowing drilling to take place in this country. Some of my colleagues this morning talked about, you know, all these millions of acres. Well, there's not oil under all those millions of acres. Trust me. Energy exploration companies will go where the energy is.

And yet, now we're talking about adding almost a billion dollars' worth of new spending on the taxpayers that are already having trouble paying for their own gasoline. And we're going to talk about raising taxes. That is how you ruin the economy. That is how you lose jobs instead of job creation and balancing the budget.

The Republican Party does get it. We do recognize that there are tough times there. I go back every weekend. I've never missed a weekend going back home in 12 years. I do get it. I see people at the grocery store. I know how much the cost of a gallon of gasoline is. I'm not sure all the leaders of this House of Representatives do know that.

So we ought to be working to find ways to reduce cost, to make government more efficient, not to find a way to add overhead. Unfortunately, that's what this new Democrat majority is all about; raising taxes, more rules and regulation, making government more powerful by, in this instance, giving Federal employees who don't even ask for it, want it or need it, more time off, and have the taxpayer pay for it.

Madam Speaker, I do disagree with the legislation. And I will tell you that I think the American public, as they learn more about it during this debate, will come to the same conclusion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I do not have any additional speakers other than myself.

Madam Speaker, I think what we have talked about today is an opportunity where the Republican Party presented an alternative to Speaker Pelosi, an alternative based upon a perception of a problem by the Democrat majority.

President Bush, last March, came to the table and said, let's use a free market approach that does allow families the opportunity, when they need time, to have that time and to utilize it. But let's let those individual families make their own decision, based upon disability insurance.

I understood a long time ago, from my previous job, when I had a very large team size of people that I worked with, that really, the American worker, at least where I was, was satisfied that they had a job and earned enough money to put food on the table, but also competed for family time and they needed time at home. That I understand.

But I encourage that in terms of being able to take time off. And having unpaid leave through a disability insurance program, is the right way to do this. So the Republican Party, through the President of the United States, brought this to Speaker Pelosi.

Instead, what we got was a billion-dollar answer to the taxpayer, a billion dollars more of spending, a billion dollars more of having the taxpayer have to pay things, and a billion dollars more, so the Republican Party comes to the table and says, why don't we try and balance our budget, rather than making government bigger and spending more money?

That's what we're doing here today. We are politely coming to the table in this constitutional body and saying, we disagree.

Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally been negligent in its responsibility to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created the biggest problem that we have in America today, and that is energy and the cost of energy. Skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs are facing the American public today big time back home.

Meanwhile, we find that the Congress is trying to spend another billion dollars.

So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy costs.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2279, which would expand the American refinery capacity on closed military installations. That's right. We're suggesting that we will use Federal installations that have closed to have a better way to make sure that we have more gasoline available.

This bill was introduced by my dear friend, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, way

back in May of 2007, over a year ago. See, Republicans saw it a year ago as a problem, and came to the table with answers and questions about what we can do.

This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process, and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of setting new and providing new, reliable American refineries.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to take a second look, to become a student, just as we're asking the American public, to look at who really is trying to address the issue of the cost of energy. We're asking the American public to look into, and to see who's really getting gouged. Who really is getting gouged?

And it's families back home. It's businesses that are trying to provide services. It is our airlines that are trying to make sure that we keep this economy going.

And what do we hear back from Washington, DC? Let's sue OPEC. Let's tax Big Oil. Let's stick it to Big Oil.

Well, in fact, what we ought to be saying is that energy companies are our friends. Energy companies need to and want to supply cost- effective and reliable opportunities for the American public to have gasoline without long lines.

What are the energy companies saying? They're saying, Please give us the opportunity to go where there is oil or the perception that there's oil and go looking for it and provide it to the American public. It's American security. It is the opportunity for America to be able to use its own resources.

Is this the final answer? Heck no. That's not the final answer. What we're trying to do is bridge us through this until the technologies of, as we know, the battery-operated car and other technologies are coming to fruition, but in the meantime, we should not be spending our hundreds of billions of dollars that this Democrat majority is allowing to happen because they're cutting off American energy to go overseas to keep building Dubai and the next cities and countries that are after that off American money.

Madam Speaker, I really believe that the American public, when they understand, because they will become students of this issue, they will see that the opportunities for American energy, American security, American independence, and American jobs are what are on the line. And then they will look up and know that there's very consistent behavior. They will know which group of people in Washington, DC is really for them.

Today, we see where that same group of people, the United States Congress, is going to come together and say who is going to add another billion dollars to the price tag of running government, who is the same party that cuts off and won't even accept the good ideas of allowing more drilling here in the United States for American security. They're going to draw a conclusion. And that conclusion is going to be, they're going to see which group of people has the best ideas to empower job growth and investment in this country.

Who are the people that really are aiming at balancing our budget? Who is the group of people that are trying to do every single thing that we can to protect this country? Madam Speaker, that is the Republican Party. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that the taxpayer of this country does not pay higher taxes. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that we have enough energy, American energy, available for consumers of this country. And we are standing up today saying we do not believe adding almost a billion dollars worth of new spending for Federal employee benefits is the right thing to do right now.

So we're going to ask that our Members vote against this bill. We're going to ask that we do something by voting against this bill and voting for the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1277, I call up the bill (H.R. 5781) to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, which was introduced by our colleague Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney on April 14, 2008. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia, I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this bill, along with 21 other Members of Congress.

H.R. 5781 takes an important step in 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 most employees in the private sector as well as to government employees in other countries.

In considering H.R. 5781, the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia marked up the bill on April 15, 2008, and favorably recommended the measure to the Full Committee on Oversight and Government Reform after adopting an amendment offered by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman that would permit only 4 weeks of paid parental leave instead of the 8 weeks included in the bill as introduced. The full committee then held a markup on H.R. 5781 on April 16, 2008, and ordered the bill to be reported to the floor, as amended, by a roll call vote of 21-10.

During the consideration of H.R. 5781, I had asked that language be included in the bill directing the Government Accountability Office to study the feasibility of providing a disability insurance benefit to Federal employees who had to take time off to care for a spouse, child or parent that has a serious health condition or for a Federal employee that has a serious health condition that renders him or her unable to perform their job functions. While the manager's amendment that we will be discussing later on removes this provision from the bill, I am happy to report that at my request GAO has agreed to perform a study that will analyze disability insurance benefits that are currently being offered by States, local governments and the private sector.

The bill being considered today will allow all Federal and congressional employees to receive 4 weeks of paid leave taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act for the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child. As many of my colleagues are aware, the current FMLA statute provides Federal workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child with an employee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does nothing more than permit Federal employees to receive paid leave for 4 out of the 12 weeks if the leave is connected to the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child, and to use accrued sick or annual leave, if available, for the remaining 8 weeks. Let us be clear: This bill currently being considered does not provide Federal workers any additional time nor expand beyond the 12 weeks given under the 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 no paid leave.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I again reiterate my support for H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to one who has been fighting, pushing, planning, organizing, struggling and working, the lead on this issue for more than 10 years, and the sponsor of this bill, Representative Carolyn Maloney from New York.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Woolsey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to

the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he might consume to the stellar chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative Waxman.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a strong proponent and defender of workers rights, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another Member who is actively engaged in workers' rights issues, Representative Chris Van Hollen from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Representative Maloney of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman from California if he is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, so if the gentleman will close.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself the rest of our time to close.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a rather spirited discussion and debate, and I'm reminded of the fact that we often compare public employees with private employees. And I know that we have amongst us Members who like the idea of downsizing government, of privatizing operations, of outsourcing activities. I believe that our public employees can in fact be the best that we help and allow them to become.

I believe that we can recruit the best and the brightest. But I also believe that if you want production, then you have to make sure that you are treating your employees fairly. Let's be clear. Federal employees are only able to accumulate a maximum of 30 days of annual leave, not an adequate amount of time for purposes of providing care for a newborn or adopted child.

Early in their careers when they're earning only 13 to 20 days per year, accumulating even 30 days is nearly impossible. Yet the early years of one's career usually coincide with the time that they decide to have children. And so it's the young, new employees who have not accumulated a great deal of time, who, in many instances, are either giving birth or adopting children.

So if we're going to be able to recruit, we have to try and make sure that we can attract.

We also need to be family friendly. Not only do we need this bill, but in reality, we really need childcare centers in all of our agencies. We need daycare programs so that people who have to work can know that there is the adequacy of opportunity to care for their children.

So providing this legislation the opportunity to live, providing individuals who are bearing children or adopting children the time that they need to bond with a newborn or to bond with

an adopted child I think is not only a rational, sensible approach but I also want to extend commendations again to my colleague from New York, Representative Carol Maloney, who has led the fight on this issue for such a long time. And it is as a result of her tremendous efforts and the great work of our staffs that we are here this afternoon preparing to move another step towards making sure that we have the kind of workforce that our Federal Government needs. You can't lead where you don't go. And you can't teach what you don't know.

I urge passage of this legislation and yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while the manager's amendment being offered does not make any substantive legislative changes to the bill's underlying purpose, it does make in order several minor technical changes that are designed to streamline the bill's language so that the House-passed bill will mirror language currently being considered in the Senate.

Most of these changes involve drafting edits and modifications through the bill's layout and structure. All of these changes are technical in nature. However, they are important to ensuring the swift passage of the measure.

The manager's amendment also strikes section 5 of H.R. 5781. This section of the bill entitled ``Study'' originally directed the Government Accountability Office to study and submit to Congress a written report of the feasibility and desirability of offering an insurance benefit to Federal employees not to include parental leave that would provide wage replacement during periods related to a serious health condition.

I am asking that this language be removed from the bill since GAO, at my request, has already agreed to perform a study that will analyze disability insurance benefits that are currently being offered by States, local governments and the private sector. I ask that a copy of the GAO acceptance letter regarding the disability insurance

benefit study be included in the Record.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the amendment at the desk would apply an effective date to all provisions of the bill. H.R. 5781, as reported out of committee, provided for two provisions of the act to go into effect 6 months from the date of enactment of the act. All we're asking for in the manager's amendment is that the same effective date be applied to the remaining section of the bill, which speaks specifically to extending paid parental leave to those that work at the Library of Congress or the Government Accountability Office.

While the amendment I am offering this afternoon does nothing to change these aspects of the bill, it does strengthen the measure by clarifying and streamlining certain provisions of the bill. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this simple amendment.

Government Accountability Office,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.

Hon. Danny K. Davis,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fereral Workforce, Postal Service,

and the District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We received your letter dated June 2,

2008, requesting that the Government Accountability Office

review the feasibility and desirability of providing an

insurance benefit to federal employees which would provide

partial or total wage replacement.

GAO accepts your request as work that is within the scope

of its authority. To fully respond to your request, GAO plans

to initiate work on this project in about five months when it

is expected that staff with the required skills will be

available. Your request has been assigned to Ms. Cynthia M.

Fagnoni, Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income

Security. Ms. Fagnoni or a member of her team will contact

Ms. Lori Hayman to discuss the request and options for

helping you meet your needs. As applicable, we will also be

in contact with the cognizant Inspector General's office to

ensure that we are not duplicating efforts. If an issue

arises during this coordination, we will consult with you

regarding its resolution.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Fagnoni at

202-512-7202 or Ms. Elizabeth Johnston, Assistant Director,

Congressional Relations, on my staff at 202-512-6345.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Dawn,

Managing Director, Congressional Relations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I agree that we routinely ask the Government Accountability Office to make studies, to provide information, to give us the kind of information that we need, sometimes in much time, to make the most rational, logical and adequate decisions.

We simply ask in the legislation or indicate in the legislation that we've already asked them to do that and they have already agreed, and that's why we asked that the letter be included indicating their agreement.

Well, if you would like, I can tell you here is what the response from the GAO is.

``We received your letter dated June 2, 2008, requesting that the Government Accountability Office review the feasibility and desirability of providing an insurance benefit to Federal employees which would provide partial or total wage replacement.''

``GAO accepts your request as work that is within the scope of its authority.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time and urge passage of this amendment.

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

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The final list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

We will take any pending votes on H.R. 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, which we will debate later today after this colloquy; and we will consider H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008. We will also consider H.R. 5876, Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008; and we hope to consider and I expect to consider the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

He observes that I said we hope to have it on the floor. I want to reiterate that I hoped each one of those weeks that we would have it on the floor, and I hope that we will have it on the floor next week.

I would say to my friend that I hope we have a bill on the floor next week, pass it through the House and pass it through the Senate and that the President will sign that bill. Obviously, one of the reasons that we have not gotten the bill on the floor as quickly as I had hoped is that there have been very, very substantial discussions between the House and the Senate, between the House and the White House, and the Senate and the White House about what their thoughts are with respect to various aspects of the supplemental bill and what they would or would not consider a signable bill.

So I think there have been extensive discussions on that. I am hopeful that

when we finally pass something to the President he will sign it and we will have that bill done. As the gentleman indicated, we are aware of the fact that it is timely that we pass this bill certainly within the next 2 weeks. And when I say pass it, not just pass it but have it signed by the President so we have a law in effect that gives the President and the Department of Defense the funds they need to continue the deployment that currently exists. That does not adopt the policy of the appropriateness of that, but it does recognize the reality of the fact that we have men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman will recall, we had a bill on this House to make those funds available. It did not pass. It did not pass as you recall because many of your Members voted present. I think they would have supported it, and many of our Members did not support that funding. They want to see the policies changed. I agree with them on the policies.

The fact is that we now have that funding passed from the Senate in the supplemental to us and we are trying to resolve as you know the differences. But there is a desire to get that bill done in a timely fashion so that the problems that you portray, which I believe are accurate, do not occur.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I said last week, with respect to more drilling in various parts of the country, whether it is in Alaska, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or on the Outer Continental Shelf, I would like to reiterate the information I referred to last week, but before I do that let me say that we are very supportive of any legislation that will lead this country towards energy independence within the framework of what we think is necessary and needed. Now I say it in this context. I support and I think we support on this side a diversified clean energy portfolio. We think that is critically important for our country.

In the area of supporting energy supply, I hope the Senate will return the tax extender bill which invests in alternative energy sources which can be put online so we can be more energy independent and not dependent upon the producers of petroleum, many of whom are not friendly to us, and others of whom are not as reliable as we would like.

I have listened for some period of time in the last few weeks that all we need to do to solve this problem is more drilling. We don't believe that is the case. In fact, as I said to the gentleman last week, we have nearly a whole refinery's worth of capacity idle right now.

What I mean by that, Mr. Whip, is that our refineries were operating, at the end of last week, at 89 percent capacity. That is the lowest operational capacity of refineries in our country in the last 10 years at this time of year. So our refineries still have another 8 to 9 percent capacity. 8 to 9 percent is a very significant portion.

Now, we've introduced two bills today to make oil companies use their existing leases. Before we go to new leases, before we go to the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or the Outer Continental Shelf, which is very controversial on both sides of the aisle, we believe that oil and gas companies should use the present leases they have. They hold nearly 68 million acres of Federal land and waters on which they are not producing oil and gas. These 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive land and waters could produce, I tell my friend, an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. So that when we talk about looking for new spots to drill, we first ought to look at those spots. Vast acreage, millions of acres have already been authorized.

If we took those actions, I tell my friend, the information I have is that it would nearly double total U.S. oil production and increase domestic national gas production by 75 percent. That is on existing leaseholds.

It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, if all we did was use existing leaseholds. It would be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In other words, using existing leases that have already been authorized, would produce six times what the projections are, and the most optimistic projections are for the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

Let me say that we also introduced two bills today to look at and study the investments in oil futures, in petroleum futures. We're very concerned that that is having an impact on price, not because of supply and demand, but because of speculation. Mr. Dingell and Mr. Barton, as you know, have cosponsored legislation, and I've cosponsored it myself with them.

So I'm hopeful that we will move ahead vigorously, as I know the gentleman from Missouri wants to do, to see what can be done to make our country more energy efficient, to utilize the energy sources which are already authorized.

I would say one additional thing in terms of refineries. There's been some discussion about refineries. There's been one application for a new refinery in the last 30 years. One application. It was approved. That refinery has not been built, notwithstanding the fact that the application was approved.

And obviously, with refinery capacity not being at the capacity it's been at in the last 10 years, it would seem that a new refinery was not built because the oil companies made a determination that it was not needed because, at this critical time when demand is so high, they're not operating at peak performance.

So let me just reiterate that we all want to work together to try to have our country be energy independent. We think that's important for our national security, our economic security. And indeed, we think that going to alternative energies is critically important for the health of our global climate.

I yield back.

I thank my friend for yielding.

My friend mentioned the Outer Continental Shelf, and I agree with him. But the facts I have are this. Four times more natural gas is available in areas already open to drilling. Let me reiterate that. In areas already approved and open for drilling, four times more natural gas is available than in OCS waters protected by the moratorium.

In other words, that which is protected has only 25 percent perceived to be available than does the already approved available Outer Continental Shelf areas. So if we started vigorously pursuing exploration and drilling in those areas, we'd get 75 percent more than we get now.

In fact, the figure is that we are using only 18 percent of the 7,740 active leases currently available on the Outer Continental Shelf, only 1,655 are in production; so that when we talk about the problem is that the Democrats are not allowing us to drill and explore and to recover resources that are in our Outer Continental Shelf or on our lower 48, that is not, I think, accurate. I think it's not accurate because of the extraordinarily high percentage of currently approved leaseholds that are not being utilized in this very day.

Now, I'm sure that the oil companies, very frankly, want to increase supply and see prices come down. I say that somewhat with tongue in cheek. If perhaps we were finding more supply, utilizing those leaseholds, perhaps the price would not be quite as high and the profits wouldn't be either.

But I will tell you that Americans are, at $4 a gallon, seeing the companies that are selling them oil receiving extraordinarily high profits. God bless them for getting profits. They have invested, they've worked hard. They put their capital at risk. I'm for that.

But at the same time, when they are failing to use leaseholds that would bring more supply, that would presumably then bring down the price, I think the American public have a right to ask, why are we only using 18 percent of the currently available leaseholds on the Outer Continental Shelf and about one-quarter or a little less than one- quarter of what's available on the mainland?

I yield back to my friend.

I have an automobile.

My friend, at the beginning of his last comments, said ``on public lands.'' I want to make it very clear that the implication, perhaps that we're not allowing that on public lands, there are, as I said, 80 percent of the already authorized spots on public land not being utilized today; so that this is not a question of where we have not authorized drilling. We're for that. We want to find more product.

What we are saying is that we have now got the majority of authorized spots being unutilized. Now, why that is so, when the product is getting the highest price it's ever gotten, which ought to be incentive, in and of itself, to look for new product and to explore and to drill and to get new product to the market, which would then bring the price down.

I hope that nobody is controlling supply simply to escalate price. We know that when demand goes up and supply is constrained, that prices inevitably rise. The American public is paying the price for that. Great profits are being made. But it is adversely affecting our economy and our families. And we share your view that we want to address this problem.

But I want to say, we talk about today. Unfortunately, for too long, I'm old enough to have experienced the gas lines of the late seventies where you waited hours to get gasoline in your car. Hopefully that won't reoccur.

But had we, Democrats and Republicans, Americans all, focused in a disciplined way on looking for, developing more efficient automobiles, more efficient refrigerators and other electric utilities, focused on conservation, focused on alternative sources of energy, we would be far ahead of the game.

In the final analysis, we cannot get distracted, in my opinion. We need to go down both paths, making sure today we have the most efficient process possible but that tomorrow we're energy independent, because in the final analysis, that will be the only way in which we will continue to keep our economy moving, our national security intact, and our environment clean and healthy.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1277 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and makes in order one of the two amendments submitted for consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, which in my opinion is a sensible, compassionate bill that provides Federal employees with 4 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child.

Today the Federal Government does not offer any paid time off specifically to care for an infant or newly adopted child. If a Federal employee needs time to take care of the newest addition to their family, their only option for paid leave is to use their accrued sick days and vacation time.

This policy is unfair and disadvantageous to relatively new Federal employees or those who have experienced extended health problems. Having a policy that assumes Federal employees will not get sick or take vacation is unsound and needs to be rectified.

Paid parental leave for Federal workers is long overdue, and it is a shame that the Federal Government, our country's largest employer, has not provided it yet. The Federal Government ought to set the standard as a family-friendly workplace, and not fall behind.

And even more especially in this economic downturn, the Federal Government needs to step up and provide its families with paid leave. It is unconscionable, Madam Speaker, to ask parents to choose between their job and their new child in these harsh economic times.

With two full-time working parents being the standard nowadays, forcing families to lose one salary while they face astronomical food and energy prices is unacceptable.

Now some may claim that we are expanding the total amount of time a Federal employee may take off to care for a new child. Let me be clear, this bill does not expand the amount of leave currently available to Federal employees. This bill simply allows for 4 weeks of paid leave out of the 12 weeks that Federal employees currently receive under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The bill does not expand the total amount of time a person may take off under FMLA, and any claims to the contrary are simply false.

Madam Speaker, it is also important to note that this legislation will not affect the strength of our Nation's military. Since the Armed Forces set their own policies for leave, active duty soldiers are exempt from H.R. 5781. However, this legislation will provide 4 weeks of paid leave to the 400,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense that serve with our armed forces at military bases across the country and around the world.

We depend on these mothers and fathers to make America safe, and providing them with 4 weeks of paid leave to care for their child is a much needed and much-deserved benefit.

Lastly, providing paid parental leave is a good recruitment tool for the Federal Government. In order to attract the best and the brightest and retain talent in our Federal workforce, Congress must provide important incentives like paid parental leave. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for families by supporting this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to respond by saying that Members on both sides of the aisle like to talk about family values all the time. Well, this is an effort that actually puts some real action behind those words. This is about helping families. I find it somehow puzzling that anybody would think this is a radical idea. And I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you know, you have messed up our economy, you have increased financial insecurity amongst working families in this country, you have done everything you can to help the oil companies at the expense of average citizens who are now paying extraordinary prices at the gas tank. I mean, you have put working families at an extreme disadvantage.

This is an effort to provide a little bit of relief when somebody has a new baby or adopts a new child. Boy, to think that is a radical idea just to me defies reason.

At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the author of this legislation.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

May I inquire to the gentleman how many more speakers he has.

And may I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has any other speakers.

Then I will let the gentleman close, because we don't have any other speakers either.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate something I said earlier in the debate, and that is the Republican Congress and this Republican President have made a mess of this economy. Their legacy is a lousy economy. There are more people every day losing their jobs. Their legacy is that they have left my kids with a $300 billion deficit and a $9.4 trillion debt, the largest debt in the history of the United States of

America. That's their legacy. That's their great economic achievement.

Their legacy is basically no energy policy except whatever the oil companies want, and that's what they have done when they were in power. Whatever the oil companies want, the oil companies get.

And quite frankly, it kind of took my breath away when I heard my colleague talk about the oil companies as ``our friends.'' Well, with friends like the oil companies, the consumers do not need enemies.

In 2002, the profits of the oil companies were at about $30 billion. In 2007, it's $123.3 billion. And yet we have seen rising gas prices. The consumers have been gouged. These oil companies have ripped off the citizens of this country.

The fact of the matter is that there are 68 million acres onshore and offshore in the United States that are leased by oil companies open to drilling and actually under lease, but they're not developed. They have 68 million acres. The fact is if oil companies tapped the 68 million Federal acres of leased land, it could generate an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day, six times what ANWR would produce at its peak.

The fact is 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies have not decided it's worth their time to drill there.

The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for 10 years and then would only save the consumer 1.8 cents per gallon in 2025. The bottom line is, Madam Speaker, is that these oil companies choose not to drill for more oil. They choose instead to do what they're doing and put the burden on the American consumer.

I have heard the issue about we need to expand refinery capacity. Well, we currently have excess oil refinery capacity. According to the Energy Information Administration, our refineries are currently running at 88 percent capacity, well below the 95 to 98 percent capacity, use rates we've seen this time of year for the last decade.

Now, no new oil refineries have been built in the last 30 years because major oil companies have not sought to build them. They have the ability. They've not sought to build them. ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell have publicly stated that they have no plans to build new refineries. Instead, they prefer to expand existing facilities. Shell, ConocoPhillips, and BP all testified that they were unaware of any environmental regulations preventing them from building new refineries or expanding existing ones. So there is nothing in the way that's preventing them from expansion.

And internal memos from oil companies make it clear that oil companies have decided that they needed to reduce refinery capacity to drive up their profits. They don't care. They don't care about the consumer. All they care about is profits. And for too long, our energy policy under the Republican Congress and this Republican President has been to give the oil companies whatever they want. We have done that, and we are now paying the price.

I should also point out that this Congress has enacted a number of pieces of legislation to try to deal with this issue. Interestingly enough, most of them have been either vetoed or threatened to be vetoed by the President. It's also interesting to note that among those that the President has threatened to veto are legislation that would take away the tax breaks and subsidies that we provide Big Oil, the companies that are making record profits, and put that into renewable clean forms of energy. That's what the administration is aghast at. They can't believe that we'd want to take away taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil, the companies that are now ripping off the American consumer, and put that into alternative energy research and development so that we're not so reliant on oil and we could become more energy independent.

We have tried to take the lead on energy independence in this Congress, but we have run into roadblocks by the Republicans here in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and this administration.

I would also point out that the American people get it. One of the reasons why Republicans are losing elections is because the American people are fed up with their policies. They want a new direction, and they will get a new direction come November with an expanded Democratic majority here in the House and in the Senate and a Democratic President.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just once again reiterate to my colleagues the importance of the underlying legislation. The Federal Employees Paid Parents Leave Act does not change the fundamental principles of the Family and Medical Leave Act in any way. The bill does not expand the number of weeks of leave available to workers under FMLA, the bill does not expand the number of employees who are eligible for FMLA leave, and the bill does not grant employees any additional sick leave.

For Federal employees who are currently entitled to FMLA coverage, this bill would simply allow them to be paid for four of those weeks if used for parental use, if used to care for a newborn child or a newly adopted child. I mean, this to me is common sense. This is the right thing to do.

As I said, Members talk all the time about family values. Well, here is our chance to show that we mean what we say. I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.