Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 102 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 102 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5595-H5607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAID PARENTAL LEAVE ACT OF 2008

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
1277, I call up the bill (H.R. 5781) to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks
of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid
leave, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5781

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employees Paid
Parental Leave Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE UNDER TITLE 5.

(a) Amendment to Title 5.--Subsection (d) of section 6382
of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (d)(1);
(2) by striking ``subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or'' and
inserting ``subparagraph (C) or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) An employee may elect to substitute for any leave
without pay under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection
(a)(1) any paid leave which is available to such employee for
that purpose.
``(3) The paid leave that is available to an employee for
purposes of paragraph (2) is--
``(A) 8 administrative workweeks of paid parental leave
under this subparagraph in connection with the birth or
placement involved; and
``(B) any annual or sick leave accrued or accumulated by
such employee under subchapter I.
``(4) Nothing in this subchapter shall be considered to
require--
``(A) that an employing agency provide paid sick leave in
any situation in which such employing agency would not
normally be required to provide such leave; or
``(B) that an employee first use all or any portion of the
leave described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) before
being allowed to use the paid parental leave described in
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3).
``(5) Paid parental leave under paragraph (3)(A)--
``(A) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund
available for salaries or expenses for positions within the
employing agency;
``(B) shall not be considered to be annual or vacation
leave for purposes of section 5551 or 5552 or for any other
purpose; and
``(C) if not used by the employee before the end of the 12-
month period (as referred to in subsection (a)(1)) to which
it relates, shall not accumulate for any subsequent use.
``(6) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out this
subsection, including, subject to paragraph (4)(B), the
manner in which an employee may designate any day or other
period as to which such employee wishes to use paid parental
leave described in paragraph (3)(A).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall not be effective with respect to any birth or placement
occurring before the end of the 6-month period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE FOR CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.

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

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

Section 102(d) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
(29 U.S.C. 2612(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Special rule for gao and library of congress
employees.--
``(A) Substitution of paid leave.--An employee of an
employer described in section 101(4)(A)(iv) taking leave
under subparagraphs (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) may elect
to substitute for any such leave any paid leave which is
available to such employee for that purpose.
``(B) Amount of paid leave.--The paid leave that is
available to an employee of an employer described in section
101(4)(A)(iv) for purposes of paragraph (1) is--
``(i) the number of weeks of paid parental leave in
connection with the birth or placement involved that
correspond to the number of administrative workweeks of paid
parental leave available to Federal employees under section
6382(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code; and
``(ii) any additional paid vacation or sick leave provided
by such employer.
``(C) Limitation.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
considered to require--
``(i) that an employer described in section 101(4)(A)(iv)
provide paid sick leave in any situation in which such
employer would not normally be required to provide such
leave; or
``(ii) that an employee of such an employer first use all
or any portion of the leave described in clause (ii) of
subparagraph (B) before being allowed to use paid parental
leave described in clause (i) of such subparagraph.
``(D) Additional rules.--Paid parental leave under
subparagraph (B)(i)--
``(i) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund
available for salaries or expenses for positions with
employers described in section 101(4)(A)(iv); and
``(ii) if not used by the employee of such employers before
the end of the 12-month period (as referred to in subsection
(a)(1)) to which it relates, shall not accumulate for any
subsequent use.''.

SEC. 5. STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability
Office shall study and submit to Congress a written report on
the feasibility and desirability of providing an insurance
benefit to Federal employees which affords partial or total
wage replacement with respect to periods of qualified leave.
(b) Period of Qualified Leave.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``period of qualified leave'', as used with
respect to a Federal employee, means any period of leave
under section 6382 of title 5, United States Code, which
would otherwise be leave without pay, and which is available
by reason of--
(1) the need to care for the spouse or a son, daughter, or
parent of the employee having a serious health condition; or
(2) a serious health condition affecting the employee that
renders such employee unable to perform the functions of the
employee's position.
(c) Matters for Inclusion.--The report shall include, at a
minimum, the following:

[[Page H5596]]

(1) A brief description of any plans or arrangements under
which similar benefits are currently provided to employees in
this country (within the private sector or State or local
government) or in other countries.
(2) With respect to any plans or arrangements under which
such benefits are currently provided to private or public
sector employees in this country--
(A) the portion or percentage of wages typically replaced;
(B) how those benefits are generally funded, including in
terms of the employer and employee shares;
(C) whether employee coverage is optional or automatic; and
(D) any waiting period or other conditions which may apply.
(3) Identification and assessment of any plans or
arrangements described under the preceding provisions of this
subsection (or any aspects thereof) which might be
particularly relevant to designing the insurance benefit
(described in subsection (a)) for Federal employees,
including how such benefit might be coordinated with annual
leave, sick leave, or any other paid leave available to an
employee for the purpose involved.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1277, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 5781

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employees Paid
Parental Leave Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE UNDER TITLE 5.

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

SEC. 3. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE FOR CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.

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

SEC. 5. STUDY.

[[Page H5597]]

(2) With respect to any plans or arrangements under which
such benefits are currently provided to private or public
sector employees in this country--
(A) the portion or percentage of wages typically replaced;
(B) how those benefits are generally funded, including in
terms of the employer and employee shares;
(C) whether employee coverage is optional or automatic; and
(D) any waiting period or other conditions which may apply.
(3) Identification and assessment of any plans or
arrangements described under the preceding provisions of this
subsection (or any aspects thereof) which might be
particularly relevant to designing the insurance benefit
(described in subsection (a)) for Federal employees,
including how such benefit might be coordinated with annual
leave, sick leave, or any other paid leave available to an
employee for the purpose involved.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in
House Report 110-718 if offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis) or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be
considered read, and shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

General Leave

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 5781, the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, which was introduced by our
colleague Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney on April 14, 2008. As Chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the
District of Columbia, I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of
this bill, along with 21 other Members of Congress.
H.R. 5781 takes an important step in improving the Federal
Government's ability to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce
by providing paid parental leave to Federal and congressional employees
for the birth, adoption or placement of a child for foster care, which
is a benefit that is extended to most employees in the private sector
as well as to government employees in other countries.
In considering H.R. 5781, the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce,
Postal Service, and the District of Columbia marked up the bill on
April 15, 2008, and favorably recommended the measure to the Full
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform after adopting an
amendment offered by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman that would permit
only 4 weeks of paid parental leave instead of the 8 weeks included in
the bill as introduced. The full committee then held a markup on H.R.
5781 on April 16, 2008, and ordered the bill to be reported to the
floor, as amended, by a roll call vote of 21-10.
During the consideration of H.R. 5781, I had asked that language be
included in the bill directing the Government Accountability Office to
study the feasibility of providing a disability insurance benefit to
Federal employees who had to take time off to care for a spouse, child
or parent that has a serious health condition or for a Federal employee
that has a serious health condition that renders him or her unable to
perform their job functions. While the manager's amendment that we will
be discussing later on removes this provision from the bill, I am happy
to report that at my request GAO has agreed to perform a study that
will analyze disability insurance benefits that are currently being
offered by States, local governments and the private sector.
The bill being considered today will allow all Federal and
congressional employees to receive 4 weeks of paid leave taken under
the Family and Medical Leave Act for the birth, adoption or placement
of a foster child. As many of my colleagues are aware, the current FMLA
statute provides Federal workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the
birth, adoption or placement of a foster child with an employee.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us does nothing more than permit Federal
employees to receive paid leave for 4 out of the 12 weeks if the leave
is connected to the birth, adoption or placement of a foster child, and
to use accrued sick or annual leave, if available, for the remaining 8
weeks. Let us be clear: This bill currently being considered does not
provide Federal workers any additional time nor expand beyond the 12
weeks given under the current law.
The bill before us has also been strengthened by granting the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management the authority to
increase paid parental leave from 4 weeks to 8 weeks after considering
a thorough cost and benefit analysis.
Parental leave is a pertinent concern around the world, and,
unfortunately, America is lagging behind in offering paid leave for
parents. The governments of 168 countries offer guaranteed paid leave
to their female employees in connection with childbirth. Ninety-eight
of these countries offer 14 or more weeks paid leave. Currently the
Federal Government as an employer guarantees no paid leave.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I again reiterate my support for H.R. 5781,
the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, and urge my
colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill in search of benefits that in fact do not
exist in any great numbers in the private sector. This is a new perk,
at a time in which the American people are having to make cutbacks.
They are driving less. They are very clearly suffering under the
incredible cost of rising energy prices. So this is a bill whose time
should not be coming.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of
the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees
Paid Parental Leave Act. This important legislation is intended to
improve the quality of life for the Federal workforce, which in turn
will help promote productivity and reduce Federal employee attrition.
As we have discussed many times before on this House floor, the
Federal Government is facing a wave of retirements in the near future,
with approximately 60 percent of the Federal workforce becoming
eligible to retire in the beginning and over the next decade. This
legislation will help the Federal Government recruit and retain a top-
notch cadre of new employees to replace those that are currently facing
retirement.
Regardless of whether you support a larger government or a smaller
government, I believe we all agree on one thing: Whatever the size of
government, it should be run as efficiently and effectively as possible
with as good people as we can get in doing it. This bill helps promote
this efficiency by improving retention and reducing employee turnover.
As it becomes more and more common for both parents in a household to
participate in a workforce, any major employer who expects to compete
for top new talent in today's marketplace is going to have to present
themselves as family friendly. This is exactly what this legislation
will do for the Federal Government.
I understand many of my colleagues have concerns with this
legislation with the estimated cost of $850 million in discretionary
spending over 5 years. I understand. But, folks, waste in government is
through our business processes and the way we do business. It is
through mismanagement. It is through not proper oversight of contracts.
If you really want to eliminate waste in government, let's get good
people in there and train them and offer a competitive package that we
can offer

[[Page H5598]]

these young people coming out of college to get them to not only join
the Federal Government, but stay in the Federal workforce. This is what
this legislation does, bringing the best and brightest to government
and helping to maintain them there. If you want to stop the leakage and
the waste and mismanagement in government, you start with a top-flight
workforce, and we need to be competitive to do that.
I believe providing new parents time to care for their new child
during these critical weeks after birth or adoption will also help
promote strong families, something we talk about a lot, in addition to
reducing turnover and improving productivity. The incoming generation
of Federal employees, and all employees, for that matter, want to feel
they are part of an organization that is dedicated to and contributing
to their lives and to their well-being. Given the loyalty and the
service we seek from them, that same dedication should not be too much
to ask from their employer.
Mr. Speaker, we are past the stage in our development as a nation
when paid parental leave should be considered an extravagant or
unnecessary fringe benefit, and this is why I have been an original
cosponsor of Mrs. Maloney's paid parental leave legislation since 2000.
This bill we are considering today will be an important tool to help
shape the Federal Government's image as an appealing place for young
employees to work.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her longstanding
leadership on this issue. I hope we can bring about its passage today.
This will be a giant step forward. For those Members who didn't want to
make parental leave a mandate to private employees, we can at least set
an example here at the Federal level. This is what this legislation
does.

{time} 1215

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5
minutes to one who has been fighting, pushing, planning, organizing,
struggling and working, the lead on this issue for more than 10 years,
and the sponsor of this bill, Representative Carolyn Maloney from New
York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank my good friend and colleague for
that generous introduction and for his strong leadership on this bill
and in so many areas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5781, the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008. I am proud to be the author
of this bill and pleased that a Democratic majority has brought this
bill to the floor.
I particularly want to thank Chairman Waxman for his extraordinary
leadership on this and in so many ways, and also former chairman,
Ranking Member Tom Davis, who has been a lead sponsor on this
legislation since it was first introduced. I thank him deeply, and, of
course, Subcommittee Chair Danny Davis. I am pleased to work every day
with you on your committee, and George Miller, for their outstanding
support of this bill. They are strong advocates for Federal employees,
and I expect that with their leadership and support we will pass this
bill today to help working families in the Federal Government.
This bill is very important to me because I very painfully remember
when I was pregnant with my first child, I was terrified of being
fired. I was working for the New York State legislature, and I called
the personnel office to inquire about their parental leave policy. I
was told, leave policy, there is none, women just leave.
I said, well, I intend to come back to work because I have to work.
What is your leave policy? They said, we have none. Possibly you could
apply for disability. I told her that the birth of a child is not a
disability, it is a joyous event.
I would say to my dear friend and colleague on the opposite side of
the aisle that having a child is not a perk, it is important, it is
important to the lives of the parents, it is important to the lives of
our country. We should turn our family values rhetoric into a reality
of providing some support to working men and women in the Federal
Government.
Balancing work and family is a challenge that most parents face and
good workplace policy can go a long way towards helping them. We have
come a long ways since I was told that women just leave, but not far
enough. According to a report from the Joint Economic Committee, three-
quarters, or 75 percent, of all Fortune 100 companies offer parental
leave to new mothers with a median length of leave from 6 to 8 weeks.
Now these are some of the most successful companies in the country.
They should know a little bit about retaining workers.
We also reviewed House offices and Senate offices. Most House
offices, 85 percent, provide paid leave. Senate offices, 95 percent of
the Senate offices, provide paid leave. The Armed Forces, they provide
it also. They are not covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act but
they recognize the importance of providing some paid time and leave for
Federal workers and for their workers.
The Federal Government has not kept up with the changing times and
needs to become competitive with the private sector. Employees are now
entitled to have 12 weeks of un paid leave through the Family and
Medical Leave Act. As we have heard time and time again many families
cannot afford to take unpaid leave and are therefore forced to choose
between their new child and their paycheck. No one should have to make
that choice.
I would say that it's very difficult for new families. Not only does
it cost roughly $12,000 to provide for a new child the first year,
daycare is not available for newborns until they are 12 weeks old, so
this puts tremendous pressure on families, where most parents have to
work.
We have heard about Ozzie and Harriet, you know, Ozzie worked and
Harriet was at home. Now 60 percent of married women work because they
have to, and we should be providing them with some help. Not only will
this legislation help these new families in the Federal Government, but
it will also help the Federal Government with recruitment and
retention.
Turnover is more expensive than providing paid leave. The average
cost of turnover is about 20 percent of an employee's annual salary.
Four weeks of paid leave is less than 8 percent of an employee's
salary. This is an important piece of legislation to working men and
women.
I would say that providing paid parental leave to Federal employees
is a great first step toward providing this benefit to all working
Americans, and it is a critical step towards helping our families.
I want to note that Senator Jim Webb and Senator John Warner, in a
bipartisan effort, have introduced a companion bill in the Senate, and
they have many cosponsors. The bill has a great deal of support because
it is the right thing to do and will demonstrate our commitment to
working families.
To those who say we cannot afford to do it, I say we can't afford not
to do it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. We need to catch up with the rest of the
world, as 169 countries already provide some form of paid leave. One
hundred sixty-nine countries cannot be wrong.
It is time for America to show that we value families, that we
support families. We need to turn our rhetoric into the reality of a
vote in support of this bill that will move forward with 4 weeks of
paid leave for Federal workers. It's the right thing to do.
I urge a strong bipartisan vote.
I thank the staff on the Joint Economic Committee, my staff, the
committee staff. They are important. They helped us move this bill to
the floor today. Thank you for all of your hard efforts.
I also want to thank Nan Gibson and Heather Boushey of my Joint
Economic Committee staff, who have both worked tirelessly on this bill,
providing excellent research and expertise.
Finally, I want to thank Michelle Ash and Mark Stephenson of the
Oversight Committee whose commitment to this issue and this bill have
been critical to getting here today.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield as much time as he would
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H5599]]

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. Dr. Brazelton,
the leading pediatrician in the country, has said that upon the birth
of a child, the connection between a mother and a newborn begins with
the first breath and touch of the child, literally, the bonding process
begins.
In 1993, when this issue first came up, I voted the other way. I was
on the wrong side of the issue. I would remind Members of the Congress
that two of the best Members of Congress that I have ever served with
were for this bill. Congressman Henry Hyde, who was a giant, and I
would say one of the more pro-family people here in this Congress, and
also former Senator Dan Coats, who was ranking Republican on the Select
Committee on Children, Youth and Families, both voted for the Family
Leave Act at that time.
I would urge Members to support this, because the bonding process and
the immediacy and opportunity for mom to spend time with that child at
the very, very beginning is very, very important.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. First I want to thank Congressman Davis and
Congresswoman Maloney for this excellent, excellent bill. Thank you,
and I know that it has been 10 years in the working, and I also know it
is time that it passed.
Mr. Speaker, investing in our working families is the very best way
we can strengthen our workforce, our economy, and our country. I am the
chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and, as
the leader of that committee, and with the hearings we have held, we
have learned that the most generous leave policies don't help families
who cannot afford to take leave without pay. It's as simple as that.
As a Nation, we must support working families, and we can do that by
providing them with the help they need to balance their work and their
family. No parent should ever be forced to choose between the needs of
their family and the needs of their job or the possible loss of that
job.
I look forward to the day that my own legislation, the Balancing Act,
will be passed. The Balancing Act provides working families the help
they need to balance work and family, paid leave, increased child care,
voluntary universal preschool, school breakfast, afterschool programs,
and incentives for flexible work schedules.
If children are lucky enough to have two parents, both parents are
probably in the workforce. They are working long hours, they are
commuting long distances, and these very same parents are working to
put food on the table.
They put food on the table, but they are quite often not able to be
there to eat that food with their families. H.R. 5781 is a perfect
example of what we must do as a Nation. It is a step in the right
direction. It will prove how important it is to provide leave with pay.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the two previous speakers on our side spoke in
favor of the bill.
I would like to honor their speaking in favor of the bill by saying
that the bill is well intended, even if it is fatally flawed. People
are talking about 10 years of wanting to achieve what they hope to
achieve here today.
I would say to you and certainly would ask that Federal workers take
note of what we do here today. We are not talking about making sure
that someone who has a child or adopts a child has the opportunity to
take the time off for bonding. We already ensure 12 weeks of that and
have for that decade.
We are not talking here about anything except as it is presently
written and not allowed to be amended, a bill that simply grants 4
weeks every single year to those individuals who choose to have a
child, who choose to take time off in relation to a sick Federal
employee, as was originally presented, or, more importantly, someone
who takes on a foster child.
Now I am all for people taking on foster children, but let's look at
this from a practical standpoint. You are running a Federal department.
You have somebody who you need, and every single year, as often
happens, they take on a new foster child that they keep for 3 to 5
years and they have, let's say, three foster children. That means that
that individual will be gone on paid leave over and above their
vacation, over and above their 13 days of sick leave a year, they are
going to be gone 4 weeks every year, conceivably for a full 20 years.
So by having not just the birth, of a woman, but the husband, and not
just birth, but foster children, we can conceivably go so far beyond
the $850 million scoring, we could easily end up in the tens of
billions of dollars.
Let's consider our Federal workers at a time when we are considering
whether this is appropriate to do. Our Federal workers receive 13 days
of sick leave a year. Our Federal workers can accumulate those for 6
months, meaning that when they retire, as is often the case, Federal
workers simply don't show up to work for the last 6 months. The reason?
They are using up their sick leave. They can't be paid for it. They
additionally have in the neighborhood of 2 weeks plus of vacation that
they can cash out if they don't use it.
Now, in the private sector, it is not, in almost any case, a use-it-
or-lose-it policy on sick leave. Additionally, a little-known practice,
but well used in the Federal service, is the giving away of somebody's
sick leave. For example, if somebody in your department or somebody in
your organization or the Federal Government were to take on a foster
child, there can be a campaign to raise sick leave for that individual
so that they would not be unpaid if they had a need for it. No problem,
but it comes out of the bank of 13 days per employee per year.

{time} 1230

What this bill seeks to do is to grant something that is almost
unheard of here in Congress or in the private sector.
And I would like to take a little exception with the gentlelady from
New York; we did go and look at the existing programs, and there is no
support for 86 percent of House offices provide paid leave, not at all.
Paid parental leave as a written policy does not exist in many of the
offices, and I would ask the gentlelady to bring proof of her statement
because quite frankly she has been misled if she thinks 86 percent of
House offices have a formal written policy granting already this
privilege that we seek to grant here this year.
The scoring, as I said, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. It is not going to be
$850 million, it will be billions of dollars. It will be billions of
dollars at a time when Americans are being laid off. It will be
billions of dollars at a time when Fortune 100 companies offering
either pregnancy-related or disability leave, it is less than one-third
of the Fortune 100 companies, which are the most wealthy, most generous
companies in America, and less than one-third typically will offer
that.
The fact is that unpaid parental leave has become widespread. The
leadership of the U.S. House and Senate in passing a bill that granted
that to Federal workers is to be commended. The opportunity at one's
expense using one's resources to take care of and bond in regards to a
choice such as a birth or adoption of a child, is commendable and has
become widespread.
If this becomes widespread, we might someday look back and commend
it. But today, what we are doing is we are offering Federal workers,
workers who, like ourselves, are often chastised by people in the
private sector who have to make a payroll, are being given things which
they cannot afford.
As is often said on the House floor, 44-plus million Americans don't
have health care, and yet we are asking that every Federal worker, in
addition to 13 days of paid sick leave, accumulable or borrow-able or
giveaway-able, be granted additionally another, what is basically twice
that amount, each and every year if they choose to use it.
Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong to do it. In committee we
aggressively tried to amend this to allow them to use resources already
available more flexibly. Those were voted down on primarily a party-
line basis.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in anticipation of more
things that need to be corrected on the House floor.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to

[[Page H5600]]

the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. In response to my good friend on the other
side of the aisle, I referenced the 2006 U.S. Senate Employment
Compensation Hiring and Benefits Study and the 2006 House Compensation
Study which has the numbers that I was using on the floor. So we have
that documentation for the record.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such
time as he might consume to the stellar chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid
Parental Leave Act, gives dedicated civil servants a long-overdue
benefit: parental leave on the birth or adoption of a child.
Under this bill, Federal employees will, for the first time, be
offered 4 weeks of paid parental leave on the birth or adoption of a
child. If needed, employees will also be allowed to use their accrued
sick leave for additional paid leave.
I was taken aback by the arguments from my colleague from California
(Mr. Issa) that we run the risk of people becoming foster parents each
year presumably to get this extra 4 weeks of paid leave. I think that
foster parents do an enormous good in providing a home to children who
otherwise would not have a place to live. And they, by the way, under
existing Federal law, can have paid Federal leave under their sick pay.
But if a parent has a natural-born child, they may not use their sick
leave nor do they get paid leave for that period of time to bond with
the newborn.
Federal employees are entitled to those 12 weeks of unpaid leave
under the existing Family and Medical Leave Act. What this bill does is
say for the first 4 weeks, this leave will be paid.
The Federal Government is a model employer in many areas. Federal
health benefits are often lauded as a model for the rest of the
country. Many people say all Americans ought to have the same health
care benefits as Federal employees. We have the Federal Thrift Savings
Plan which is often cited as a model of what a 401(k) plan ought to be.
But one area where the Federal Government has lagged behind for years
is in providing parental leave to its employees. If this becomes law,
and I sure hope it will be, we will be able to attract and retain the
best employees for the Federal workforce. It means when a Federal
agency recruits new employees, they won't have to have one hand tied
behind their back because they can't offer leave for the birth of a
child, as many private sector companies do.
I think this is a pro-family measure, and I was pleased to hear that
our colleague, Congressman Hyde, had always supported this family leave
to be paid for Federal employees.
When you look at the civilian workforce for the Department of
Defense, they don't get this ability to be at home with the child for
the first 4 weeks and have it paid for, but a military family will be
allowed under existing law to stay home under paid leave for maternity
or adoption. It is unfair to have in one case an employee working next
to another employee, both for the same government, and one is allowed
to take the leave and have it paid for, and the other has to take the
leave and not have it paid for. The loss of income is important to many
of these families and they don't want to have that loss of income. We
shouldn't put them in that kind of position where we force them to
perhaps cut it short and get back to work.
I want to commend Representatives Danny Davis and Carolyn Maloney for
their efforts on this bill, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave
Act of 2008. Without their leadership it wouldn't be on the floor
today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Tom Davis for his support
for this legislation and his constructive work in offering an amendment
that we agreed to in committee to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. He
has been a steadfast champion of the rights of Federal employees,
especially those that support families.
I urge my colleagues, support this bill. We don't know yet what the
motion to recommit will be, but if it is one of these motions to kill
the bill or to come in with something that is not sustainable, I would
hope that my colleagues would vote against it and vote for final
passage of this legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the majority providing us reference to the 2006 House
Compensation Study that shows even with other people's money, and
perhaps no guidance on how to spend it, about 20 percent of the House
offices offer little or no, or actually offer no paid leave.
The amazing thing to me is we are here today talking about a new paid
leave. I just want to explain for a moment, when congressional offices
choose to do paid leave, they do so out of a fixed budget. The majority
would have you believe here that we are going to do this out of some
fixed budget. We are not. This is going to run up the cost of every
office that does everything, from post offices to the Secret Service to
the IRS. It is going to run up the cost of these Federal employees. It
is going to run it up by quite a bit.
With all due respect to my colleague from California, I am not
implying that having foster families is bad; just the opposite, it's
good. The question is if you have an active foster parent family and
they are being given 4 weeks of paid leave, who is to assume that they
won't take it. I believe they will. That will mean for every 12 people
doing it, you will have basically the need for an additional Federal
worker with all the compensation and benefits that go with it. That is
the reality we have here today.
In committee we attempted unsuccessfully to have this be fiscally
responsible, recognizing that there are 13 days of paid sick leave
every year, fully accumulable so that a typical worker need only borrow
from the sick leave that they were eventually going to cash out by not
coming to work the last 6 months they are in the Federal workforce,
simply use it for this.
I am not implying that the birth of a child is sick, but it is fully
usable under the amendments we tried to offer. So it is a little
disingenuous for my colleague from California to say that the military
can use it and somehow Federal workers couldn't. That could have been
taken care of in committee, and it was clearly fought on a partisan
basis.
The fact is this bill should be before us today clarifying and taking
care of some technical problems in the families being able to take full
advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act by being able to use all
of their sick leave, perhaps even borrow against future sick leave,
which was proposed, and in fact have their colleagues give them sick
leave in order to facilitate their staying home for those 4 weeks or
more and not be without pay.
The fact is we are here today dealing with a problem which we should
not be spending new money on at a time when the Federal deficit and the
Federal spending is far in excess of what the private sector can
afford. As people here in Washington and people in California find it
impossible to make ends meet with $5 a gallon gasoline, it is
irresponsible for us to be adding this multibillion-dollar perk at a
time in which, with only technical corrections, we could have provided
these people the opportunity to use resources they already had in the
way of sick leave and vacation.
With all due respect to Federal workers, I think the majority of
Federal workers would say that if they had their choice of this many
billions of dollars of new spending, they would just as soon get it up
front in pay and they would care of their choices in children, adopted
or natural birth, they would take care of it out of their sick leave if
they were given the additional dollars. So I think in fact we are doing
them a disservice, if we are going to spend the money, of not spending
it straightforward in a proper way, and I look forward to attempts to
make this technically correct.
And I once again regret that the Rules Committee chose not to allow
these technical amendments not to be even considered, but in fact have
kept them from debate on the House floor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1
minute to the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Representative Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. If we are going to pay in a straightforward way, let's
provide

[[Page H5601]]

parental leave and not require people to take it out of their sick
leave which they cannot do now, and have that leave paid for. This
ought to be for newborn and adopted children and their parents, and we
ought to provide this.
I can imagine there might have been a time when people would have
said, ``Why should we allow people to be able to take off 2 weeks of
vacation a year? Some employers do it, others don't. This is just too
radical.''
Well, now no one thinks it is radical to have 2 weeks of vacation a
year at least, and I don't think it is radical, I think it is pro-
family, in fact, to allow parents to bond with their children and be
able to have 4 weeks paid. That is straightforward; 4 weeks paid leave
for maternity or paternity and not to hide it in the sick leave, which
they may need at some future time if they have an illness. Having a
baby is not an illness.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Sick
leave of Federal workers is not limited to people who are sick. The
common practice at the end of a career of simply retiring 6 months
early to use up accrued sick leave speaks loudly to the fact that sick
leave is simply 13 additional days that can be used on a discretionary
basis.
The chairman of the full committee knows this very well. And, in
fact, we attempted to make it explicit that not only would you be able
to use your 13 days plus any accrual, but even borrow in order to make
this fiscally neutral, fiscally responsible at this time.

{time} 1245

This bill is not about whether or not we allow people to take 4, 6, 8
or 12 weeks of paid leave. In fact, we were more than willing to have
the entire 12 weeks of family medical leave be usable, to be able to
use its current or even borrow some of its future sick leave.
What this bill is doing here today is saying, you get to keep 3, 4, 5
months of sick leave you already have in the bank. You get to keep your
many weeks of vacation, and you get this additional amount. This is
something the American people are not prepared to pay for. If we're
going to be responsible, we're not going to make the American people
pay for this additional back-door increase at this time.
The majority knows this very well, so I, again, repeat, it is
disingenuous to say that they can't use their sick leave. In fact, that
was something that could have been handled in committee, would have
been handled by the amendments that were not ruled in order by the
Rules Committee on a purely partisan basis.
In fact, we are considering a bill today that is designed to cost the
American people money.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1
minute to a strong proponent and defender of workers rights, Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Davis from Illinois for
yielding. I particularly want to thank my good friend, Carolyn Maloney,
the distinguished Representative from New York, who has been such a
giant on behalf of this issue and family issues generally.
Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body, from the most conservative to
the most liberal, shares the conviction that the surest way to improve
the quality of life in our Nation is to strengthen our families. Strong
families enhance well-being, improve children's self-esteem, and
significantly increase the odds that children will succeed in school
and grow up to be good parents themselves.
Study after study shows that a strong predictor of child well-being
is the degree to which a parent and child bond in the first months of a
child's birth. The more constant and nurturing that bond is in the
early months of life, the better off the child will be down the road.
That is why this is such an incredibly important piece of legislation.
The Federal Government, in many ways, as an employer, has been a
leader, not a follower, a leader in efforts to ensure positive employee
policies. In fact, the private sector has adopted many of these same
policies.
We all know that the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act has been an
outstanding success in helping to promote healthy families. So this is
not so much about the mother or the father, it is about the child, and
the sense of well-being and groundedness that the child has.
Unfortunately, all too often people who have availed themselves of
the law to take care of their newborns, or care for ailing parents,
have had to make economic sacrifices because the Family and Medical
Leave Act does not entitle anyone to receive an income.
Now, very frankly, it's all good and well for most of us, or all of
us that serve in this body to say, well, we could take off 6 weeks
without pay. Most of us could do that. Certainly my good friend Mr.
Issa could do that. I could do it.
But very frankly, I have three daughters, and they may be able to
rely on Dad to help them do it, but if Dad were not able to do it, they
would not be able to do it. They've all had the opportunity to spend
time with my three grandchildren as those grandchildren were born in
early years, and that was not only beneficial to my grandchildren, it
was beneficial to the community in which they will live.
Currently, the Federal Government does not provide paid parental
leave to its employees. Employees must use accrued annual and sick
leave if they want to maintain an income stream while they're out.
By providing 4 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees, which, by
the way, most Members of Congress already do, for their employees for
the birth and adoption of a child, H.R. 5781 recognizes that economic
security is a critical ingredient in ensuring that parental leave
succeeds.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer.
It should set a strong, positive example for how the needs of the
workplace and the needs of the employees can be balanced, and indeed,
the needs of the children can be met. H.R. 5781 is an important step in
doing just that.
Again, I congratulate Carolyn Maloney, who has been a real leader on
this effort for her entire career in the Congress of the United States.
I'm so pleased to be her ally in this effort.
I also want to turn to my friend, Tom Davis, who himself has been a
giant, along with Frank Wolf, and a partner of mine, in promoting the
well-being and appropriate benefits for our Federal employees, on whom
this country relies in so many ways to give them a government that is a
partner with our private sector in maintaining the greatest country on
the face of the earth. And I thank Mr. Davis for his leadership.
I'm sorry Mr. Davis will be leaving us at the end of the year and
will not be serving in the next Congress. And I will say, I am sure,
many times, how beneficial his service has been to Federal employees,
and how beneficial his service has been to the Washington metropolitan
region and, indeed, to the country. And I thank him for his leadership
on this particular effort.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I think the leadership said it very well. Of
course, they didn't say anything about what we're actually doing here
today. This isn't about family unity or bonding. It isn't about mom and
dad or the child. This is about a new spending, a new irresponsible
spending proposal coming from the Democrats after they promised us
fiscal responsibility.
The fact is, we will have our taxes raised. The American people will
pay for this in higher taxes in the coming years. They will pay for
this after we said it was about your family.
The reality is that there will be layoffs in the private sector.
There will be people in the private sector who say, with these new
taxes, can we still afford to have health care benefits while, in fact,
Federal workers who not only enjoy good health care benefits, good
vacation policies, also get more than 2\1/2\ weeks a year to be sick.
Now, when the American people discover that an organization, the U.S.
government, gives their people 2\1/2\ weeks to be sick, and allows them
to accrue 6 months of that in case they're ever really sick for a long
period of time, and does not require a physician's proof that they
actually are sick, and then, when given the opportunity to say, let's
use these 2\1/2\ plus weeks a year of sick benefits, since they're
usable for anything you want to use in the way of time off, let's use

[[Page H5602]]

them for time off when you have a child, that, in fact that was turned
down as not good enough by the Democrat majority.
It was turned down as clearly we have to add the dollars on top of
this, wrongfully estimating $850 million when, in fact, this is
billions. This could be fiscally responsible and family-oriented by
simply allowing this well-accrued sick leave to be used for this, since
it's going to be either used for sick leave, or it's going to be used
at the end of a career or before someone leaves government as a general
practice. It is seldom simply not used and turned back in.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the Democrat leader, that, in
fact, this new expense leading to new taxes is, in fact, something that
he supports, but calls it family-oriented. It's not family-oriented to
the taxpayers in America, to the private sector. It is simply family-
oriented to big government.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3
minutes to another Member who is actively engaged in workers' rights
issues, Representative Chris Van Hollen from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Davis, for all he has done to support Federal
employees and workers around this country.
Congratulations to Congresswoman Maloney for her leadership on this
issue over many years. And congratulations on bringing this bill to the
floor today. And to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Waxman,
thank you for all your efforts as well.
I want to join my colleague, the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, in
also commending our colleagues from the Virginia side of the river, Mr.
Tom Davis, who's on the floor, as well as Congressman Frank Wolf. We've
all worked very well together on issues supporting Federal employees
and trying to make the Federal Government a model employer, an employer
we can be proud of, and someone that tries to set the standard, rather
than bring up the rear when it comes to policies for employees and the
workforce.
As I think people understand, we are going to face a severe shortage
of Federal workers going into the future. Indeed, over the next 5
years, nearly a third of the 1.6 million boomer age members of the
Federal workforce are expected to retire. We're going to need hundreds
of thousands of new workers to replace those departing Federal
employees, and it's going to be essential that we attract new, young
workers into the Federal workforce in order to continue the job that
they need to do for the American people. And that's one of the reasons
why this is an important measure that we need to follow up on.
This is a benefit that is currently enjoyed by employees of most of
the Fortune 100 companies today, so we are playing catch-up here at the
Federal Government level. We are trying to compete with those in the
private sector that are saying to young people, come work for us
because we're going to provide you a benefit that doesn't require you
to choose between taking a little bit of time to care for your newborn
child, and getting a paycheck to help pay for your mortgage or for your
rent or putting food on your table. And we think that it's important
that people not have to make that choice. So yes, this is a very
family-oriented, family-friendly measure.
Don't let anybody kid you, because we don't want people applying to
the Federal Government to have to say, well, I'm not going to join
because I'm going to be losing money to stay home for a short period of
time to take care of a newborn child. I can go work at one of those
other companies.
This is a time when we need more folks working in the Federal
Government on critical issues like homeland security, like defense,
like medical research. We need to replace those individuals who are
leaving so that we can make sure that we have a vibrant Federal
Government that can address the needs that we've asked of our Federal
employees.
I congratulate, again, Congresswoman Maloney, the chairman of the
subcommittee, chairman of the full committee. And I urge my colleagues
to adopt what is a very family-friendly measure. We should be leading
by example at the Federal level.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
correct the Record.
Mr. Speaker, less than one-third of Fortune 100 companies offer
fathers paid leave. Approximately half offer some amount of disability
or pregnancy leave in the birth of a natural child. So when you mix and
match the richest companies in this country you're going to get less
than a third offer anything close to what we're offering here today,
not more than half. We're not following.
In fact, when you quote the Fortune 100, by definition, what you're
quoting are the very large companies that are normally disparaged by my
Democrat colleagues as gouging the public on making too much on oil and
other resources.
In fact, what we normally talk about on the House floor and pay
tribute to are the small businesses, the entrepreneurial, mom and pop
businesses. They're not giving this. They can't afford to.
As a matter of fact, a big part of the 44 million uninsured are
because small businesses can't afford health care. They can't afford
health, dental, eyeglass. And yet we're giving this benefit.
Now, there was a proposal Mr. Van Hollen said that I think was very
appropriate. We do have boomers retiring. In committee we have talked
about ways to extend the careers of those baby boomers. The easiest
way, one which would be fiscally responsible, as a matter of fact, it
would even be a benefit to us and to them, those 6 months that are
often used as terminal leave on a retiring senior member of government,
if we would simply pay them those 6 months when they retire, it would
be the least expensive way to get six additional months from the baby
booming retired workforce.

{time} 1300

That proposal is dead on arrival apparently for the Democrat
majority. That proposal would be a way to extend these significant
amount of Federal workers at the time we need them most, which is when
they really are senior people able to pass on to the next generation.
That soft landing, dead on arrival.
A new costly program, one that less a third of Fortune 100 companies,
the richest companies, can even afford in fact is what we're being
faced with here today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
Representative Maloney of New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my
distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle. I have heard
heartbreaking stories from real Federal workers who would strongly
disagree with you. I will give one example from a woman who had to go
back to work with an open wound due to a C-section while giving birth.
And it is not possible to use your paid sick leave. Sick leave is for
when you're sick. And by our guidelines, you can use it only when you
are incapacitated, when you're in the hospital, or bedridden. And it
takes a long time to accrue these.
Now, in terms of costs, the score from the Congressional Budget
Office estimates that in 2010, the first full year that this could be
implemented, it will cost roughly $190 million. To put this in
perspective, this is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal
payroll. The cost estimate predicts that approximately 17,000 women and
23,000 men who have worked for the Federal Government for at least a
year and will have a child in the course of a year.
They assumed that mothers will take advantage of this benefit 100
percent of the time, and men roughly 50 percent of the time. This
amounts to approximately 1 percent of the Federal workforce using this
benefit at a given year.
There are also potential cost savings that can't be estimated by CBO.
Providing this benefit will likely improve retention rates for Federal
employees. Research shows that women who have access to paid leave, not
just unpaid leave, are more likely to return to their jobs after having
a child; and access to family leave can also improve productivity and
morale. For example, in my office, I offer 12 weeks of paid parental
leave to new parents on my staff. I have two current employees

[[Page H5603]]

who have used my leave policy twice. Both have been with my office for
many years, and I attribute the longevity of their employment to my
family leave benefit.
Additionally, in my office we've been able to offer this benefit at
no additional cost to taxpayers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I repeat, it has not cost the taxpayer one
cent. We have not added additional staff but rather redistributed the
work among the rest of the staff. While it does create more work for
others, it has also given junior staff members opportunities to assume
more responsibility, and it was a relatively smooth transition.
The costs of this bill are relatively small compared to the positive
effect that it will have on the lives of working families in the
Federal Government. How many times have we heard the words ``family
values'' from the other side of the aisle? It is time to turn family
values into a reality in the lives of the workforce, and this is a way
that we can help Federal workers, the largest employer in the United
States, and make this important event in one's life, becoming a parent,
really a joyous one in which they do not have to be stressed.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, it's amazing that the gentlelady from New York would make
the case that this isn't going to cost much. Of course, no dynamic
scoring. They're sort of just looking at track history and then want
the dynamic scoring for some intangible savings in Federal worker
retention. It's very clear this is going to cost $850 million or more
and that it is likely to grow.
More importantly, I'm not somebody who spends a lot of time preaching
family values from the dais. But if we're going to talk family values
here today, let's talk them. Family values are about family making
sacrifices to make things work. Unlike the gentlelady, I find that her
example is an excellent example for my point, not her point. No Federal
worker is forced to come back with an open wound. In fact, that woman
would have been allowed to continue getting paid leave.
Additionally, with more than 2\1/2\ weeks of accrued paid medical
leave every year, there is no reason that she wouldn't have likely had
accruals in her own bank. I love anecdotal examples because they
usually make the case for the person delivering them; I would say just
the opposite. This woman didn't have to come back. She could use
medical leave, and contrary to what the gentlelady from New York is
saying, Federal workers are allowed to use their medical, their sick
leave in other ways, and they do regularly.
Additionally, there is a whole system within the Federal workforce
not really understood by the private sector but supported by this
Member which is I can put my unused sick leave into banks to help
others. I can even put my vacation, under certain circumstances, in
banks to help others. So Federal workers can, in fact, share this very
generous more than 2\1/2\ weeks of sick leave and 2 weeks of vacation
if they choose to.
So when we talk about the Federal family, the Federal family has
plenty of resources to help with this.
What we're talking about here is a multibillion-dollar new spending
program at a time of recession, at a time of threatened tax increases
by the Democrat majority, and at a time when the American people are
striving just to fill up the tank with gas and try to figure out how to
pay health care benefits. We're looking at new opportunities to
increase our own well being.
But we don't and shouldn't come first. The taxpayers and hardworking
men and women out there come first. So for this Member, I'm going to
tell you I'm not going to put us first, I'm going to put the taxpayers
first and vote against this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time
we have left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 4 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 6.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman
from California if he is prepared to close.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if he has no other
speakers.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, so if
the gentleman will close.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the time I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you have noticed I have spoken with great passion here
today about this bill. I would wish that I could be speaking with the
passion in the positive, because the Federal workers deserve a bill
that we didn't bring to the floor today. They deserve one that would
allow for flexibility of sick leave, transferability, transparently to
people who are having families, whether by adoption or by natural
birth. That is what we should be bringing to the floor.
We could do so at a time of shortages around the country at no cost
to the taxpayer. We could do it exactly the way the gentlelady from New
York described. Mrs. Maloney does not get new money for a new perk for
her people. She chooses within a budget to in fact provide that
benefit. And I commend her for that, and I commend the other Members
who make decisions how to allocate a fixed pie of money, whether it's
to go on sending constituent mail or providing paying benefits to the
employees that answer the mail from constituents.
So today we are not being given the bill we should be given. The bill
we should give is to guarantee the ability to not lose pay when taking
family medical leave but to use resources that are already available
within the Federal system. That's not happening today. I regret that
that's not happening. Had we been allowed to bring the amendments that
we wanted to bring, we would have accomplished that. Had we been
allowed to even bring the technical corrections that would have made
this a less-imperfect bill, one that would not cause deadbeat dads to
be able to take advantage of this, we would be doing that. We're not
allowed to do that today. I regret that.
I hope that this bill is defeated here and/or in the Senate and that
we can bring up a truly bipartisan bill, one that would pass, quite
frankly, on suspension if it was structured right, and would provide
Federal workers this opportunity without additional costs to the
taxpayers.
I thank the Speaker, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle for a spirited debate.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself the rest of
our time to close.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a rather spirited discussion and debate, and
I'm reminded of the fact that we often compare public employees with
private employees. And I know that we have amongst us Members who like
the idea of downsizing government, of privatizing operations, of
outsourcing activities. I believe that our public employees can in fact
be the best that we help and allow them to become.
I believe that we can recruit the best and the brightest. But I also
believe that if you want production, then you have to make sure that
you are treating your employees fairly. Let's be clear. Federal
employees are only able to accumulate a maximum of 30 days of annual
leave, not an adequate amount of time for purposes of providing care
for a newborn or adopted child.
Early in their careers when they're earning only 13 to 20 days per
year, accumulating even 30 days is nearly impossible. Yet the early
years of one's career usually coincide with the time that they decide
to have children. And so it's the young, new employees who have not
accumulated a great deal of time, who, in many instances, are either
giving birth or adopting children.
So if we're going to be able to recruit, we have to try and make sure
that we can attract.
We also need to be family friendly. Not only do we need this bill,
but in reality, we really need childcare centers in all of our
agencies. We need daycare programs so that people who have to work can
know that there is the adequacy of opportunity to care for their
children.
So providing this legislation the opportunity to live, providing
individuals who are bearing children or adopting children the time that
they need to bond with a newborn or to bond with

[[Page H5604]]

an adopted child I think is not only a rational, sensible approach but
I also want to extend commendations again to my colleague from New
York, Representative Carol Maloney, who has led the fight on this issue
for such a long time. And it is as a result of her tremendous efforts
and the great work of our staffs that we are here this afternoon
preparing to move another step towards making sure that we have the
kind of workforce that our Federal Government needs. You can't lead
where you don't go. And you can't teach what you don't know.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking
Representative Maloney for her dedicated work to ensure 4 weeks of paid
parental leave for Federal employees. H.R. 5781 is a significant step
forward to ensuring the well-being of our Nation's children and
parents.
Furthermore, under this bill Federal employees can use up to 8
additional weeks of accrued sick leave in connection with the birth or
adoption of a child.
Paid parental leave benefits have many beneficial aspects for our
workforce. Perhaps the most important aspect of paid parental leave is
that it gives parents the ability to take care of the vital needs of
their child without incurring the financial hardships associated with
unpaid leave. Working families employed by the Federal Government
should not have to choose between their child's well-being and their
financial stability.
Paid parental leave has also been shown to provide increased
productivity and employee morale. Additionally, it will have the
important effect of helping to recruit and maintain the highest quality
workforce.
Copious research confirms what common sense tells us: it is important
for parents to have time to bond with and attend to the health and
development of their children. Our families and communities are better
off when parents are able to have this critical time with their
children.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. The legislation will provide
a necessary update to the current statute and takes an important step
forward for workers rights and benefits. As one of the original
cosponsors of this legislation during the past several sessions of
Congress, I am pleased that the leadership is moving the bill for
consideration before the full House of Representatives.
Since its first passage in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act has
provided Federal employees with unpaid leave to care for families,
allowing for time off at the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a
child. Upon the completion of this leave, Federal employees can return
to their position without penalty. Now, 15 years later, the law needs
to be updated to reflect the changing needs of families.
The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008 does just that.
This new act guarantees at a minimum 4 weeks of paid leave to Federal
employees--both fathers and mothers--to care for new children in their
families.
This additional benefit is vital because of the need for the Federal
Government to compete with the private sector for quality recruits and
retaining experienced employees. At one time, the Federal Government
provided the best benefits, but it is falling sorely behind in this
area. Currently, 75 percent of Fortune 100 Companies provide paid leave
to new mothers. Further, the United States is the only industrialized
country that does not provide benefits to its employees with new
children.
As the Federal workforce ages and begins to experience anticipated
shortages in critical skills, we must rely on our benefits rather than
pay to attract and retain new employees. Studies show that new parents
who have access to leave when their first child is born are more likely
to stay with their employer than those who do not. Moreover, retention
of these employees easily compensates for the extra leave this
legislation provides. The average cost of turnover in a position is
about 20 percent of an employee's annual salary. On the other hand, 4
weeks of paid leave costs less than 8 percent of an employee's salary.
Finally, this legislation recognizes key changes to the American
economy. Most families no longer have a stay-at-home parent, and with
the average middle class family spending nearly $11,000 on infant
expenses, they cannot afford any amount of unpaid leave. With the
current economic downturn, working families simply cannot afford to
take any time off while paying childcare expenses along with increased
food and fuel prices. Something in the system has to provide some
relief to these new parents, and with this legislation, we can provide
some help.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to
support the Federal Employees Paid Leave Act of 2008.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5781, the
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, which would provide 4 weeks
of paid parental leave and 8 weeks of unpaid leave for all Federal
employees after the birth or adoption of a child. Under this measure,
these employees may also use accrued annual or sick leave to receive
compensation for the unpaid weeks. Currently, employees may take up to
12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care
for a newborn or adopted child.
H.R. 5781 will help the United States Government compete with the
private sector in order to recruit the best and brightest employees and
retain that talent. In 2007, a Government Accountability Office report
found that countries offering paid parental leave experienced increased
employee retention and a reduction in the amount of time women spend
out of the workforce. Disappointingly, the GAO also reported that the
U.S. lags behind other industrial nations in providing policies that
support working parents and their children. In fact, 169 countries
guarantee women leave with income in connection with childbirth.
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that women are more likely to work
before and after pregnancy than they were 30 to 40 years ago, and
Congress must legislate according to the changing makeup of our
workforce. So far, we have not met that mark. I know that many of my
colleagues have already met or exceeded the requirements of this bill,
and I applaud their efforts. I know from firsthand experience that
allowing new parents guaranteed paid leave helps balance the demands
between work and family. For the hard work they provide for us, we owe
our employees the time to enjoy the bonds that matter most in their
lives.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is time
that the Federal Government sets the standard for working parent
policies.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today, with the passage
of H.R. 5781, The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008,
Congress will finally recognize the vital importance of providing paid
parental leave to millions of families who want to start a family.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney who first
introduced this legislation and urge my colleagues to support this
important measure.
Currently, there is no paid Federal parental leave policy. If Federal
employees wish to start a family or expand their family, they must take
unpaid leave or cash in their sick or vacation days so that they may
continue receiving an income while they are at home.
With the rising prices of food and gas, unpaid leave poses an even
greater economic hardship for working families, not to mention the
extra costs that are associated with providing for a newborn.
Unfortunately, the absence of a family leave policy for Federal
workers forces mothers and fathers choose what is more important:
either stay at home with their infant and forgo a steady income or head
back to work without spending adequate recovery or bonding time with
their newborn.
The Federal Government lags behind the private sector in this area.
The current lack of a parental leave policy for our Federal employees
impairs efforts to hire and retain the best and the brightest our
Nation has to offer.
Family-friendly policies like guaranteed paid leave not only help
parents balance work and family, but will also help ease our, impending
Federal personnel crisis. Federal employers will benefit from increased
retention rates, decreased absenteeism, and improved productivity.
Several States have taken the lead to provide coverage for employees.
In fact, over 6 years ago, California successfully enacted a paid
parental leave law and it has been a great success. New Jersey recently
passed a similar law in April and several other States even cover
maternity under their disability insurance laws.
H.R. 5781 seeks to amend the current Federal family leave policy by
allowing mothers and fathers up to 4 weeks of paid lave for the birth
or adoption of a child. Federal employees should not have to make
choice between their family and their job but should be covered under a
fair, paid parental eave policy.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5781, The Federal Employees Paid
Parental Leave Act.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5781,
the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.
It is long overdue for our Nation's largest employer, the Federal
Government, to provide its employees with a more family-friendly
workplace.
It is hard to believe the United States is the only industrialized
nation that does not provide its employees with paid family leave,
especially considering 75 percent of Fortune 100 companies already
provide an average of six to eight weeks of paid parental leave.
H.R. 5781 would provide Federal employees with four weeks of paid
leave following the birth or adoption of a child. Currently, new
parents have to use vacation time, if they have it, or accept unpaid
leave to care for a new child.

[[Page H5605]]

This puts incredible economic strain on Federal employees and their
families. Considering the current economic downturn, forgoing several
weeks' pay at the same time one's household expenses increase for
newborn care leaves many families in a desperate financial situation.
Yet President Bush has again ignored the needs of the American
people, and threatened to veto this important bill based on a bogus
claim of fiscal responsibility.
During these times of economic troubles, the President's charade of
fiscal conservatism is hurting our economy, hurting our workforce, and
hurting American families.
All of us here in Congress appreciate the value and importance of
public service. Federal workers have chosen a career in public service,
and they should be rewarded with fair benefits.
It is time to finally give Federal employees the benefits they
deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' H.R. 5781.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.
As most employers will tell you, the success of their operations
depends on the quality of their employees. The same is true for the
actions of the Federal Government. Our Nation's federal employees
choose their path in government for love of country and dedication to
our common goals. On the other hand, parents need to be able to create
a bond with their new children. This bill seeks to remove the dilemma
faced by many federal employees--choosing between government service or
serving the best interests of children newly added to their families.
Under current law, federal employees are allowed up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave in a given year for the birth or adoption of a child. But
like many other Americans, many federal employees cannot afford to take
unpaid leave, especially with a new member of the family to support.
Paid sick leave may only be used for the period that a new mother has
been rendered physically incapacitated by the birth of her child,
effectively penalizing those mothers who have a healthy baby with no
complications. Federal employees can use paid vacation days, but the 13
days of annual leave after completing a full year of work, or even the
maximum 30 days of leave saved up over several years, remains a small
time frame for a parent to establish a bond with their new child.
H.R. 5781 would provide four weeks--just a single month--of paid
parental leave for federal employees to establish a bond with their new
child. It is important to note that many successful companies offer up
to twice that amount, as evidenced by the 75 percent of Fortune 100
companies that offer six to eight weeks of paid parental leave for new
mothers.
Americans want their Federal Government to operate as smoothly and as
efficiently as possible. To accomplish this, we need the highest
quality employees running it and focusing on national priorities such
as homeland security and health care. This bill will help the Federal
Government attract and maintain talented employees who value family as
much as they value serving our Nation's government.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781,
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008.
Work and family are pillars of our society, and a sensible and humane
government should seek to relieve the stresses one can place on the
other. For this reason, I am glad to support this important piece of
legislation, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008.
This Act will grant guaranteed paid parental leave to federal workers
who do not presently have it. This is especially important for younger
workers who have not had time to accrue an adequate amount of paid
leave.
Paid leave is critical to new families so that new parents can worry
about the care of their child and not their financial security. The
possibility of a relatively relaxed immediate post-natal period is
necessary for parent-child bonding, and ultimately for the well-being
of the child and the family.
This Act also makes the Federal Government a much more competitive
employer. This law is not just humane, it is necessary as a practical
matter for the Federal Government. According to a March 2008 report by
the Joint Economic Committee Majority Staff, nearly all Fortune 100
firms offer working parents some paid time off when they have a new
child. Bringing the Federal Government in line with the personnel
practices of the most competitive employers will also pay further
dividends by reducing costs related to worker turnover, replacement and
retraining.
H.R. 5781 is a necessary and welcome step in making the federal
workplace more family-friendly, and, ultimately, strengthening families
and building a just, prosperous, and healthy society. I am glad to vote
for its passage and look forward to seeing it go into effect.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I urge passage of this legislation and yield
back the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 110-718 offered by
Mr. Davis of Illinois:
Page 3, line 7, strike ``subchapter'' and insert
``subsection''.
Page 3, beginning on line 8, strike ``require--'' and all
that follows through line 17, and insert ``require that an
employee first use all or any portion of the leave described
in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) before being allowed to
use the paid parental leave described in subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (3).''.
Page 4, line 11, strike ``of the following factors'' and
insert ``of--''.
Page 4, line 13, strike ``offering paid'' and insert
``offering increased paid''.
Page 5, line 3, strike ``(4)(B)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 5, line 7, strike ``amendments'' and insert
``amendment''.
Page 5, line 17, insert ``of such Act'' after ``section
102(a)(1)(A) and (B)''.
Page 6, beginning on line 2, strike ``subparagraphs'' and
insert ``subparagraph''.
Page 6, line 20, strike ``section'' and insert
``subsection''.
Page 6, beginning on line 21, strike ``require--'' and all
that follows through page 7, line 5, and insert ``require
that an employee first use all or any portion of the leave
described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) before being
allowed to use the paid parental leave described in
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2).''.
Page 7, line 17, strike ``amendments'' and insert
``amendment''.
Page 8, line 4, strike ``Section'' and insert ``(a)
Amendment to Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.--
Section''.
Page 8, line 11, strike ``subparagraphs'' and insert
``subparagraph''.
Page 8, line 18, strike ``paragraph (1)'' and insert
``subparagraph (A)''.
Page 9, beginning on line 4, strike ``require--'' and all
that follows through line 15, and insert ``require that an
employee first use all or any portion of the leave described
in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) before being allowed to
use the paid parental leave described in clause (i) of such
subparagraph.''.
Page 9, line 20, strike ``employers'' and insert ``the
employer''.
Page 9, line 23, strike ``employers'' and insert
``employer''.
Page 10, after line 2, insert the following:
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall not be effective with respect to any birth or placement
occurring before the end of the 6-month period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Strike section 5.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1277, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while the manager's amendment being offered does not
make any substantive legislative changes to the bill's underlying
purpose, it does make in order several minor technical changes that are
designed to streamline the bill's language so that the House-passed
bill will mirror language currently being considered in the Senate.
Most of these changes involve drafting edits and modifications
through the bill's layout and structure. All of these changes are
technical in nature. However, they are important to ensuring the swift
passage of the measure.
The manager's amendment also strikes section 5 of H.R. 5781. This
section of the bill entitled ``Study'' originally directed the
Government Accountability Office to study and submit to Congress a
written report of the feasibility and desirability of offering an
insurance benefit to Federal employees not to include parental leave
that would provide wage replacement during periods related to a serious
health condition.

{time} 1315

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

[[Page H5606]]

benefit study be included in the Record.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the amendment at the desk would apply an
effective date to all provisions of the bill. H.R. 5781, as reported
out of committee, provided for two provisions of the act to go into
effect 6 months from the date of enactment of the act. All we're asking
for in the manager's amendment is that the same effective date be
applied to the remaining section of the bill, which speaks specifically
to extending paid parental leave to those that work at the Library of
Congress or the Government Accountability Office.
While the amendment I am offering this afternoon does nothing to
change these aspects of the bill, it does strengthen the measure by
clarifying and streamlining certain provisions of the bill. Therefore,
I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this simple amendment.

Government Accountability Office,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.
Hon. Danny K. Davis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Fereral Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We received your letter dated June 2,
2008, requesting that the Government Accountability Office
review the feasibility and desirability of providing an
insurance benefit to federal employees which would provide
partial or total wage replacement.
GAO accepts your request as work that is within the scope
of its authority. To fully respond to your request, GAO plans
to initiate work on this project in about five months when it
is expected that staff with the required skills will be
available. Your request has been assigned to Ms. Cynthia M.
Fagnoni, Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security. Ms. Fagnoni or a member of her team will contact
Ms. Lori Hayman to discuss the request and options for
helping you meet your needs. As applicable, we will also be
in contact with the cognizant Inspector General's office to
ensure that we are not duplicating efforts. If an issue
arises during this coordination, we will consult with you
regarding its resolution.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Fagnoni at
202-512-7202 or Ms. Elizabeth Johnston, Assistant Director,
Congressional Relations, on my staff at 202-512-6345.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Dawn,
Managing Director, Congressional Relations.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. I rise to claim time in opposition in order to engage in a
colloquy with my colleague.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Davis, I hope I understood you correctly so that I could withdraw
any objection. I, too, share a belief that the committee of
jurisdiction, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, since
we ordered the GAO to make these studies and they routinely, of course,
grant them, I don't see that it should be in the bill. But I'm a little
bit confused about whether or not your request and the acceptance
matches the study that was described in the bill.
I yield to you so you could clear that up for me.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I agree that we routinely ask the Government
Accountability Office to make studies, to provide information, to give
us the kind of information that we need, sometimes in much time, to
make the most rational, logical and adequate decisions.
We simply ask in the legislation or indicate in the legislation that
we've already asked them to do that and they have already agreed, and
that's why we asked that the letter be included indicating their
agreement.
Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, so if the gentleman would assure me
that if the GAO does not agree to do a study that is commensurate with
the one described in the legislation, that he would join with me in
asking for that nuance-specific study, then I'd be happy to withdraw
because I think his amendment is fully in order if we can assure that.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Well, if you would like, I can tell you here
is what the response from the GAO is.
``We received your letter dated June 2, 2008, requesting that the
Government Accountability Office review the feasibility and
desirability of providing an insurance benefit to Federal employees
which would provide partial or total wage replacement.''
``GAO accepts your request as work that is within the scope of its
authority.''
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw my opposition and urge
support for the amendment.
I yield back my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our
time and urge passage of this amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1277, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the
further amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Illinois.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 426]

YEAS--422

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher

[[Page H5607]]

Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Clay
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Hulshof
Loebsack
Meeks (NY)
Reynolds
Rush
Stark
Tiahrt
Wolf

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes left
in the vote.

{time} 1342

Messrs. PORTER and PEARCE and Ms. SCHWARTZ changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________