[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14050-14058]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 626, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAID 
                       PARENTAL LEAVE ACT OF 2009

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page 14051]]

call up House Resolution 501 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 501

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 626) to provide that 4 of the 12 weeks of 
     parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be 
     paid leave, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 
     no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 501.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 501 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, under 
a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule makes in 
order three amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each 
debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides a motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as 
a father. Nothing can replace the first few days and weeks between a 
parent and a newborn or a newly adopted child when the bond that is 
forged is critical and sets the foundation for the child's entire later 
life. It is in these first few moments that a child's emotional and 
physical health and development is established--time which cannot be 
made up for later in life once it's lost.
  Yet many parents are unable to forge this bond simply because they 
cannot afford to take unpaid leave from their jobs. In fact, a 2000 
Labor Department survey showed that 78 percent of employees chose not 
to take unpaid leave because they just couldn't afford it. And they 
certainly cannot do so in the trying economic times we face today when 
hardworking families are struggling just to get by.

                              {time}  1700

  No parent should be placed in the position of having to choose 
between bonding with their new child and forgoing these formative 
moments in their child's life in order to keep a roof over that same 
child's head or to put food on the table, especially when the fate of a 
child is ultimately at stake. This is a moral and societal situation 
that has legislators, parents and as protectors of God's children, we 
must get right.
  The Federal Government, I believe, has a moral obligation to set the 
stage for making changes across the table. We need to do more than just 
help in the care and development of a child. We must take the reins and 
lead by example. We should be setting the standard in family-friendly 
workplace policies across the Nation, not lagging behind.
  H.R. 626 is quite simple. Current law requires that new parents be 
given up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. If they wish to be paid, they 
must use any unused accrued sick time or vacation time. This bill helps 
families by providing 4 weeks of paid parental leave for Federal 
employees for the birth, adoption or fostering of a child and allowing 
employees to use that accrued vacation or sick time for that parental 
leave.
  This small change in law will hopefully entice other employers to 
follow suit but, more importantly, have an immeasurable impact on the 
countless parents and the well-being of their children.
  Madam Speaker, I can speak to this from my own experience. My dear 
wife Kathie and I have three beautiful children--one biologic and two 
that we adopted out of the foster care system. These children we love 
as much as they were our biological daughter. I will tell you from our 
own experience, however, that by adopting a child, especially one out 
of foster care, it requires special care and attention and additional 
time for bonding. This is not an option in their case. It is an 
absolute necessity. Our children--in fact, all foster children have 
faced and will continue to face significant challenges in their lives 
from the abuse that they incurred when they were in foster care. They 
will forever carry those unspeakable scars that every parent fears and 
no child should ever bear. Yet the only hope and chance that you have 
to save these children is to give them time to bond with those very new 
parents that are the ones that will be, in fact, trying to save their 
lives and rub away those scars. There is no other choice than to 
immediately give them all the love they can take and more than they've 
ever known; food, nutrition they desperately need, and the health care 
they have never had. They need the unflagging support and nurturing 
that they get from these new adoptive parents in order to establish a 
pattern of survival in their lives. I also know that without the time 
to forge this bond immediately after adoption, they have no hope of 
overcoming the enormous obstacles that they face.
  Madam Speaker, you can put a price tag on a piece of legislation, but 
you cannot put a price on the importance of not having to worry about a 
paycheck and having the full and undivided attention of both parents 
lavishing boundless love on a disadvantaged child. I can think of no 
greater gift that we can give as parents to our children than the gift 
of time. Without it, far too many children will simply slip through the 
cracks, and for many more, all hope will be lost. As legislators, it is 
our imperative that we do what is morally right, not to let hope be 
lost, but rather to let hope spring eternally and to give these 
children, who already have so many things working against them, as I 
mentioned in the case of adoption and foster care, the chance at life 
that they deserve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from 
California for yielding this time to me to discuss the proposed rule 
for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 
2009. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I've heard a lot of arguments here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. I'm not a psychologist, but I would tend to bet that 
probably more than the first 12 weeks of a child's life is very 
important to their development. I'm kind of surprised that we don't 
have evidence today that says

[[Page 14052]]

that the first 13 or 14, 16 years of a child's life is really the most 
important point, and maybe we just ought to let Federal employees take 
16 years off since that's the defining moment. There's just no reality 
with this about the first 12 weeks of a child's life. Let me tell you, 
it's about probably the first 14 or 15 years; and as a parent, I can 
tell you, I remember the first 12 weeks. I remember them very vividly 
for both of my boys. I'm sure that there is some bit about what my 
children understood about the bonding with me.
  Let's just go straight to this. This is expensive. It's going to cost 
a lot of money, and it's for Federal employees at a time when this 
Federal Government needs to be more efficient, and the people of this 
country cannot afford it. We've done without it for this number of 
years, and I'm surprised that we're doing it today in the economic 
times that we have.
  Today I will discuss my opposition to the structured rule, which 
limits debate and does not provide for the ``open and honest Congress'' 
my Democrat colleagues have always called for for the past 3\1/2\ 
years. I also rise in opposition to putting taxpayers further in debt, 
those people that don't work for the government, to pay for this new 
extension of benefits by expanding an already generous government paid 
leave.
  The economy is in a recession. Hello. Hello. Wake up, Washington. 
We're in a recession, and somebody else is going to have to pay for 
this. Oh, I know. It's about the kids. I know it's about this bonding 
for the first 12 weeks. Unemployment is at a 25-year high. Government 
spending is out of control, and individuals and retirees that have lost 
trillions in their savings and retirement are now going to have to pay 
another billion dollars for this plan. The government should be 
ensuring the future of the economy before taking on additional 
government benefits for those who have some of the greatest job 
security at the expense of the people who are paying for it, namely, 
the taxpayer.
  I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule and to this 
legislation, which would provide more government benefits to 
bureaucrats with benefits already in excess of what most hardworking 
Americans in the private sector have. I guess we're supposed to 
sacrifice a little bit more to make sure our government employees get 
more benefits.
  Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, I return to my home 
every weekend in Dallas, Texas. I have only been in this body 13 years. 
I have never spent a weekend in Washington, D.C. I go home when the 
votes end to be with my family; and I, like every Member of this body, 
love my family. We understand the importance of family and how strong 
families are to our country. Additionally, I know how hard Federal 
employees work. I honor them for their work and their devotion to the 
people of this country and the devotion to their jobs, and they do 
deserve competitive compensation and a good benefits package. At the 
same time, I believe at this time this bill sends the wrong message at 
the wrong time to working Americans, the taxpayers and their families 
that they, themselves, are struggling to sacrifice to give a select few 
in this government additional new benefits.
  In February of this year, my Democratic colleagues passed a $1.2 
trillion economic stimulus package with absolutely no--zero--Republican 
support. This was their failed attempt to provide jobs to the 
struggling economy. The U.S. has eliminated 663,000 jobs in March 
alone, an additional 563,000 in April. Over the past 12 months, the 
number of unemployed has risen by 6 million people to 13.7 million, and 
the unemployment rate has grown from 3.9 to 9 percent. We should be 
thinking about how we're going to struggle to get people employed in 
this country, not give additional benefits to government workers.
  One would think that this massive amount of spending that was done 
this year by my friends on the other side would ensure job growth, 
investment and economic output. Instead, the failed policies of the 
Democratic Party and of this administration have led to a budget 
deficit that already has been announced, it's not just $1 trillion, it 
has now grown to $1.8 trillion, about $89 billion more than was 
predicted in the President's budget. That is nearly four times the 
record set last year by my Democrat colleagues of this House. This has 
led even to the President's chief economic adviser, Dr. Christina 
Romer, while speaking on CNN to acknowledge that it is ``pretty 
realistic'' that there will be no job growth until 2010, and the U.S. 
will hit 9.5 percent rate of unemployment this year. Well, let's just 
be honest about it. The Democratic plans are that there would be 9 
percent unemployment next year. That was the Democrats' blueprint, 
their plan that was in the budget. Nine percent, that's their best 
estimate, their guess. We're going to rise to 9 percent. Well, the 
question is not whether Congress should support families but whether it 
makes sense when so many Americans are already struggling with 
unemployment rates, increased taxes, thanks to our good friends in the 
Democrat majority, and an economic recession in the 3 years that the 
House and the Senate have been run by Democrat leadership, to increase 
their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, 
especially in light of the fact that government workers, in my opinion, 
have not even asked for it.
  Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle often argue 
that Federal employees need greater benefits to be more competitive 
with private industry. There could be truth to that. But even the 
Office of Personnel Management has determined that Federal and private 
sector benefits compare favorably, and additional benefits would not 
help with retirement and retention. Additionally, this bill does not 
assist the older workforce facing retirement since it specifically 
deals with paid leave for having a child, adopting a child or taking 
care of a foster child.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit-in-
search-of-a-problem will cost taxpayers $938 million over the next 5 
years. Madam Speaker, at a time when average hardworking American 
families are already struggling and working many, many, many more hours 
and trying to find additional income through a job that they cannot 
find to pay their bills, I don't believe it's appropriate for Congress 
to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already 
generous levels by using taxpayer dollars to do it.

                              {time}  1715

  Since June of last year, the Federal Government workforce has grown 
by 37,000 employees while the private sector has shed more than 4.4 
million jobs at the same time.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent trillions of 
the taxpayers' dollars over the past 6 months. Americans are faced with 
a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone from the Democrat majority in 
this administration. Their plan. Taxpayers are reaching a breaking 
point when it comes to subsidizing higher Federal spending at their 
expense. It is costing the free enterprise system jobs and the 
opportunity to get a job tomorrow because of the massive spending that 
is taking place by this Democrat majority.
  Responsible American families are cutting back their costs. They are 
dealing with the job loss. They are doing the things to help their 
families and their friends, and they are looking at the destruction of 
their savings and retirement accounts.
  I think it is simply wrong. It is wrong for the Democratic Party to 
move this bill. Rather than trying to create jobs, they are trying to 
get new benefits for Federal employees.
  Madam Speaker, I will be honest. You are darn right that this is 
going to be a tough vote for Members of Congress. Are we going to pay 
attention to what is happening back home or are we just going to come 
up here and spend another $1 billion?
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' on this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I just will respond to the gentleman that

[[Page 14053]]

this is less than $100 million a year for the entire country. While 
every dollar that the taxpayers pay is significantly important, I would 
say that this particular bill is much more important in some ways than 
many expenditures this Federal Government makes.
  It is also something that I believe is fundamentally important in 
many sectors, especially in the area that I talked about with adopting 
new children. The gentleman says that the Federal employees are some of 
the most stable workforce that we have in this country. Well, that is 
exactly the kind of people you want to adopt children, people in stable 
homes that have jobs that they are not going to lose, that can take the 
time to do what we have set forth in this bill.
  While leave policies in the government generally may compare 
favorably with some private sector employment, the Federal Government's 
paid parental leave policy simply does not. Seventy-five percent of the 
Fortune 100 companies offer at least 6 weeks of parental paid leave and 
make them much more attractive to young working families who cannot 
afford to go without pay for that length of time.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this time, yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill that 
would provide 4 weeks of paid leave to Federal employees for the birth, 
adoption, or fostering of a child. It is identical to the version of 
the bill, H.R. 5781, which passed the House last Congress with strong 
bipartisan support. The vote count was 278-146, with 50 Republicans 
voting for the bill in the 110th Congress.
  My good friend on the other side of the aisle said that Federal 
employees are not asking for this. That is not the truth, and I would 
like permission to place in the Record various letters written in 
support. They actively have been meeting with us and supporting it for 
the past 15 years. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and I and others have 
been championing this bill. And I would like to put their letters of 
support in the Record.

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 2009.

                           Legislative Alert

       Dear Representative: The American Federation of Labor and 
     Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) strongly 
     supports HR 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave 
     Act of 2009. This vital legislation would provide all 
     Executive and Legislative Branch federal employees with 
     income support for up to four weeks of parental leave in 
     order to facilitate bonding between parents with newborn 
     infants or newly adopted children.
       Federal workers are among those who must choose between 
     meeting their family obligations and maintaining family 
     income because under current law, no part of the leave under 
     the Family and Medical Leave Act is guaranteed to be paid 
     leave. The years when employees are most likely to become 
     parents coincide with the early years of their career, when 
     they are least likely to have accumulated enough savings to 
     forgo their salary for several weeks. Workers early in their 
     career are also least likely to have accumulated enough 
     annual leave to cover the time needed to provide adequate 
     care for a newborn or newly adopted child. As a result, many 
     workers are effectively prevented from using FMLA leave at 
     all.
       Spending time with a newborn or a newly adopted child 
     should not be viewed as a luxury that only the rich should be 
     able to afford. Virtually all research on child development 
     and family stability supports the notion that parent-infant 
     bonding during the earliest months of life is crucial. 
     Children who form strong emotional bonds or ``attachment'' 
     with their parents are most likely to enjoy good health and 
     have positive relations with others throughout their 
     lifetimes. H.R. 626 takes as a given that all children who 
     become new members of a family need this critical time with 
     their parents, and provides all parents--adoptive and 
     biological--equal treatment.
       More and more private sector employers provide paid 
     parental leave because they recognize that productivity is 
     lost when a parent returns to work before they have found 
     appropriate child care for a newborn or newly adopted child, 
     or when an employee comes to work ill because all leave was 
     exhausted during the protracted adoption process. Without the 
     extension of paid parental leave to all Executive and 
     Legislative branch employees, the federal government will 
     lose good workers, trained at taxpayer expense, who decide to 
     leave federal service for an employer who offers paid 
     parental leave.
       The benefits to children and families of four weeks of paid 
     parental leave have been well established. The AFL-CIO urges 
     Congress to pass the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act 
     of 2009.
           Sincerely,

                                               William Samuel,

                                                         Director,
     Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____

                                       National Active and Retired


                                Federal Employees Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, June 3, 2009.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Active and 
     Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), I am writing 
     to urge you to support H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid 
     Parental Leave Act, when it is considered by the House of 
     Representatives on Thursday, June 4.
       NARFE believes that extending paid parental leave to 
     federal employees will assist federal agencies in their 
     ongoing recruitment and retention efforts. Indeed, Congress 
     needs to pass this family-friendly legislation if we are to 
     attract the highly talented and skilled individuals necessary 
     to take on the challenges of recovering from an unparalleled 
     economic upheaval, fighting two wars and defending the 
     homeland.
       While federal workers need paid leave to care for a newborn 
     or adopted baby, a growing number of ``sandwich generation'' 
     employees require the same support as they struggle to 
     provide care to their aging parents. The current trend toward 
     an older workforce, coupled with overall increased longevity, 
     greatly increases the need for employers to provide adequate 
     leave and compensation for family caregiving duties on both 
     ends of the sandwich generation. For that reason, we urge you 
     to work with us to ensure that paid family leave is also 
     extended to federal workers who serve as caregivers to their 
     parents.
       NARFE urges you to honor federal employees, who work each 
     day to better our nation, by voting for H.R. 626.
           Sincerely,
                                             Margaret L. Baptiste,
     President.
                                  ____



                            National Treasury Employees Union,

                                     Washington, DC, June 1, 2009.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Treasury 
     Employees Union (NTEU) and more than 150,000 federal 
     employees in 31 agencies and departments across the nation, I 
     am writing to ask you to vote for passage next week of H.R. 
     626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.
       This important bill, introduced by Representative Carolyn 
     Maloney (D-NY), provides federal employees with four weeks of 
     full pay to use while they are on Family and Medical Leave 
     Act (FMLA) leave for the birth or adoption of a child. It 
     will bring the government's approach on family leave closer 
     to that of the private sector and many industrialized 
     nations.
       This bill will help our federal government recruit and 
     retain dedicated and talented workers, and show that the 
     federal government truly values families. Currently, federal 
     workers do not have any guarantee of paid leave for the birth 
     or adoption of a new child. Some have accrued paid sick or 
     vacation time that they may be able to use while on FMLA 
     leave. However, others, especially younger workers who have 
     not accrued sick or vacation time, have no choice but to take 
     unpaid leave. This measure will allow federal workers the 
     ability to better balance family needs and work requirements 
     as access to paid parental leave has become a necessity for 
     today's working families.
       In the coming years, federal agencies will be hiring many 
     new workers. Fifty-eight percent of supervisory and 48 
     percent of nonsupervisory workers will be eligible to retire 
     by the end of fiscal year 2010, according to a 2004 report by 
     the Office of Personnel Management. In order to compete with 
     the private sector and attract and retain the best workers, 
     federal benefits must be competitive. According to a March 
     2008 report by the Joint Economic Committee staff, nearly 75 
     percent of the Fortune 100 firms offer working parents some 
     paid time off when they have a new child. A paid parental 
     leave policy will also save the government money by reducing 
     turnover and replacement costs, which is estimated to be 25 
     percent of the worker's salary.
       On behalf of our federal employees, I look forward to your 
     vote for passage in the House of H.R. 626.
           Sincerely,
                                                Colleen M. Kelley,
     National President.
                                  ____



                            National Treasury Employees Union,

                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 2009.
       Dear Representative: As President of the National Treasury 
     Employees Union (NTEU), with over 150,000 federal employees 
     in 31 different agencies, I write to you today to ask that 
     you vote no on the Issa amendment to be offered today on H.R. 
     626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009.
       This important bill, introduced by Representative Carolyn 
     Maloney (D-NY), provides federal employees with four weeks of

[[Page 14054]]

     full pay to use while they are on Family and Medical Leave 
     Act (FMLA) leave for the birth or adoption of a child. It 
     will bring the government's approach on family leave closer 
     to that of the private sector and many industrialized 
     nations.
       This bill will help our federal government recruit and 
     retain dedicated and talented workers, and show that the 
     federal government truly values families. Currently, federal 
     workers do not have any guarantee of paid leave for the birth 
     or adoption of a new child. Some have accrued paid sick or 
     vacation time that they may be able to use while on FMLA 
     leave. Many, especially younger workers who have not accrued 
     sick or vacation time or workers who have had health issues, 
     have no choice but to take unpaid leave. This measure will 
     allow federal workers the ability to better balance family 
     needs and work requirements as access to paid parental leave 
     has become a necessity for today's working families.
       The Issa amendment would require employees to use all 
     accrued leave before receiving additional paid parental leave 
     and would require additional paid parental leave to be 
     treated as a repayable advance. This amendment essentially 
     guts the bill, while not addressing the problem. Paid 
     parental leave is needed precisely because the present leave 
     is not sufficient for having a child and allowing bonding 
     time with that child. We hear stories every day from my 
     members, from women, mostly, who have put off operations to 
     save sick leave to have a child, or people who have cared for 
     their terminal parents, and now have hundreds of sick leave 
     hours to repay, and put off having a child. Women go to work 
     ill because they have to save time for childbirth. As a 
     matter of fact, every time this bill is mentioned in the 
     press, NTEU receives stories of federal employees desperate 
     to get some help so they can stay home just a few weeks with 
     their newborn or adopted child.
       Representative Issa stated during the Oversight and 
     Government Reform Committee's consideration that federal 
     employees will somehow ``game'' this new parental leave by 
     taking in a new foster child every year, thus getting a 
     ``free'' extra four weeks a year--a statement NTEU finds 
     preposterous. Now the opposition comes in the form of an 
     amendment requiring a zero balance in sick and annual leave 
     before paid parental leave begins. This is putting federal 
     employees in exactly the position we seek to avoid by this 
     legislation.
       Seventy-five percent of the Fortune 100 companies in this 
     country offer paid parental leave, and the average amount is 
     six weeks. In the coming years, federal agencies will be 
     hiring many new workers. Fifty-eight percent of supervisory 
     and 48 percent of nonsupervisory workers will be eligible to 
     retire by the end of fiscal year 2010, according to a 2004 
     report by the Office of Personnel Management. In order to 
     compete with the private sector and attract and retain the 
     best workers, federal benefits must be competitive. A paid 
     parental leave policy will also save the government money by 
     reducing turnover and replacement costs, which is estimated 
     to be 25 percent of the worker's salary.
       On behalf of our federal employees, I urge a ``no'' vote on 
     the Issa amendment and ``yes'' for final passage of H.R. 626 
     as reported from committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                Colleen M. Kelley,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                            American Federation of


                                Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2009.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the over 600,000 federal 
     workers represented by the American Federation of Government 
     Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), I strongly urge you to support 
     H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 
     2009, introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). H.R. 626, 
     which has bipartisan support, provides four weeks of paid 
     leave for federal workers who are the parents of newborns and 
     newly adopted children. AFGE commends the bill's sponsor, 
     Rep. Maloney for her years of ``commitment and tireless 
     efforts to establish this important improvement in the work 
     and family lives of over one million federal workers. This 
     landmark legislation is an investment in both the federal 
     workforce and their families.
       Virtually all research on child development and family 
     stability supports the notion that parent-infant bonding 
     during the earliest months of life is crucial. Newborns and 
     adopted children who form strong emotional bonds or 
     ``attachment'' with their parents are most likely to do well 
     in school, have positive relationships with others and enjoy 
     good health during their lifetimes. These are national 
     outcomes that should be the goal for all children, including 
     those of federal employees. A parent should not be forced 
     back to work immediately after the birth or adoption of a 
     child because she or he could not do without his or her 
     paycheck.
       Those who oppose the bill cite ``fiscal responsibility'' as 
     a reason to delay or deny action on H.R. 626 opposed these 
     same provisions long before the recent economic downturn. 
     Hard economic times are exactly the right time for the 
     government to take responsible action on behalf of families. 
     A recent Financial Times article stated that in this most 
     recent recession, men account for almost 80% of job losses. A 
     responsible worker benefit like federal employee paid 
     parental leave provides a certain source of income that 
     allows families to bond and households during economically 
     troubled times.
       A lack of paid parental leave negatively impacts the 
     government when a good worker, trained at taxpayer expense, 
     decides to leave federal service for another employer who 
     does offer paid leave. Although federal workers do accumulate 
     leave, by conservative estimates it would take a federal 
     worker who uses two weeks of annual leave and only three days 
     of sick leave per year close to five years to accrue enough 
     sick and annual leave to receive pay during the 12 weeks of 
     parental leave allowed under FMLA. Younger workers of child 
     bearing years are at a moment in their careers when they can 
     least afford to take any time off without pay and least 
     likely to have accumulated significant savings. These so-
     called alternatives to a benefit of paid parental leave to 
     federal workers are unrealistic and fail to adequately 
     address the problems families face.
       The time has come for the federal government to set the 
     standard for U.S. employers on paid parental leave. Although 
     there is no current law providing paid parental leave for 
     federal workers, the federal government currently reimburses 
     federal contractors and grantees for the cost of providing 
     paid parental leave to their workers. Surely if such practice 
     is affordable and reasonable for contractors and grantees, 
     federal employees should be eligible for similar treatment. 
     The benefits to children and families of four weeks of paid 
     parental leave are enormous and long-lasting. AFGE strongly 
     urges you to support the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave 
     Act of 2009.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Beth Moten,
                               Legislative and Political Director.

  I also would like to point out that this bill is PAYGO neutral and 
would not affect, and I quote, ``direct spending or receipts.'' To be 
clear, there are no PAYGO implications for H.R. 626 because it does not 
create new expenditures. Whether or not an employee takes paid leave, 
the pay for that employee has already been included in the salary 
budget for that agency. The only cost associated with the bill is the 
amount that agencies currently save when employees who have a new child 
take their 12 weeks of unpaid leave. And the $140 million figure for 4 
weeks of paid leave in the Congressional Budget Office score is what 
Federal agencies currently save when employees take unpaid leave.
  Paid leave can also offset costs by boosting employee morale and 
productivity while reducing turnover. Turnover is costly. It costs 20 
percent of an employee's salary to hire and train a new worker compared 
to just 8 percent to provide a skilled, experienced employee with 4 
weeks of paid parental leave. And the military already provides paid 
leave. New mothers are provided not with 4 weeks but 6 weeks of paid 
leave. And fathers are given 10 days.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. MALONEY. This bill puts the civilian branch on par with the 
military. It has already been pointed out that a large portion of the 
private sector voluntarily provides paid leave. And in a study by 
Harvard and by the GAO, we found that we are ranked 168th in the world; 
168 countries provide some form of paid leave. We are tied with Papua 
New Guinea, Swaziland, and Lesotho as countries that do not provide 
paid leave.
  So this is an opportunity for this body, which constantly talks about 
family values, to show that they truly do value families and provide 
paid leave, 4 weeks, building on the 12 weeks of unpaid leave from the 
Family and Medical Leave Act, so that families can have support during 
this critical time of the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child.
  I believe my time is expired. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we have had two wonderful speakers on 
the majority side tell us--I think they were contradicting each other. 
One said it only costs $100 million a year. Another speaker said, oh, 
there is no cost. As a matter of fact, PAYGO says there is nothing to 
it.
  Well, maybe the PAYGO rules of this House say that, but let me tell 
what

[[Page 14055]]

you what the Congressional Budget Office says, their cost estimate. The 
Congressional Budget Office says, 5 years, $938 million; $938 million. 
Almost $1 billion over 5 years. Now, that is real money. Oh, no, no, 
no. You got it wrong. We are already going to give them the money 
anyway, so it doesn't cost any more.
  That is not reality, and that is not the way it works. The CBO is 
right, $938 million over 5 years. We had our President just 3 or 4 
weeks ago say, after spending all these trillions of dollars, the 
President said, I'm going to ask my budget to cut a whopping $100 
million from all their budgets across government; 100 million. Well, 
that is this bill just for 1 year, as the gentleman says, just 1 year. 
But the bottom line is it is $938 million over 5 years.
  You just can't have it both ways. You can't try and explain to the 
American people that you are really trying to do something good for 
them but turn around and make it more difficult. I think our friends 
that are in the majority party don't understand that you just can't 
sneak up here to Washington and do this and get away with it back home. 
People are going to pay attention to this.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Clovis, California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. I want to rise in opposition to this rule. Madam Speaker, 
when our government can't ensure water to the people that live in this 
country, the government has failed. And I want my colleagues to know, 
particularly those in the Democratic leadership, that this government 
is presiding over a manmade drought in California. Thanks to this, my 
district is at 20 percent unemployment. Some communities are at 50 
percent unemployment. And despite this crisis, today, the Obama 
administration announced a new biological opinion that will end water 
deliveries in California, laying waste to billions of dollars worth of 
infrastructure and starving the State of water. We must not allow this 
to happen, and this body must act.
  I would like to conclude by addressing my friends in the Democratic 
leadership in this country. I want to express my congratulations for 
dealing with this crisis. You have managed to make the crisis worse.
  Madam Speaker, we need to stop the spending, stop the bailouts, and 
get back to the basic responsibilities that this government has, like 
providing water to people.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I respond to my colleague from California 
and my colleague from Texas in this way. My colleague from California 
knows that I support him in his efforts to try and solve the California 
water crisis, and, in fact, I have been a leader in trying to do that. 
I don't always agree. I have come to this House floor and argued with 
my own leadership with regard to the issues that have dealt with the 
causes of the California regulatory drought.
  I would also like to remind the gentleman, who loves to blame the 
Democrats for everything that goes wrong, that it was a Republican bill 
and a Republican judge that put both of those concerns that are causing 
much of our water problems on the map.
  With regard to my friend from Texas and his claim that this is all 
about the cost, I can tell you that as an adoptive parent, if I hadn't 
taken the actions I did by adopting two children, they would not have 
filled the place they hold in my heart, but they would have also cost 
the Federal Government much, much more. When we take kids out of an 
abusive home and put them into foster care, we do so in order to try 
and recapture their lives.
  My children came out of a home where they were being neglected and 
abused by a drug-addicted mother. The scars that they will carry from 
that time in their lives are profound. Had I not had the ability to 
spend time with them, the challenges that we face with the emotional 
difficulties of those young people that I love so much would be, in 
fact, much worse than they are even today.
  The gentleman can talk about how this is a cost issue, but let me 
tell you, if people can't get the time to do what is right about 
adopting young kids, they won't do that. And it will cost the Federal 
Government much more.
  We argued this in a bill last year where we gave the opportunity for 
our troops to adopt young people and take that leave. It was the right 
thing to do then, and it passed. Last year, this bill was on the floor, 
and 58 of the gentleman's colleagues from Texas voted in support of 
this. This is the right thing to do for our country. It is the right 
thing to do for our kids. I believe in it profoundly. And, yes, this 
government wastes a lot of money in many different ways, but I can tell 
you that money spent in this area on this particular set of young 
people that I have talked about so much today is money well spent and 
will pay dividends many times over in the future. I have no question 
about that.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for the inquiry. As a matter of 
fact, I do have at least one more speaker. I would anticipate that if 
you do not have any additional speakers, I will then offer my close and 
then we could allow you to do the same, and then we can move on through 
this rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for that 
opportunity to move forward on this important bill.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the cost 
estimate for H.R. 626 from the Congressional Budget Office.

      H.R. 626--Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009

       Summary: H.R. 626 would amend title 5 of the United States 
     Code, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Family 
     and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) by creating a new 
     category of leave under FMLA. This new category would provide 
     four weeks of paid leave to federal employees following the 
     birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. In addition, the 
     legislation permits the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
     to increase the amount of paid leave provided to a total of 
     eight weeks based on the consideration of several factors 
     such as the cost to the federal government and enhanced 
     recruitment and retention of employees.
       Under current law, federal employees who have completed at 
     least 12 months of service are entitled to up to 12 weeks of 
     leave without pay after the birth, adoption, or fostering of 
     a child. Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be 
     returned to the same position or to an ``equivalent position 
     with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and 
     conditions of employment.'' Employees may get paid during 
     that 12-week period by using any annual or sick leave that 
     they have accrued. The leave provided by this bill would be 
     available only within the 12-week FMLA leave period.
       CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 626 would cost $67 
     million in 2010 and a total of $938 million over the 2010-
     2014 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds. 
     Enacting H.R. 626 would not affect direct spending or 
     receipts.
       The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or 
     tribal governments.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of H.R. 626 is shown in the following table. 
     The costs of this legislation would fall in all budget 
     functions (except functions 900 and 950).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                2010    2011    2012    2013    2014   2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated Authorization Level................................      69     215     219     221     224       947
Estimated Outlays............................................      67     209     218     221     223       938
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14056]]

       Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
     626 will be enacted by October 1, 2009, and that the 
     necessary amounts for implementing it will be appropriated 
     each year. Under the legislation, the new category of leave 
     would become available six months after enactment (that is, 
     around April 2010). As a result, the cost of the legislation 
     in 2010 reflects implementation for only half of the year. 
     After 2010, CBO has included in its estimate a 50 percent 
     probability that OPM will use its authority to increase the 
     amount of paid leave available from four weeks to eight 
     weeks. Costs in future years are projected to grow with 
     inflation.
       CBO assumes that the potential users of the new leave would 
     be primarily the roughly 700,000 civilian employees who are 
     between the ages of 20 and 44 and have been employed at least 
     12 months. (This figure excludes employees of the Postal 
     Service because H.R. 626 amends title 5 of the United States 
     Code, which does not apply to them.)
       Estimating an adoption rate based on data from the 
     Department of Health and Human Services and applying birth 
     rate information for the relevant age cohorts from the 
     National Center on Health Statistics to the roughly 313,000 
     women eligible for the new leave yields about 17,800 women 
     who might give birth or adopt in a given year. Based on 
     average salary information from OPM, CBO estimates that four 
     weeks of paid leave--the maximum amount guaranteed by the 
     bill--for female employees would cost between $2,800 (for 
     those in the youngest age cohort) and $5,400 (for those in 
     the 40-44 age cohort). Assuming that nearly all of those 
     women took the maximum amount of leave, CBO estimates the 
     cost of the leave to be $77 million this year (if it were 
     available for the entire 12-month period).
       Applying those same calculations to the 390,000 men in the 
     affected age groups, CBO estimates that roughly 24,000 men 
     would be eligible for the four weeks of paid leave, at an 
     average cost of between $3,100 and $6,000 per male employee. 
     Assuming that eligible men would take the leave at about one-
     half the rate of women, CBO estimates that men would use 
     another $54 million worth of leave this year (if it were 
     available for the entire 12-month period), bringing the total 
     to $130 million.
       Since CBO assumes that the new leave would not be available 
     until half-way through fiscal year 2010, there would be no 
     costs for 2009 and the 2010 costs would represent only six 
     months of the year, totaling $67 million. Beyond 2010, CBO 
     assumes a full year of availability and has included a 50 
     percent probability that OPM would increase the amount of 
     paid leave available to employees. As a result, anticipated 
     costs increase to $209 million in 2011. (The 2011 costs would 
     be about $140 billion if the benefit were kept at a maximum 
     of four weeks.)
       The effects of this bill on the budget derive from the 
     provision of a new form of paid leave. To the extent that 
     such a new benefit enables people to take advantage of paid 
     leave rather than taking leave without pay, the costs are 
     clear. However, employees who would currently use annual or 
     sick leave upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child 
     may choose to use this new form of paid leave and save their 
     accrued leave for a later date. CBO has no basis for 
     estimating the magnitude of such substitution, but the 
     deferral of annual and sick leave also represents a cost 
     either in terms of increased availability of paid leave or 
     cash payments upon separation.
       In addition, providing a more generous benefit to employees 
     may enhance the federal government's ability to retain 
     employees after the birth or adoption of a child and thereby 
     lower recruitment and training costs. CBO estimates that such 
     potential savings are likely to be relatively small over the 
     next five years.
       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 626 
     contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
     defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
     local, or tribal governments.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Barry Blom; Impact on 
     State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle; 
     Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
       Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a 
newsletter with information provided by the National Federation of 
Independent Business, known as the NFIB. This letter provides 
information about strongly opposing this bill.

      NFIB: FMLA Should Not Grant Paid Leave for Federal Employees

       Washington, D.C., June 4, 2009--Susan Eckerly, senior vice 
     president, public policy for the National Federation of 
     Independent Business, the nation's leading small business 
     association, released the following statement asking the U.S. 
     House of Representatives to defeat the Federal Employees Paid 
     Parental Leave Act of 2009 (HR. 626).
       ``This legislation mandates an alarming expansion of the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act from an unpaid leave program 
     into one that would provide partial paid parental leave for 
     federal employees. By carving out four of the 12 weeks of 
     FMLA as paid parental leave, we are deeply concerned that 
     H.R. 626 sets a precedent for future discussions over 
     expansion of FMLA.
       ``In addition to creating a new paid leave component of 
     FMLA at a great cost to the taxpayers, the bill doesn't 
     require federal employees to first use accumulated vacation 
     or sick leave before taking the paid parental leave. Again, 
     this would set a bad precedent for the private sector. 
     Currently, if an employee has accrued paid time off, an 
     employer may require them to use some or all of their accrued 
     paid time for some or all of the FMLA leave.
       ``Small businesses are struggling to survive in our tough 
     economic times, and are very concerned that creating an 
     expensive, new paid leave benefit for federal employees will 
     eventually lead to new paid leave mandates on small business, 
     something that's neither practical nor affordable. We are 
     strongly urging the House to defeat this bill.''

  Mr. SESSIONS. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  I rise to oppose the rule on the legislation in consideration of H.R. 
626. Having run a business, I understand how important it is to look 
out for workers and to be supportive, especially in these difficult 
economic times, when families are making tough choices with regard to 
how they spend their money and their time.
  I believe this debate should be focused on whether Washington should 
be granting additional fringe benefits to public sector employees in a 
period when private sector workers in hard-hit areas, like western New 
York where I come from, are struggling to hang on to their jobs. This 
is why I offered a simple amendment that said that legislation would 
not take effect until the national unemployment rate is down to 4 
percent and no State has an unemployment rate greater than 7 percent.
  I regret that the House will not have the opportunity to consider 
this amendment, because I think it provides a commonsense way to 
address the timing of this measure. Take an area of my district like 
Niagara County where tens of thousands of jobs are tied to the auto 
industry. The unemployment rate there is nearly 11 percent, a figure 
that was reported before General Motors and Chrysler began their 
restructuring, which we already know will lead to more job losses.

                              {time}  1730

  We also know that these workers who are able to hang on will have to 
accept significantly reduced compensation packages in order to stay 
employed.
  These are tough times, regardless of what industry you're in. But 
think about these auto workers, the farmers, the retail workers who are 
being forced to do more with less just to keep their jobs and to keep 
their heads above water. Think about them when Washington turns around 
and proposes more generous fringe benefits for public sector employees. 
It sends the wrong message at the wrong time, and it's just another 
example of how Washington continues to find ways to spend money it 
doesn't have.
  Again, I'm disappointed that the House will not have the opportunity 
to consider my amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New 
York.
  Madam Speaker, I did engage in an agreement with the gentleman from 
California. The gentleman has given concurrence. We had another speaker 
from the Republican Party who would choose to speak, and so, going back 
on my word, but with agreement, the gentleman is allowing me to extend 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. I think this will be better for Mr. Issa too so I don't get 
into his time, so I thank the chairman for letting me do this. And I 
thank you.
  I rise in support of the bill, and I just wanted to give you some 
reasons. One, I supported the bill in the last session.
  Two, our military today currently gets 6 weeks of parental pay leave. 
And the first person killed in Afghanistan was from my district, a 
civilian along side of the military, and so for the FBI, the CIA, the 
DIA, the DEA, the ATF they deserve basically the same thing.
  Secondly, I was the ranking member on Children, Youth and Family 
years

[[Page 14057]]

ago. And Dr. Brazelton, the leading child pediatrician, came in and 
pointed at the initial moment of birth--and I have five children and 13 
grandchildren and soon to have two more--at the initial moment of 
birth, when the mother breathes on the baby, the bonding process 
begins. It begins. Those early days, weeks are absolutely positively 
critical. And so, for me, on a family issue, and a family value issue, 
I think that's really important.
  The last thing is I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the 
leading people in this Congress, one of my heroes, two of the people 
that I looked up to more than anybody, one, Congressman Henry Hyde and 
former Congressman Dan Coats, who later went on to be a Senator, both 
supported parental leave.
  Let me read to you what Henry Hyde said. The words of Henry Hyde, 
during the debate on family leave, and it was not paid family leave, so 
there was a difference just as important. He reminded us that ``the 
family supplies the moral glue that holds society together, and it is a 
central institution that stands between us and social disintegration.''
  And so, one, the military gets 6 weeks. Two, that bonding process is 
when the baby comes out, you want the mother to be there. It is 
critically important. And, thirdly, one of the giants from the 
beginning of this Hall that ever served, Congressman Henry Hyde, led 
the effort and made the most passionate case on why family leave should 
have been passed years ago.
  And with that I rise in support of the bill and thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Virginia, not only for coming to the floor, but also the gentleman from 
California for allowing me to extend to an additional speaker. And I 
thank the gentleman very much.
  Madam Speaker, we should have a different title to this bill. This 
bill should be the bill for what Congress needs to do to expend Federal 
benefits, benefits to Federal employees, while knowing that in April 
there were over 611,000 private sector jobs that were lost. That should 
be the name of the bill. This is what this Congress is going to do to 
respond to some almost 3 million jobs that have been lost, while this 
administration is in power. That's what this bill really should be 
known for.
  This is the answer to 3 million job losses in the private sector. 
We're going to extend benefits, further benefits to the Federal 
Government.
  Hey, I understand that because the Federal Government employment has 
risen about 100,000, and with, you know, car companies and banks and 
everything else, no telling how many Federal employees that we'll end 
up with at the end of this year. So maybe I was wrong. Maybe there is a 
strong demand out there for Federal Government employees who want 
additional benefits.
  But we should remember that back home, where I'm from, and where a 
lot of people are from, 611,000 jobs disappeared in the month of April. 
And this is the response from our Democrat majority and our President: 
let's go spend more money, new benefits for Federal Government 
employees.
  I get it. I think you will too, Madam Speaker, when we hear from 
people back home.
  Madam Speaker, in closing I'd like to reiterate the horrible 
precedent that I think this legislation sets to those Americans who 
today that I just talked about, some 611,000 in April alone in the 
private sector who lost their jobs. Millions of Americans are jobless, 
and due to the out-of-control spending of this Democrat Congress, no 
analyst or White House official believes jobs will bounce back this 
year. None of them. Nobody.
  As a matter of fact, the Democrat Party is on record and it's going 
to get worse next year and we're planning on it already. We already 
understand that. We ought to be saying that instead of extending 
benefits that it's going to cost another billion dollars.
  Why are my friends on the other side afraid of risking more of the 
taxpayer dollars to provide Federal employees who already have the most 
job security and excellent benefits? Why are they afraid to back away 
and wait on this? Why are they pushing this? I wonder.
  I wonder really who is more important and who they're hearing from, 
because evidently it's not people back home. Maybe it is the government 
workers that they're listening to. Maybe government workers are more 
important to this party than people back home. Maybe that's why this is 
happening.
  Look, Republicans are providing quality solutions. We think we 
understand what the American people are going through. We understand 
what's happening with the taxing, the borrowing and the spending. Huge 
deficits and unemployment rates continue on and on and on.
  I oppose this bill, and I hope that the American people understand 
that the taxpayer was heard today on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. They were heard by the speakers of the Republican 
Party who said we should not be extending benefits right now. We should 
not increase the spending and the cost of $1 billion over the next 5 
years. We should understand what real people are going through.
  I'm going to vote against this bill.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I've sat here and listened this evening to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) talk about how this is a 
terrible waste of dollars, and how the Republicans are saying that this 
is a terrible waste of money.
  But I'd wish to correct the gentleman. Today this isn't a partisan 
issue. In fact, I would predict that there are a number of his 
colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, on the Republican side of the 
aisle, like Mr. Wolf, who understand what this is about.
  This is about America's children, about children coming into this 
world and bonding with a mother and a father and having the opportunity 
to do that in this hectic world that we live in today. It's about 
foster parents that come in and do the right thing, taking care of 
abused and victimized children, and needing that time to do it right.
  It's about adoptive parents who, when they reach out and bring into 
their home permanently children who have been victimized by society's 
ills, having the opportunity to do it right so we can start healing 
those children.
  There are a number of Republicans on that side of the aisle that are 
going to do the right thing tonight. They're going to vote for this 
rule, and they're going to vote for this bill because it's the right 
thing for America and building families.
  They call themselves the ``Family Values Party.'' Tonight they can 
prove it by coming in here and voting to do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight I'd like to submit for the Record the statement 
of administration policy.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       The Administration supports the goal of H.R. 626, which 
     would provide Federal employees with access to paid leave 
     upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child.
       Being able to spend time at home with a new child is a 
     critical part of building a strong family. The initial 
     bonding between parents and their new child is essential to 
     healthy child development and providing a firm foundation for 
     the child's success in life. Measures that support these 
     relationships strengthen our families, our communities, and 
     our nation. The Federal government should reflect its 
     commitment to these core values by helping Federal employees 
     to care for their families as well as serve the public. 
     Providing paid parental leave has been successfully employed 
     by a number of private-sector employers, and can help to make 
     job opportunities accessible to more workers.
       The Administration is currently reviewing existing Federal 
     leave policies to determine the extent of their gaps and 
     limitations. The Administration looks forward to working with 
     Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make 
     sure it meets the needs of Federal agencies and employees, as 
     well as their families.

  You know, the gentleman from Texas talks about how much money this 
government has wasted. He's right, there's a lot of money that gets 
wasted.
  But over the last 8 years, as our country was being absolutely raped 
by those defense contractors in the Middle

[[Page 14058]]

East with no accountability, where was the gentleman to stand up 
against that?
  No, ladies and gentlemen, he's not willing to stand up against that, 
or wasn't during the last 8 years. But tonight he will criticize us 
spending a few dollars to get it right for our families in America.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that while most parents wish 
to stay home with their new child, they just can't afford to take 
unpaid leave, which directly affects that child's well-being.
  We can start with having the Federal Government lead by example to 
set the stage for making changes across the table. To paraphrase 
Mahatma Gandhi, we must be the change we wish to see in this world. I 
believe that couldn't be more true.
  I ask the Members of both sides of the aisle to support the parents 
of America, to support the children of America, and be the change that 
we wish for our world.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________