[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 102 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5586-H5592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5781, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAID
PARENTAL LEAVE ACT OF 2008
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I
[[Page H5587]]
call up House Resolution 1277 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1277
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions of the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; (2) the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative
Davis of Illinois or his designee, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered
as read, and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5781 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
{time} 1030
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
[[Page H5588]]
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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
so many important issues and for supporting working families. This is
the 21st century. Both the father and the mother have to work, and this
is an important family friendly, family value legislation.
How many times have we heard the friends on the opposite side of the
aisle talk about family values? Well, today we will have an opportunity
to vote and do something to help families. Today we will take up my
legislation, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. This bill
will provide 4 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees when they have
a new child or adopt a new child.
If we truly believe in the value of family, then we need to value the
work that families do. This means that we need to stop asking parents
to choose between a paycheck and caring for a new child. Unlike a
generation ago, today both parents work outside the home, and both need
time off from work when they have a new child, yet most do not have
access to paid family leave.
By providing paid parental leave to Federal employees, H.R. 5781
establishes the Federal Government as a model employer. A recent study
found that out of 173 countries, 169 countries offered guaranteed leave
with income to women in connection with childbirth. This ties the
United States with Swaziland and New Guinea in terms of what we are
offering in paid leave for new families.
This landmark bill is the first to provide paid family leave for new
parents. It signals our commitment to valuing our employees and their
families. This bill is good for the Federal agencies, it is good for
Federal employees, and it is cost effective.
The lack of paid family leave puts Federal agencies at a disadvantage
when competing for the best and the brightest employees. Our Federal
workforce is aging and many of our agencies are finding it difficult to
recruit and retain younger workers.
{time} 1045
Providing paid parental leave would encourage younger workers who may
be considering having a family to stay with the Federal Government.
Paid parental leave is already offered by the largest and most
profitable U.S. companies. My staff at the Joint Economic Committee
found that the Federal Government lags far behind Fortune 100 companies
in providing paid leave as part of their benefits package. Fortune 100
companies overwhelmingly offer new mothers paid leave lasting 6 to 8
weeks long.
Federal employees who become new parents have the option of using
their accrued vacation time, some sick days only if they're sick or
tapping into a leave bank. This may work for the lucky families who
never get sick, never need a vacation and are happy to rely on the
kindness of strangers, but for many this is a second-rate solution,
since even the best prepared employees often face difficult choices
when children need their care.
The only national policy that covers parental leave is the Family and
Medical Leave Act which provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave and job
protection. The Family and Medical Leave Act is important, but because
it is unpaid, many, especially low wage or younger workers with limited
savings, cannot afford to use it.
H.R. 5781 is cost-effective. And the Congressional Budget Office
reports that it is PAYGO compliant.
In testimony in support of this bill, Daniel Beard, Chief
Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives noted:
``This approach saves money. Employee morale is always greater when an
employer treats employees with dignity, especially in times of
crisis.'' I could not agree more with him.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I know that many of you are
scratching your heads and wondering how this bill can be PAYGO neutral.
It is easy to explain. The $190 million is the amount that the agencies
currently save on salaries when Federal employees who have a new child
take their unpaid leave, as they are entitled to under the Family and
Medical Leave Act.
After we implement H.R. 5781, it will be up to the Federal agencies
to implement this new benefit and whether they will ask for increased
appropriations in the future.
But let's remember, right now Federal employees who have a child bear
both the burden of going without pay during family and medical leave,
as well as coping with their new family
[[Page H5589]]
expenses. This is an opportunity for us to put action behind our
rhetoric on family values.
I urge strong bipartisan support. It is supported by Tom Davis on the
other side of the aisle, the ranking member of the Government Reform
and Oversight Committee which considered and reported out this bill.
And I thank Chairman Waxman and many others for their strong support.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire to the gentleman how many more speakers
he has.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 20\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Texas has 23.
Mr. McGOVERN. And may I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has any
other speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. I do not have any additional speakers other than
myself.
Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will let the gentleman close, because we don't
have any other speakers either.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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
[[Page H5590]]
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
{time} 1100
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. McGOVERN. 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.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts, and I thank the minority for their indulgence.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781, the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, introduced by my colleague
and fellow Women's Caucus member, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New
York.
This legislation provides 4 weeks of paid parental leave for all
Federal employees. Employees will also for the first time be allowed to
use their accrued sick leave for an additional 8 weeks of paid leave.
By combining the 4 weeks of paid parental leave with earned sick leave,
many Federal employees will now be able to get paid for the full 12
weeks of parental leave that is their right under the existing Family
and Medical Leave Act.
However, this legislation is about more than a technical fix to
current law. As we celebrated our fathers only last week, we recognized
the significance of family of the various roles we all play. Mothers
and fathers should be allowed to be there for the birth or adoption of
a new child. This legislation reinforces the belief in family. Be it
grandmother, grandfather, uncle, aunt, or mom and dad--our families
deserve to be supported and valued.
In my district of Houston, Texas, there are over 70,000 single parent
households run by women and over 22,000 Federal employees in my
district. This legislation gives them the time they need to bond with a
new child. It has been proven time and time again that the first few
weeks post-birth are essential to parent and child bonding. This is
true be they natural or adopted children.
This legislation should be titled Celebrating and Supporting Our
Families Act because that is exactly what it seeks to do. It also
provides that support for our employees here on Capitol Hill.
This act allows Federal employees to substitute any available paid
leave for any leave without pay available for either the: (1) birth of
a child; or (2) placement of a child with the employee for either
adoption or foster care. Makes available for any of the 12 weeks of
leave an employee is entitled to for such purposes: (1) four
administrative weeks of paid parental leave in connection with the
birth or placement involved; and (2) any accumulated annual or sick
leave.
Authorizes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
to increase the amount of paid parental leave available to up to eight
administrative workweeks, based on the consideration of: (1) the
benefits provided to the Federal Government of offering paid parental
leave, including enhanced recruitment and retention of employees; (2)
the cost to the Federal Government of increasing the amount of paid
parental leave that is available to employees; (3) trends in the
private sector and in State and local governments with respect to
offering paid parental leave; and (4) the Federal Government's role as
a model employer.
Amends the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to allow the same substitution for
covered congressional employees, Government Accountability Office (GAO)
and Library of Congress employees.
Defines ``qualified leave'' as leave that: (1) is available by reason
of the need to care for the spouse, child, or parent of the employee
having a serious health condition or by reason of a serious health
condition affecting the employees that renders such employee unable to
perform the functions of his or her position; and (2) would otherwise
be leave without pay.
This act is a tremendous step and makes unequivocally clear, and
dispels any belief that this act applies only to women. It does not.
Members on both sides of the aisle talk about family values, but one of
the most concrete ways we can help families is to give parents more
time with their new children, without losing their paycheck. The
Federal Government can be a model for other employers. I therefore
encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and demonstrate by
their actions that they support our families.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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
[[Page H5591]]
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.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1277 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2279) to expedite the
construction of new refining capacity on closed military
installations in the United States. All points of order
against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute
if offered by Representative Dingell of Michigan or
Representative Skelton of Missouri, which shall he considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition, a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an
[[Page H5592]]
hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question a resolution reported; from
the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading
the Opposition to the previous question, who may offer a
proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for
debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative Plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSION. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________