Providing for 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.

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

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.

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).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I would yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

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.

Beyond the 12 weeks?

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Chairman, I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

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.

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--

Madam Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

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.

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.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Madam Chair, although we do not object to this, we claim the time in opposition.

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.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, yes, I am.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding this time to me to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I've heard a lot of arguments here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I'm not a psychologist, but I would tend to bet that probably more than the first 12 weeks of a child's life is very important to their development. I'm kind of surprised that we don't have evidence today that says that the first 13 or 14, 16 years of a child's life is really the most important point, and maybe we just ought to let Federal employees take 16 years off since that's the defining moment. There's just no reality with this about the first 12 weeks of a child's life. Let me tell you, it's about probably the first 14 or 15 years; and as a parent, I can tell you, I remember the first 12 weeks. I remember them very vividly for both of my boys. I'm sure that there is some bit about what my children understood about the bonding with me.

Let's just go straight to this. This is expensive. It's going to cost a lot of money, and it's for Federal employees at a time when this Federal Government needs to be more efficient, and the people of this country cannot afford it. We've done without it for this number of years, and I'm surprised that we're doing it today in the economic times that we have.

Today I will discuss my opposition to the structured rule, which limits debate and does not provide for the ``open and honest Congress'' my Democrat colleagues have always called for for the past 3\1/2\ years. I also rise in opposition to putting taxpayers further in debt, those people that don't work for the government, to pay for this new extension of benefits by expanding an already generous government paid leave.

The economy is in a recession. Hello. Hello. Wake up, Washington. We're in a recession, and somebody else is going to have to pay for this. Oh, I know. It's about the kids. I know it's about this bonding for the first 12 weeks. Unemployment is at a 25-year high. Government spending is out of control, and individuals and retirees that have lost trillions in their savings and retirement are now going to have to pay another billion dollars for this plan. The government should be ensuring the future of the economy before taking on additional government benefits for those who have some of the greatest job security at the expense of the people who are paying for it, namely, the taxpayer.

I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule and to this legislation, which would provide more government benefits to bureaucrats with benefits already in excess of what most hardworking Americans in the private sector have. I guess we're supposed to sacrifice a little bit more to make sure

our government employees get more benefits.

Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, I return to my home every weekend in Dallas, Texas. I have only been in this body 13 years. I have never spent a weekend in Washington, D.C. I go home when the votes end to be with my family; and I, like every Member of this body, love my family. We understand the importance of family and how strong families are to our country. Additionally, I know how hard Federal employees work. I honor them for their work and their devotion to the people of this country and the devotion to their jobs, and they do deserve competitive compensation and a good benefits package. At the same time, I believe at this time this bill sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working Americans, the taxpayers and their families that they, themselves, are struggling to sacrifice to give a select few in this government additional new benefits.

In February of this year, my Democratic colleagues passed a $1.2 trillion economic stimulus package with absolutely no--zero--Republican support. This was their failed attempt to provide jobs to the struggling economy. The U.S. has eliminated 663,000 jobs in March alone, an additional 563,000 in April. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed has risen by 6 million people to 13.7 million, and the unemployment rate has grown from 3.9 to 9 percent. We should be thinking about how we're going to struggle to get people employed in this country, not give additional benefits to government workers.

One would think that this massive amount of spending that was done this year by my friends on the other side would ensure job growth, investment and economic output. Instead, the failed policies of the Democratic Party and of this administration have led to a budget deficit that already has been announced, it's not just $1 trillion, it has now grown to $1.8 trillion, about $89 billion more than was predicted in the President's budget. That is nearly four times the record set last year by my Democrat colleagues of this House. This has led even to the President's chief economic adviser, Dr. Christina Romer, while speaking on CNN to acknowledge that it is ``pretty realistic'' that there will be no job growth until 2010, and the U.S. will hit 9.5 percent rate of unemployment this year. Well, let's just be honest about it. The Democratic plans are that there would be 9 percent unemployment next year. That was the Democrats' blueprint, their plan that was in the budget. Nine percent, that's their best estimate, their guess. We're going to rise to 9 percent. Well, the question is not whether Congress should support families but whether it makes sense when so many Americans are already struggling with unemployment rates, increased taxes, thanks to our good friends in the Democrat majority, and an economic recession in the 3 years that the House and the Senate have been run by Democrat leadership, to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that government workers, in my opinion, have not even asked for it.

Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle often argue that Federal employees need greater benefits to be more competitive with private industry. There could be truth to that. But even the Office of Personnel Management has determined that Federal and private sector benefits compare favorably, and additional benefits would not help with retirement and retention. Additionally, this bill does not assist the older workforce facing retirement since it specifically deals with paid leave for having a child, adopting a child or taking care of a foster child.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit-in- search-of-a-problem will cost taxpayers $938 million over the next 5 years. Madam Speaker, at a time when average hardworking American families are already struggling and working many, many, many more hours and trying to find additional income through a job that they cannot find to pay their bills, I don't believe it's appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels by using taxpayer dollars to do it.

Since June of last year, the Federal Government workforce has grown by 37,000 employees while the private sector has shed more than 4.4 million jobs at the same time.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent trillions of the taxpayers' dollars over the past 6 months. Americans are faced with a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone from the Democrat majority in this administration. Their plan. Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point when it comes to subsidizing higher Federal spending at their expense. It is costing the free enterprise system jobs and the opportunity to get a job tomorrow because of the massive spending that is taking place by this Democrat majority.

Responsible American families are cutting back their costs. They are dealing with the job loss. They are doing the things to help their families and their friends, and they are looking at the destruction of their savings and retirement accounts.

I think it is simply wrong. It is wrong for the Democratic Party to move this bill. Rather than trying to create jobs, they are trying to get new benefits for Federal employees.

Madam Speaker, I will be honest. You are darn right that this is going to be a tough vote for Members of Congress. Are we going to pay attention to what is happening back home or are we just going to come up here and spend another $1 billion?

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have had two wonderful speakers on the majority side tell us--I think they were contradicting each other. One said it only costs $100 million a year. Another speaker said, oh, there is no cost. As a matter of fact, PAYGO says there is nothing to it.

Well, maybe the PAYGO rules of this House say that, but let me tell what you what the Congressional Budget Office says, their cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office says, 5 years, $938 million; $938 million. Almost $1 billion over 5 years. Now, that is real money. Oh, no, no, no. You got it wrong. We are already going to give them the money anyway, so it doesn't cost any more.

That is not reality, and that is not the way it works. The CBO is right, $938 million over 5 years. We had our President just 3 or 4 weeks ago say, after spending all these trillions of dollars, the President said, I'm going to ask my budget to cut a whopping $100 million from all their budgets across government; 100 million. Well, that is this bill just for 1 year, as the gentleman says, just 1 year. But the bottom line is it is $938 million over 5 years.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't try and explain to the American people that you are really trying to do something good for them but turn around and make it more difficult. I think our friends that are in the majority party don't understand that you just can't sneak up here to Washington and do this and get away with it back home. People are going to pay attention to this.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clovis, California (Mr. Nunes).

I thank the gentleman for the inquiry. As a matter of fact, I do have at least one more speaker. I would anticipate that if you do not have any additional speakers, I will then offer my close and then we could allow you to do the same, and then we can move on through this rule.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for that opportunity to move forward on this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the cost estimate for H.R. 626 from the Congressional Budget Office.

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--

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a newsletter with information provided

by the National Federation of Independent Business, known as the NFIB. This letter provides information about strongly opposing this bill.

NFIB: FMLA Should Not Grant Paid Leave for Federal Employees

Washington, D.C., June 4, 2009--Susan Eckerly, senior vice

president, public policy for the National Federation of

Independent Business, the nation's leading small business

association, released the following statement asking the U.S.

House of Representatives to defeat the Federal Employees Paid

Parental Leave Act of 2009 (HR. 626).

``This legislation mandates an alarming expansion of the

Family and Medical Leave Act from an unpaid leave program

into one that would provide partial paid parental leave for

federal employees. By carving out four of the 12 weeks of

FMLA as paid parental leave, we are deeply 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 at a great cost to the taxpayers, the bill doesn't

require federal employees to first use accumulated vacation

or sick leave before taking the paid parental leave. Again,

this would set a bad precedent for the private sector.

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,

something that's neither practical nor affordable. We are

strongly urging the House to defeat this bill.''

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I did engage in an agreement with the gentleman from California. The gentleman has given concurrence. We had another speaker from the Republican Party who would choose to speak, and so, going back on my word, but with agreement, the gentleman is allowing me to extend 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia, not only for coming to the floor, but also the gentleman from California for allowing me to extend to an additional speaker. And I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, we should have a different title to this bill. This bill should be the bill for what Congress needs to do to expend Federal benefits, benefits to Federal employees, while knowing that in April there were over 611,000 private sector jobs that were lost. That should be the name of the bill. This is what this Congress is going to do to respond to some almost 3 million jobs that have been lost, while this administration is in power. That's what this bill really should be known for.

This is the answer to 3 million job losses in the private sector. We're going to extend benefits, further benefits to the Federal Government.

Hey, I understand that because the Federal Government employment has risen about 100,000, and with, you know, car companies and banks and everything else, no telling how many Federal employees that we'll end up with at the end of this year. So maybe I was wrong. Maybe there is a strong demand out there for Federal Government employees who want additional benefits.

But we should remember that back home, where I'm from, and where a lot of people are from, 611,000 jobs disappeared in the month of April. And this is the response from our Democrat majority and our President: let's go spend more money, new benefits for Federal Government employees.

I get it. I think you will too, Madam Speaker, when we hear from people back home.

Madam Speaker, in closing I'd like to reiterate the horrible precedent that I think this legislation sets to those Americans who today that I just talked about, some 611,000 in April alone in the private sector who lost their jobs. Millions of Americans are jobless, and due to the out-of-control spending of this Democrat Congress, no analyst or White House official believes jobs will bounce back this year. None of them. Nobody.

As a matter of fact, the Democrat Party is on record and it's going to get worse next year and we're planning on it already. We already understand that. We ought to be saying that instead of extending benefits that it's going to cost another billion dollars.

Why are my friends on the other side afraid of risking more of the taxpayer dollars to provide Federal employees who already have the most job security and excellent benefits? Why are they afraid to back away and wait on this? Why are they pushing this? I wonder.

I wonder really who is more important and who they're hearing from, because evidently it's not people back home. Maybe it is the government workers that they're listening to. Maybe government workers are more important to this party than people back home. Maybe that's why this is happening.

Look, Republicans are providing quality solutions. We think we understand what the American people are going through. We understand what's happening with the taxing, the borrowing and the spending. Huge deficits and unemployment rates continue on and on and on.

I oppose this bill, and I hope that the American people understand that the taxpayer was heard today on the floor of the House of Representatives. They were heard by the speakers of the Republican Party who said we should not be extending benefits right now. We should not increase the spending and the cost of $1 billion over the next 5 years. We should understand what real people are going through.

I'm going to vote against this bill.

I yield back my time.

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

Madam Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, which was introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, on January 22, 2009.

As chairman of the subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of Columbia, I'm proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this bill, along with 55 other Members of Congress.

H.R. 626 takes an important step toward improving the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce by providing paid parental leave to Federal and Congressional employees for the birth, adoption or placement of a child for foster care, which is a benefit that is extended to many in the private sector as well as to all government employees in other industrialized countries.

In considering H.R. 626, the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia marked up the bill on March 25, 2009, and favorably recommended the measure to the full Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The full committee then held markup on H.R. 626 on May 6, 2009, and ordered the bill to be reported to the floor by a voice vote.

The bill being considered today will allow all Federal and congressional employees to receive 4 weeks of paid leave taken under the Family Medical Leave Act, also called the FMLA, for

the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child.

As many of my colleagues are aware, the current FMLA statute provides workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child with an employee. Madam Chairman, the bill before us does nothing more than permit those Federal employees, first, to receive paid leave for 4 weeks out of the 12 weeks to which they already have access and if the leave is connected to the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child; and secondly, provides employees the option to use accrued sick or annual leave, if available, for the remaining 8 weeks.

Let us be clear. The bill currently being considered does not provide Federal workers any additional time or expand beyond the 12 weeks already given under current law.

The bill before us has also been strengthened by granting the director of the Office of Personnel Management the authority to increase paid parental leave from 4 weeks to 8 weeks after considering a thorough cost and benefit analysis.

Parental leave is a pertinent concern around the world, and unfortunately, America is lagging behind in offering paid leave for parents. The governments of 168 countries offer guaranteed paid leave to their female employees in connection with childbirth. Ninety-eight of these countries offer 14 or more weeks paid leave. Currently, the Federal Government, as an employer, guarantees zero paid leave for parents in any segment of the workforce. However, H.R. 626, once enacted, will, in fact, change that.

While the 12 weeks of unpaid leave, as authorized by the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, has helped millions of families during some of the most precious moments or, in some cases, the most challenging times of their lives, most Federal employees cannot afford to take unpaid leave. This often forces these employees to choose between spending more time with their newborn child or maintaining an income to support their families, which is a difficult decision that Federal workers will hopefully not have to make after the passage of this Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

The United States of America, and in particular, the Federal Government, is supposed to be a world leader in this area. Yet, for years, we have been followers. I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that it is high time for us to catch up with the rest of world and provide our dedicated employees with paid parental leave of this limited time.

Providing Federal employees with paid parental leave will increase worker morale and improve productivity by creating a more family friendly environment for Federal employees. Further, providing 20 days, or 4 work weeks, of paid leave to our dedicated Federal employees should not be described as an overgenerous or excessive fringe benefit, but rather, as a necessary benefit to help strengthen American families and promote the healthy development of our children.

We also need to recognize that the Federal Government is the largest employer in the United States, and its policies in this area do set a tone for the country. No employee should have to choose between caring for a newborn child or their paycheck. This is especially true during an economic downturn.

Therefore, Madam Chairman, I'd like to once again reiterate my support for H.R. 626, the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this measure.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I just want to address a single point that's been made by a number of the speakers on the other side who I have great respect for, the gentleman from Texas earlier and now the gentleman from California.

There is a drumbeat of justification that seems to be grounded in the fact that the economy is not in good shape right now, and that's a fact in my State, in my district, as well as all across America. But before we accept the argument that this is why it's being opposed, this bill is being opposed at this time, I just want to give a little brief history.

This bill has been presented for 15 years. This bill has been presented for 15 years before this body. In 2008, when a majority of the Republicans opposed this important benefit, the unemployment then was 5.6 percent, pretty good.

During the 109th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this bill to the floor, the unemployment rate was never higher than 5.4 percent. During the 108th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate ranged between 5.4 and 6 percent, relatively low.

During the 107th Congress when the Republicans refused to bring this legislation to the floor again, the unemployment rate never rose above 6 percent, and was below 4.5 percent for most of the year. During the 106th Congress when the Republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate never rose above 4.4 percent.

So there's a whole history here of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposing this bill, during good times and average times, and now in lousy times. But that is not the underlying reason that they're opposing the bill. The evidence does not support that.

At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the lead sponsor of this bill, who has been there for the entire 15 years fighting for this measure, our chairwoman from the 14th District, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California's Sixth District (Ms. Woolsey).

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

I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

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).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Madam Chair, this bill is narrowly tailored to specific circumstances. It would provide 4 weeks of paid parental leave. The specific instances are the birth of a new child, an adoption, or someone taking a child into foster care. That's how you qualify for receiving these 4 weeks of benefits. And I think that this makes a strategic investment in the Federal workforce.

This will help the government retain and attract young talented employees; and in so doing, it provides potentially an ultimate savings to the American people since there's a direct benefit when the government retains existing employees rather than having to hire and retrain new ones. We are all familiar with the revolving door in the Federal Government, where we bring in people, we train them, they become very competent in their areas of expertise, and then private industry steals them away because they can offer them much greater benefits and much, much higher pay. This provides a basic and decent benefit of 4 weeks for the occasions that I mentioned.

Before closing, I'd like to also point out that the Obama administration, in their recently issued statement of administration policy on H.R. 626, also recognized the benefits of supporting families during the birth of a child, adoption of a child or for foster care. According to the President's policy position, the Federal Government should reflect its commitment to helping Federal employees care for their families as well as serve the public. Measures such as H.R. 626 support this commitment and strengthen our families, our communities and our Nation. Given that statement alone, I urge my fellow Members to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 626.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I absolutely cannot support the amendment at hand, as it totally goes against the bill's fundamental purpose. To begin, this amendment actually guts the bill. It does little more than restate the status quo with regard to the type and amount of leave that is currently available to new parents in the Federal Government.

To be clear, I support H.R. 626 because I want to support working families across the country. I oppose the amendment because we should not replicate the current inadequate system that forces new moms and dads to choose between their paycheck and caring for a newborn. The gentleman's amendment, however well intended, would strike the bill's core requirement that Federal employees receive 4 weeks of paid parental leave. Instead, it would require new mothers and fathers to take advance leave in order to take care of their newborn or newly adopted child. In other words, new employees would be required to go into debt in their available leave as a cost of caring for their child.

I do want to point out an odd result of the gentleman's amendment. For the new employees who have unpaid leave right now, it would force them to take unpaid leave at a point in time--for instance, for a new mom right after she has the baby, it would force her to take unpaid leave; and then later on after the 8 or 12 weeks had expired, at a point maybe when that mom was ready to come back to work, it would then give those employees, mom and dad, 4 weeks of paid leave. So rather than come back to work, they'd be facing the opportunity to take paid leave at that point; and I think in some cases it may turn out that this may increase the cost. While it actually devalues the benefit to the employee up front, it also, by perhaps getting a higher utilization rate, in the end may cost the government more money. So it's sort of a lose-lose situation. Longer-term employees would be required to exhaust any available prior leave before being eligible to take the additional advance leave; and under most circumstances, they may already do this.

So the amendment's only alleged new benefit to employees is to allow newer hires to go into a deficit on their leave in order to get some days paid during their parental leave. But, again, Federal agencies can already offer employees advance leave, so there's really no new benefit here. The true effect of this amendment is to gut the primary purpose of the bill, which is to support families and child development by providing 4 weeks of unconditional paid leave to new mothers and fathers in the Federal workforce.

In addition to gutting the bill, the amendment is inequitable because it would impact new employees and older employees differently. Moreover, the amendment is not good policy because employees should not be forced to use up all of their accrued annual sick leave to care for a new child. This can leave employees in a desperate situation if any emergency arises or if they become seriously ill down the road.

This amendment is somewhat short-sighted. It ignores the strategic investment that H.R. 626 makes in the Federal workforce at a time that we need to be attracting young talented employees to prepare for a wave of upcoming retirements. Currently we have about 315,000 Federal employees that are eligible to retire; and unfortunately those are the most experienced and, in some cases, the most ablest employees that we have in the Federal Government.

This amendment ignores the social benefits to society as a whole that result from supporting families with progressive work-life policies, such as a paid parental leave program. Because this amendment guts the pending legislation, I do have to oppose it for all the reasons that I have stated in spite of the gentleman's good intentions. I ask that Members continue to support the bill and oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 501 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 501.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 501 provides for the consideration of H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule makes in order three amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a father. Nothing can replace the first few days and weeks between a parent and a newborn or a newly adopted child when the bond that is forged is critical and sets the foundation for the child's entire later life. It is in these first few moments that a child's emotional and physical health and development is established--time which cannot be made up for later in life once it's lost.

Yet many parents are unable to forge this bond simply because they cannot afford to take unpaid leave from their jobs. In fact, a 2000 Labor Department survey showed that 78 percent of employees chose not to take unpaid leave because they just couldn't afford it. And they certainly cannot do so in the trying economic times we face today when hardworking families are struggling just to get by.

No parent should be placed in the position of having to choose between bonding with their new child and forgoing these formative moments in their child's life in order to keep a roof over that same child's head or to put food on the table, especially when the fate of a child is ultimately at stake. This is a moral and societal situation that has legislators, parents and as protectors of God's children, we must get right.

The Federal Government, I believe, has a moral obligation to set the stage for making changes across the table. We need to do more than just help in the care and development of a child. We must take the reins and lead by example. We should be setting the standard in family-friendly workplace policies across the Nation, not lagging behind.

H.R. 626 is quite simple. Current law requires that new parents be given up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. If they wish to be paid, they must use any unused accrued sick time or vacation time. This bill helps families by providing 4 weeks of paid parental leave for Federal employees for the birth, adoption or fostering of a child and allowing employees to use that accrued vacation or sick time for that parental leave.

This small change in law will hopefully entice other employers to follow suit but, more importantly, have an immeasurable impact on the countless parents and the well-being of their children.

Madam Speaker, I can speak to this from my own experience. My dear wife Kathie and I have three beautiful children--one biologic and two that we adopted out of the foster care system. These children we love as much as they were our biological daughter. I will tell you from our own experience, however, that by adopting a child, especially one out of foster care, it requires special care and attention and additional time for bonding. This is not an option in their case. It is an absolute necessity. Our children--in fact, all foster children have faced and will continue to face significant challenges in their lives from the abuse that they incurred when they were in foster care. They will forever carry those unspeakable scars that every parent fears and no child should ever bear. Yet the only hope and chance that you have to save these children is to give them time to bond with those very new parents that are the ones that will be, in fact, trying to save their lives and rub away those scars. There is no other choice than to immediately give them all the love they can take and more than they've ever known; food, nutrition they desperately need, and the health care they have never had. They need the unflagging support and nurturing that they get from these new adoptive parents in order to establish a pattern of survival in their lives. I also know that without the time to forge this bond immediately after adoption, they have no hope of overcoming the enormous obstacles that they face.

Madam Speaker, you can put a price tag on a piece of legislation, but you cannot put a price on the importance of not having to worry about a paycheck and having the full and undivided attention of both parents lavishing boundless love on a disadvantaged child. I can think of no greater gift that we can give as parents to our children than the gift of time. Without it, far too many children will simply slip through the cracks, and for many more, all hope will be lost. As legislators, it is our imperative that we do what is morally right, not to let hope be lost, but rather to let hope spring eternally and to give these children, who already have so many things working against them, as I mentioned in the case of adoption and foster care, the chance at life that they deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just will respond to the gentleman that this is less than $100 million a year for the entire country. While every dollar that the taxpayers pay is significantly important, I would say that this particular bill is much more important in some ways than many expenditures this Federal Government makes.

It is also something that I believe is fundamentally important in many sectors, especially in the area that I talked about with adopting new children. The gentleman says that the Federal employees are some of the most stable workforce that we have in this country. Well, that is exactly the kind of people you want to adopt children, people in stable homes that have jobs that they are not going to lose, that can take the time to do what we have set forth in this bill.

While leave policies in the government generally may compare favorably with some private sector employment, the Federal Government's paid parental leave policy simply does not. Seventy-five percent of the Fortune 100 companies offer at least 6 weeks of parental paid leave and make them much more attractive to young working families who cannot afford to go without pay for that length of time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this time, yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I respond to my colleague from California and my colleague from Texas in this way. My colleague from California knows that I support him in his efforts to try and solve the California water crisis, and, in fact, I have been a leader in trying to do that. I don't always agree. I have come to this House floor and argued with my own leadership with regard to the issues that have dealt with the causes of the California regulatory drought.

I would also like to remind the gentleman, who loves to blame the Democrats for everything that goes wrong, that it was a Republican bill and a Republican judge that put both of those concerns that are causing much of our water problems on the map.

With regard to my friend from Texas and his claim that this is all about the cost, I can tell you that as an adoptive parent, if I hadn't taken the actions I did by adopting two children, they would not have filled the place they hold in my heart, but they would have also cost the Federal Government much, much more. When we take kids out of an abusive home and put them into foster care, we do so in order to try and recapture their lives.

My children came out of a home where they were being neglected and abused by a drug-addicted mother. The scars that they will carry from that time in their lives are profound. Had I not had the ability to spend time with them, the challenges that we face with the emotional difficulties of those young people that I love so much would be, in fact, much worse than they are even today.

The gentleman can talk about how this is a cost issue, but let me tell you, if people can't get the time to do what is right about adopting young kids, they won't do that. And it will cost the Federal Government much more.

We argued this in a bill last year where we gave the opportunity for our troops to adopt young people and take that leave. It was the right thing to do then, and it passed. Last year, this bill was on the floor, and 58 of the gentleman's colleagues from Texas voted in support of this. This is the right thing to do for our country. It is the right thing to do for our kids. I believe in it profoundly. And, yes, this government wastes a lot of money in many different ways, but I can tell you that money spent in this area on this particular set of young people that I have talked about so much today is money well spent and will pay dividends many times over in the future. I have no question about that.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I've sat here and listened this evening to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) talk about how this is a terrible waste of dollars, and how the Republicans are saying that this is a terrible waste of money.

But I'd wish to correct the gentleman. Today this isn't a partisan issue. In fact, I would predict that there are a number of his colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, on the Republican side of the aisle, like Mr. Wolf, who understand what this is about.

This is about America's children, about children coming into this world and bonding with a mother and a father and having the opportunity to do that in this hectic world that we live in today. It's about foster parents that come in and do the right thing, taking care of abused and victimized children, and needing that time to do it right.

It's about adoptive parents who, when they reach out and bring into their home permanently children who have been victimized by society's ills, having the opportunity to do it right so we can start healing those children.

There are a number of Republicans on that side of the aisle that are going to do the right thing tonight. They're going to vote for this rule, and they're going to vote for this bill because it's the right thing for America and building families.

They call themselves the ``Family Values Party.'' Tonight they can prove it by coming in here and voting to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I'd like to submit for the Record the statement of administration policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

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.

You know, the gentleman from Texas talks about how much money this government has wasted. He's right, there's a lot of money that gets wasted.

But over the last 8 years, as our country was being absolutely raped by those defense contractors in the Middle East with no accountability, where was the gentleman to stand up against that?

No, ladies and gentlemen, he's not willing to stand up against that, or wasn't during the last 8 years. But tonight he will criticize us spending a few dollars to get it right for our families in America.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that while most parents wish to stay home with their new child, they just can't afford to take unpaid leave, which directly affects that child's well-being.

We can start with having the Federal Government lead by example to set the stage for making changes across the table. To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, we must be the change we wish to see in this world. I believe that couldn't be more true.

I ask the Members of both sides of the aisle to support the parents of America, to support the children of America, and be the change that we wish for our world.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.