[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13034-13047]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 13035]]

     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:
       (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.

       (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:

[[Page 13036]]

       ``(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:
       (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. 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.

[[Page 13037]]

  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 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.

[[Page 13038]]

  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. 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.

[[Page 13039]]

  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 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

[[Page 13040]]

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 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

[[Page 13041]]

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 
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

[[Page 13042]]

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 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

[[Page 13043]]

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 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

[[Page 13044]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13045]]

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. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008. I am proud 
to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation.
  People should not be punished for taking the time to care for new 
additions to their families. You must take time to take care of your 
child, your family, and yourself. It makes you a better person, a 
better parent, and in the long-term--a better employee. Pressure to 
jump back into work does nothing to ease mind, body, spirit, or 
financial pressures.
  Simply said, the current policy is detrimental to many, many American 
families. The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act shows that the 
federal government actually cares about American families.
  Women who require leave to care for a new child, new employees who 
have do not have saved days, and those who have used all their leave 
suffer under the existing policy. These hard-working Americans are 
forced to choose between spending more time with their children and 
maintaining an income to support their family. Providing four weeks for 
paid parental leave and allowing existing leave to be used to care for 
new babies eases the pressures on federal employees and their families.
  H.R. 5781 is just good, common sense policy, and, Mr. Speaker, we 
must act now. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5781.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the 
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, introduced by Congresswoman 
Carolyn B. Maloney.
  The bill H.R. 5781 provides Federal employees with 4 weeks of paid 
parental leave for the birth or adoption of a child. The introduction 
of this important bill is crucial to Federal workforce and American 
families. Paid parental leave will create the opportunity for many 
employees to become new parents while keeping the balance between work 
and families. Many of those who oppose this critical bill deny not only 
the chance for happy family living, but also productivity and 
effectiveness of the Federal workforce system. Paid Parental Leave Act 
does not increase the deficit of the budget; it will be paid for 
through discretionary spending, without hurting the economy or 
taxpayers.
  In many countries all over the world, the paid parental Leave is 
introduced and supported by the government. The U.S. Federal Government 
should be an example of the family-friendly workplace policies. Members 
of Congress must understand how crucial the Federal Employees Paid 
Parental Leave Act is and must strongly support its enactment.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781, the 
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.
  The legislation gives Federal employees 4 weeks of paid leave for the 
birth or adoption of a child. Strong parental involvement plays an 
important role in raising a happy, healthy, and successful child.
  As the country's largest employer with over 1.8 million employees, 
the Federal Government should set the standard for family friendly 
workplace policies.
  I am proud to support this common-sense legislation, which promotes 
the family values that are at the core of our society while also 
setting an example for all employers across America to follow. Studies 
consistently show that paid parental leave is a smart business 
practice. Not only does paid leave help to reduce turnover, but it can 
also lead to increased productivity and better morale.
  Simply put, offering 4 weeks of paid parental leave is the right 
thing to do--especially now, when the Federal Government is struggling 
to recruit and retain qualified, young individuals. As the economic and 
industrial leaders of the world, the U.S. Government should be the 
standard bearer on issues relating to fairness and family.
  I urge the President to reconsider his misguided veto threat, and 
work with Congress to give more American parents the tools they need to 
build healthier and stronger families.
  Please vote in support of H.R. 5781.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Federal 
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.
  Currently, about 46 percent of private employers provide paid 
parental leave to their employees, but federal workers have no such 
guarantee. As a Member of the House Education and Labor Committee and a 
representative of many federal workers, this concerns me. Federal 
workers, like those in the private sector, should also have the option 
of adopting or giving birth to their own child without having to go 12 
weeks without a paycheck, which few families in our country can afford 
to do.
  Study after study shows that enabling working mothers and fathers to 
care for and bond with newly-adopted children and newborns lays the 
foundation for healthy child development and a safer, brighter future 
for our Nation. Paid leave makes it possible for workers to take time 
off without having to worry about a paycheck.
  Additionally, paid parental leave will help the federal government 
recruit and retain dedicated and talented workers. As the federal 
workforce ages, our government will be looking for new, younger 
workers. In order to attract and retain the best workers, federal 
benefits must be competitive.
  This paid leave would also save the government money by reducing 
turnover and avoiding costs associated with replacing and training new 
workers, which is approximately 25 percent of one worker's salary, 
making turnover-related costs among the most significant employer 
expenses.
  The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act will provide federal 
workers who qualify for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, 
which guarantees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, with four weeks of full pay 
for the adoption or birth of a new child, allowing parents to care for 
their newborns while continuing to make ends meet.
  This legislation takes a strong step toward creating a more family-
friendly workplace in the United States. Hopefully, in my lifetime I 
will see federal paid sick and parental leave for every worker in every 
industry in the United States. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to achieve this goal. As a father who spends every week away 
from his family serving here in the U.S. Congress, I understand how 
hard it is not to be with loved ones and to miss important events in 
their lives because of one's job.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and show American 
workers that we are committed to helping them balance their work and 
home responsibilities.
  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)

[[Page 13046]]

     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 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:

[[Page 13047]]



                             [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
     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.

                          ____________________