[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.

                          ____________________