republicans again refused to bring the legislation to the floor they can unemployment rate ranged from 5.4% and 6%, relatively low. during the 107th congress, when the republicans refused to bring this legislation to the floor again, the unemployment rate never rose above 6% and was below 4.5% for most of the year. during the 106th congress, when the republicans again refused to bring this legislation to the floor, the unemployment rate never rose above 4.4%. so there's a whole history here of my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposing this bill during good times and, you know, average times, and now in lousy times. but that is not the underlying reason they're opposeding the bill. the evidence does not support that. at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the lead sponsor of this bill, who has

been there for the entire 15 years fighting for this measure, representative carolyn maloney, our chairwoman from the 14th district of new york, again for three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. . mrs. maloney: i would like to thank all of my colleagues who have supported this on both sides of the while and overwhelming passage in the past congress and today, especially majority leader steny hoyer, who with me, introduced this bill 15 years ago. and chairman towns, who has led our committee so well and ranking member wolf, davis, lynch and former congressman tom davis for all of their leadership on this issue. we are here today to show that this congress doesn't just talk about family values, it values families. and this bill, h.r. 626, that grants four weeks of paid leave

for the birth or fostering or adoption of a child is the first bill to pass balancing work and families since 1993. in 1993, we passed the landmark family and medical leave act that provided 12 weeks of unpaid leave which allowed women to have children and not lose their jobs and this is very important since most women have to work, many are single heads of house holds, but it takes two-family incomes to make ends meet. this bill provides four weeks of paid leave. many on the other side of the aisle have said that this economy is in recession and we should not be doing this. but i would like to point out in addition to the points that mr. lynch made earlier, that they have been opposed to it in good times and bad times. paid leave ensures that the birth of a child does not further destabilize families who are struggling to make ends meet

during these troubled times. during this recession, working families need all the help they can get. 11.6 million americans are unemployed today, which means every paycheck counts more than ever. many are struggling to float on two incomes and many of those families are now scrambling to pay the bills on just one income. without paid leave, the birth of a child means many working families are left with no income at all. by extending benefits to federal workers, we can diminish the risk of real economic hardship for the 1.8 million employees of america's largest employer, the federal government. a new parent spends an average of $11,000 in additional spending in the first two years of a child's life, according to a study by the u.s. department of agriculture. by ensuring that families'

incomes remain steady while a parent is at home taking care of a new child, paid leave ensures that new parents' consumption remains steady, too. this drives economic growth, which is precisely what our economy needs to recover. in a downturn, workers take parental leave without pay and are at risk of serious financial hardship. they may qualify for state benefits, which places additional burdens on our systems which is already strained by ballooning case loads. i would like to place in the record the remaining parts of my comments. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: at this time, i would like to three minutes to the the gentleman from from ohio, ranking subcommittee member and somebody who has worked very hard in trying to make this bill better, mr. jordan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his work on this issue and many others. on monday, june 1, 2009 in ontario, ohio in our district, 1,200 general motors employees found out they were losing their jobs. the obama task force said 1,200 families will face the consequences of unemployment. we are ready to pass another $1 billion entitlement for federal employees where millions are struggling with joblessness, it is unconscionable that this congress puts more spending on the backs of american families and businesses at a time when taxpayers have to fighten their belts, we are asking for an additional $1 billion. federal employees are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period because of a birth, adoption or the taking in of a foster child.

federal workers can use accrued sick leave and annual vacation leave. if you have been a federal employee for three years, you have at least four weeks of annual leave and 2 1/2 weeks of sick leave each and every year. with this new benefit, we are putting small businesses at a disadvantage. only 57% of private sector -- of the private sector offer any independently defined sick leave. now they will have to compete for workers against this expanded benefit for government workers. this moves us in the wrong direction. we need to incentivize the private sector, but yet we are expanding the federal government that will crowd out the private sector and stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. the american people are watching us. they expect their government to do exactly what they have done, cut the waste and tighten their belts. that is the message i have heard all across our district and from

families who are experiencing unemployment and small businesses who have had to shut their doors. this congress continues to spend and spend and spend. rather than taking steps to improve the economy to create jobs for the 14 million unemployed americans, we are giving a better deal to the 2.7 million people who are already employed in the federal sector. this is the wrong message to send and i encourage my colleagues to vote against this legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i would like to yield at this time three minutes to the chairman -- full chairman of our committee,ed towns of brooklyn, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. towns: i would like to thank the federal work force subcommittee chairman, mr. lynch, for the outstanding job that he has done. i would like to thank congresswoman maloney for her leadership on this issue.

i would like to thank the majority leader, steny hoyer, for his work on it. and i would like to thank congressman connellly for his work as well. the the gentlewoman from from new york has worked tirelessly to make the federal government an environment that is supportive of working mothers and fathers. i want to thank her for her efforts. and may i add, a job well done. we need to recognize that the federal government is the largest employer in the united states and that it is -- its policies should set the tone for the country. h.r. 626 provides federal employees with four weeks of paid parental leave for the simple reason that no employee should have to choose between caring for a new child or their paycheck. by providing four weeks of paid parental leave, h.r. 626 makes a strategic investment in the

federal work force. this bill will help the government recruit and retain young talented employees. as the federal government prepares for a wave of upcoming retirements, we need to attract this segment of the population to help us take on some of the challenges facing this country. this bill also provides potential cost savings to the american people. the taxpayers directly benefit when the government retains existing employees rather than having to hire, retrain, hire, retrain. that is expensive. and let me also add the country is better served by an experienced and productive

federal worker that is able to adequately provide for the health and well-being of the newborn or newly adopted child. the long-term societal benefits of promoting healthy families and early child development are enormous. we in the federal government have a unique obligation to set an example for the rest of the nation, both in the values that we promote and in the way we responsibly manage taxpayers' funded programs. this bill accomplishes both goals. it benefits children and families and will enable us to recruit and retain top-notch federal employees whose work benefits the entire nation. for all these reasons, i urge all of the members to support this family-friendly legislation that says to the world, we care about our children. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, madam

chair. i would like to yield three minutes to the the gentleman from indiana, mr. souder. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. souder: i thank my friend mr. issa for his time and leadership here. in an earlier life of mine when i was with the children and family select committee back in the 1980's, my then boss dan coates was one of the members that supported the family medical leave bill which i didn't degree with. he told me i could sit in on all the meetings, people said it will never be paid, this is just to cover people for unpaid. you are a paranoid conservative because you hear talk about becoming paid. we watched this in the government arena and my daughter just had our second grandchild. she is a school teacher. the struggle was how was she going to deal with the time she

was going to take off, was it going to be paid, during the school year, what happens when you have grants and she has two little kids, how do you this. what's fair? my oldest son and his wife both work in the government. they would love to have paid medical leave, but there are some problems here. it's one of the most controversial problems is what to do with the husband and should he be able to get time off during -- when a baby is born, forget all the medical questions. what do we do with air traffic controllers? what do we do with d.e.a. agents who may be making in the final bust in a drug case, what about homeland security where they have been working two years on a case and the wife has a baby, do

they take sudden leave? there are very complicated, fundamental questions in the challenge of how this would prackally work. the second challenge -- practically work. the second challenge is, in case people haven't heard, we have been obligating a lot of future debt and the question is is this the time that the federal government should be doing something that is, quite frankly, generous and help families, but do we have the money to do this? i represent the number one manufacturing district in the united states. i imagine and my best counting, fort wayne, the biggest city, has 9.5% unemployment rate. others, 12.2. mobile county, 16.5, and elk heart county, 17.4.

and i'm supposed to go back to my district and say that government employees are going to get paid parental leave when they're looking at how they get unemployment and how they ever get a job -- would the gentleman yield me another minute? mr. issa: i yield an additional one minute to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. souder: generosity and kindness to families is important. but we also have to ball answer, is this going to be -- balance, is this going to be mandated in the private sector. do we have the money to do this. and lastly, is this the time to while millions of people are laid off, where others don't know how they are going to pay their house payment, how they're go to go pay their basic health care to say we in the federal government are going to be generous with our employees and give them paid parental leave with their tax money?

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. at this time, i would like to yield two minutes to one of our newest, but most energetic and dynamic members of the subcommittee, mr. connolly from the 11th district of virginia. mr. connolly: i thank mr. lynch. madam speaker, i thought we had identified an issue where we can count on the support of the minority party. after enduring decades of speeches about family values, here wer poised to take action. h.r. 626, the paid parental leave act would allow federally employed mothers and fathers to spend time with their newborn

children without sacrificing their income. the minority party objects to such a notion. and the committee on oversight and reform, the minority proposed during markup to prohibit paid parental leave from being used for foster children. i can't even speculate about what the origins of that towards foster children might be but i'm reminded about a speech made in this chamber made not so long by the former republican leader, tom delay. he spoke about the plight of foster children and implored congress to quote, listen to the stories of these children and the stories they tell. study the broken system we have created for them and help them, for god's sake help them, unquote. . madam speaker, h.r. 626 won't solve all or even most problems

with the foster system, but will allow government employees to spend more time with foster children. we have a wealth of evidence that this is essential for the cognitive development of these children. yet the minority party introduced amendments that would hurt foster children. and now the minority wants to gut the legislation to prevent mothers and fathers from spending time with their young children. this is what real family values are all about. i ask my colleagues to support the bill. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, not texas, mr. schock of illinois.

three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schock: i rise in opposition to house resolution 626. what we do here in the united states house and the united states congress sets as predon't, -- precedent, not only for the people we employee as a federal government but also who small businesses and large businesses around our country employee. the standards we set, the expectations we have in terms of benefits. and i, like everyone else, enjoy federal benefits. my employees here as a member of congress enjoy our great benefits plan. unfortunately, back home in central illinois, my individuals there are not employed by the federal government. by and large, they're employed by the private sector. and unfortunately for them, this is a time for them not looking to expand their benefit programs, not going to their employers, asking for more. but they're thankful for the paycheck they've go and --

they've got. it seems to me a little disingenuous by those in support of the legislation that at a time we're talking about stimulating the economy, we're talking about feeling the pain of the american people, that we know the truth that our constituents are having to do the opposite. wire having to cut back, they're having to do with less. this bill, and this measure, seeks to do the opposite. expanding four weeks of paid parental leave will not only add a cost to the federal government by the congressional budget office's own figures of $1 billion in cost over the next five years, but it'll undoubtedly set a precedent for the private sector. unfortunately for the private sector, they cannot print the money or tax the american people to pay for their benefit. the unemployment rate in my state of illinois is just over 9% as of april. this includes over 24,000 jobs

laid off by my hometown employer, caterpillar. when i go back there this weekend, i will not be able to tell those individuals, not only are they unemployed, not only do they not have a job, but my colleagues decided our employee, who have not felt the economic downturn, not only get to keep their job but have added benefits at the expense of them as taxpayers. i don't know how we can honestly vote for more benefits, more pay, and more cost to the federal budget at the expense of taxpayers and those people who are cutting back and losing their jobs. i urge a no vote and yield back the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: madam speaker, i'd

like to at this point yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california's sixth district, ms. woolsey. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. woolsey:. -- ms. woolsey: madam chairwoman, america should be a world leader in helping parents balance their work and family responsibilities. as the chairwoman of the house committee on work force protections, i find it totally unacceptable that the country i live in, the united states of america, is one of only four countries not providing paid leave to new mothers and fathers. today in the united states, 51% of new parents don't have paid leave. so as a result, some system -- some take unpaid leave if they can afford it.

some quit and some are fired for taking too much time off. that's why i strongly support h.r. 626, so it will -- we can ensure the federal employees won't be forced to choose between their paychecks and their families and one of the most -- at one of the most important times of their lives, the birth or the adoption of a child. investing in our working families is the best way, the best way to strengthen our work force. it is the best way to stimulate our economy. and it is the best way to strengthen our country. so madam chairwoman, i ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation authored by congresswoman maloney, support working families. don't force them to choose between putting food on the table and sitting at the table

and having dinner with their children and getting to bond with their new baby. vote for this legislation because the united states of america needs to stand proud among other countries in this world. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i trust the gentlelady from california was only misunderstood or misspoken when she said someone would lose their job for taking parental leave. that would be a crime under the 1993 act. i would yield to the gentlelady to correct that ms. woolsey: i said for taking too much time off, beyond the family medical leave -- mr. issa: beyond the family and medical leave act. i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. >> i rise in opposition to this legislation. it offers a new $1 billion

benefit to federal workers. madam chair, i have no doubt that the federal workers deserve this benefit. but to nonfederal workers, they don't deserve to have their paychecks docked $1 billion to pay for it. that's if the nonfederal government workers are fortunate enough to still have their jobs in this troubled economy. again, it's a great benefit. i wish every new parent could have that. i want to create a more prosperous economy in america so every american could enjoy it. but madam chairman, this is absolutely nothing more than a wealth transfer of a billion dollars from nonfederal government workers to federal workers. it is just patently, patently unfair. i mean, why would you want to dock the pay of everybody else

in this troubled economy to pay for this? you know, already, if you look at the benefits that federal government employees receive and listen, there are great federal employees. immaterial to keep them. and many of them are incredibly dedicated public servants. but look at the annual leave of the federal government versus the annual leave on average in the private sector, and federal workers are already receiving a better deal, look at the annual sick leave of federal government compared to the average sick leave in the private sector. the federal government workers are already receiving a better deal. look at the family medical leave. you can see that federal government workers already receive on average a better deal than those in the private sector. so again, when they're enjoying on average greater benefits, enjoying greater job security, what a slap in the face of every worker in america who

doesn't receive a government paycheck to say that all of a sud, they're going to have to pay for a -- all of a sudden, they're going to have to pay for a new benefit for federal workers. this is on top of the fact that the federal government is already having to borrow 46 cents on the dollar. we are awash in red ink. already, this body, under democratic control, passed a budget that will triple the national debt in 10 years, costing taxpayers $148,926 per household. triple the national debt in the next 10 years. we are about to see more debt placed on this nation, more debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220. you know, madam chair, there was a time in america's history where you worked hard today so that your children could have a

better life tomorrow. instead, a bill like this is saying, you know what? let's go ahead and let the government work easy today so that our children have to work even harder tomorrow. again, it's just unfair to everyby who doesn't receive that federal government paycheck. you know, at some point, madam chair, you have to say when does the debt, when does the spending stop? you know, we will never run out of good ideas. we will never run out of opportunities to take money away from one group of citizens and give it to another group of citizens. those opportunities are there each and every day. but again, if you care about all the children in america, you will quit placing an unconscionable burden of debt upon them system of this bill must be rejected out of fairness and out of fiscal

responsibility. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: madam speaker, at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the representative from maryland's fourth district, donna edwards. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of h.r. 626, the federal employees' paid parental leave act of 2009. i'd like to thank the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, for her long-time leadership on this legislation and her ongoing efforts to ensure family-friendly workplaces and that must begin at least with the federal government. it is so tiresome and tedious to stand on this floor every day and listen to the demagoguing of federal employees people who get up and inspect our food and make sure we have clean water and do all the business they process social security checks, all the business of this government. it is so sad that even on offering a simple parental leave act that we have to demagogue federal employees in the process. the legislation provides four

weeks of paid parental leave for new mothers and fathers for the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. america's 1.8 million federal employees will benefit from this time to learn how to care for and bond with their new addition to the family. it's what the private sector, many in the private sector already do. it's what we strive for. the federal government needs to set an example. mr. lynch: i'll yield the gentlelady an additional minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: this will also help employee morale and allow the federal government to retain young and talented employees in our aging work force. madam chair as a representative of the fourth congressional district of maryland and proudly home to federal employees, more than 1/4 of the federal work force, my neighbors, my friends, people who work hard every day this important legislation will advance family friendly policies and allow the new parents the time necessa