care for their children and set a standard for the federal government and the private work force. madam chair, there are times it's simply the right thing to do and this is one of those times. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from louisiana, a member of the energy and commerce committee and someone who knows about the challenges people face in the work force today. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, some of the greatest joys of my life for the births of my daughter and son, two years ago my daughter madison was able to be there for the birth with my wife, one of the great joys of my life, and then four weeks ago tomorrow, the birth of my baby boy harrison and i was there as well, just wonderful, wonderful times that every family should spend together.

those opportunities already exist today in law. there's nothing in this bill that either takes away or gives the ability for parents to do that. they already have that right today. as they all should. why i rise in objection to this bill is it adds an extra $938 million in new entitlements, in new debt, money that we don't have in this country to an already growing deficit, we're at a $1.9 trillion deficit this year alone, projections are that in the next five year, administration will double the national debt and at what time do we stop and look out for those children? my son that was born four weeks ago. when do we look out for his future and his opportunity? so that he doesn't have to inherit another billion dollars in debt that this bill will give him? i think it's ironic in the same week that general motors became

government motors, because of primarily health benefits, benefits added on and added on for employees to the point where the benefits of the employees bankrupted the company. what's congress' answer to that? congress' answer in the same week is to add more benefits at a time when people are losing their jobs, money that we don't have, almost $1 billion, you know, there used to be a saying, a billion here a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. i think the public across this country has spoken out, they've said, enough is enough. we've got to control spending and look out for future generations. i yield back. . mr. lynch: the way this has been scored by c.b.o. its that the salaries paid to the employees already, the costs and/or

savings, recognizing the c.b.o. estimate that has been cited here that by forcing federal employees to take leave without pay, they realize a savings from that, but there's no new debt acquired here. what the savings here that c.b.o. is recognizing is is the fact that they have budgeted for these salaries and people take a certain amount of time off without pay and that realizes a gain in the budget that is recognized in the c.b.o. budget. i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: i thank my very good friend from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and mrs. maloney and my colleagues who have fought hard for this bill. a couple of reasons why i am a proud co-sponsor of this

legislation. one is that we are in the midst of an economic crisis in this nation. and who do we turn to? we turn to the federal work force to reset our economy, to put our nation's investments where they need to be. we turn to them because we know that they are incorruptible. this is the most professional, least corruptible organization, civil service in the world. we should be very proud of our civil servants. now as the cor cor corporate bo directors ofas the corporate bo directors of the largest work force in the nation, it's incumbent of us to let them know how we see them, to recognize them, to incentivize them, to recruit the very best and

brightest people in this nation and to retain them. and how do we do that? by leading in terms of the benefits that other large corporations provide. we should be leading by example. but the reality is that other large work forces oftentimes provide better benefits than the federal government. we need to be in the leadership. this enables us to catch up. we recognize these employees by doing things that are tangible. and this is a tangible benefit. second reason is that we recognize that the most important time in anyone's life are those first few weeks after birth, where a parent has the opportunity to nurture, where the child can bond, where the child's brain can be stimulated and the child can understand they will grow up in a secure and safe environment.

i very much thank my good friend. and i would hope that those who are in kind of knee-jerk opposition to this legislation would reconsider because mr. wolf perhaps expressed it best, these are the days that matter, the weeks that matter. we want the healthiest work force, we want the strongest society possible. and if we are to do that, when we are the corporate board of directors of the largest work force, we should lead by example by providing paid parental leave so a child can bond with their parents, get them off to a healthy start. that's what this is all about, a strong society, enabling every child born in america the full opportunity to realize their potential. this legislation enables the federal work force to achieve

that objective. it's a noble, national objective and what america ought to be about. let's get this legislation passed. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from california has 6 1/4 and the gentleman from massachusetts has seven minutes remaining. mr. issa: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman from california re served. mr. lynch: we continue to reserve. mr. issa: is the gentleman prepared to close? the chair: the gentleman from california has 6 1/4 and the gentleman from massachusetts has seven minutes remaining. mr. lynch: i believe we have people on our list but haven't come, so i'm prepared to close. mr. issa: i'm prepared to close

and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: in a few short minutes, we will complete general debate and go to amendments. at that time, i'm hopeful that the amendments offered by the committee, republicans on this committee, will be considered favorably. if it is, then what seems to be unreconcileable as our differences can be resolved. 14 million americans are out of work. we agree we are in a recession. we agree that americans are suffering. we agree that whether you're having a child, adopting a child or bringing a foster child in need into your home, that that bonding time is worth while, now, just as it was in 1993 when we overroad all states and all employers to provide that option without fear of retaliation or loss of a job. i think we agree that this bill

is 12 weeks, eight of which may be paid by use of sick and other leave. i know we agreed that if you served 15 years in the government, you'll have about eight weeks a year of paid leave. already accrued. we only disagree on whether or not a new cost, a new entitlement will be borne by the american people. we seem to disagree on whether going from not paying somebody off is a cost of the government. we disagree on whether or not when it becomes an additional four weeks of pay, many will choose to take it. when the c.b.o. scored, they made the assumption that half of all men would not take any benefits under the parental leave act, as they currently don't. when you offer four weeks free, it will be irresist tabble.

so there are some things we disagree on. if we take what we agree on, which is the american people are watching mounting deficits. the american people do believe that at times we are out of touch and we don't feel their pain. the gentleman from virginia talked about the federal workers in his district. the federal workers have grown in his district during a time during which the gentleman from illinois has seen 40,000 workers lose their jobs at caterpillar. they may have had benefits, today they have no benefits. they're not choosing between having a paycheck or being with their child. they're choosing whether or not to go out and find some minimum wage job or do something to try and bring money into the house, because they no longer have the good paying jobs that have evaporated in this recession. we disagreed in how the stimulus

package was done but we needed to get americans rolling again and give them the opportunities. what the 14 million have given up and more have given up in loss of some of their income is what we disagree about. madam chair, i would ask unanimous consent that the c.b.o. score -- c.b.o. document scoring this be placed into the record so there is no disagreement. the letter opposing this be placed into the record and letter from the independent electrical contractors be placed into the record at this time. the chair: the request has to be made at the time the house is in the full house. mr. issa: lastly, madam chair, i believe that the intentions of the majority are generally good. but i believe that this bill contains something the american

people may not have heard. and in closing, i want them to hear. this bill not only gives four weeks of new paid leave for the mom who may be coming home immediately following the birth of a child, but it gives that four weeks of additional pay to the father. it does so whether it's an adult child they're adopting, someone 15, 16 going off to school every day. it does it for both mom and dad and does it on top of the eight weeks they can take in other ways already. i want the american people to understand not only does it do that, but it is anticipated by the majority that after an o.m.b. study which they fully believe will show on balance this is a good motivator, this benefit will rise from four weeks of additional pay to eight weeks of additional pay for both men and women in the federal work force at a time when 14 million americans have no income at all.

with that, madam chair, i hope that the majority will see that they're out of touch if they don't think the american people are concerned that this is, in fact, showing a disconnect between the american people suffering and, in fact, the new benefits to the one portion of the work force that is not suffering, the one portion that is -- has not seen a pay cut, but a pay raise, the one portion that has not seen cuts in their numbers, but increases in their numbers, and that's the wonderful men and women who make up the federal work force in all areas. they're good people, but they in listening tonight, i believe the federal workers in my district will understand that, in fact, this is a time for them not to look for a big gain, when in fact, people are losing their homes. i would urge that we not support the bill in the current form. and i look forward to the amendment we plan to offer being favorably considered so we can make a bill that balances this good effort with those 14

million people who today have no solution for parental leave and, in fact, do not understand why we would add four or eight weeks paid additional time no matter how well intentioned. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. this bill is narrowly tailored. it would provide four weeks paid of parental leave. the specific instances are the birth of a new child, an adoption or someone taking a child into foster care. that's how you qualify for receiving this four weeks of benefits. and i think that this makes a strategic investment in the federal work force. this will help the government

retain and attract young talented young employees and in so doing, it provides potentially for ultimate savings to the american people because there is a benefit when the government retains existing employees rather than to rehire and train new ones. we are aware of the revolving door in the federal government where we bring in people, we train them, they become competent in their area of expertise and then private industry steals them away because they can offer them much gaiter benefits and much, much higher pay. this provides a basic and decent benefit of four weeks in the occasions that i mentioned. before closing, i would like to also point out that the obama administration in their recently issued statement of administration policy on h.r. 626 also recognized the benefits of supporting families during

the birth of a child or adoption of a child or in foster care. according to the president's policy position, the federal government should reflect its commitment to helping federal employees care for their families as well as serve the public. and measures such as h.r. 626 support this commitment and strengthens our families, communities and our nation. given that statement alone, i urge my fellow members to join me in voting in favor of h.r. 626. and i yield back the balance the time. the chair: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. the bill shall be considered read for amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in house report 111-133. only one amendment may be permitted by a member, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment or demand to division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 1111-133. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. issa: i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 111-133 offered by mr. issa of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 501, the gentleman from california, mr. issa and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. . mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: i believe the legislation bridges the difference between the majority and minority, recognizing that

the federal work force should in fact be able to use a crude and -- accrued and earned time they have, recognizing it is already the policy of many, but not all, federal agencies to allow all accrued leave, both vacation, you will, and sick leave, to be used by somebody wishing to avail themselves of their 12 weeks of family medical leave. having said that, we do take away the question of four weeks of additional paid or eight weeks of additional paid leave. we recognize, though that not every person, particularly a young family, new to the federal work force, may have accrued leave sufficient to do 12 full weeks. therefore, my amendment allows for that worker to take an advance against future sick leave and other leaves in order to ensure they may remain with their new child for the full 12 weeks allotted, allowed within

the law. this would in fact eliminate the contradiction between various government agencies. it would streamline the process and make clear that no federal worker would ever have to choose between being with their newborn and receiving a paycheck. so with that, i urge the strong support of this amendment as a common sense middle ground and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: madam chair, i'd like to yield myself -- the chair: the gentleman -- does the gentleman rise in opposition? mr. lynch: i rise in opposition to the amendment. cho the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. ky not support the amendment at hand as it goes against the bill's fundamental purpose. to begin this amendment actually guts the bill, it does little more than restate the status quo with regard to the type and amount of leave currently available to new

parents in the federal government. to be clear, i support h.r. 626 because i want to support working families across the country. i oppose the amendment because we should not replicate the current inadequate system that forces moms and dads to choose between their paychecks and caring for a newborn. the gentleman's amendment would strike the bill's core requirement that federal employees receive four weeks of paid leave. instead, it would require them to take advance leave in order to take care of their newborn or newly adopted child. in other words, new employees would be required to go into debt in their available -- in their available leave as a cost of caring for their child. i do want to point out an odd result of the gentleman's amendment. for the new employees who have unpaid leave right now, it would force them to take unpaid

leave at a point in time, for instance, for a new mom, right after she has the baby. it would force her to take unpaid leave. and then later on, after the eight or 12 weeks have been expired, at a point maybe when that mom was ready to come back to work, it would then give those employees, mom and dad, four weeks of paid leave. and so rather than come back to work, they'd be facing the opportunity to take paid leave at that point. i think in some cases, it may turn out that this may increase the cost, while it actually devalues the benefit to the employee up front, it also by perhaps getting a higher utilization rate in the end may cost the government more money. so it's sort of a lose-lose situation. longer term employees would be required to exhaust any available prior leave before

being eligible to take the additional advance leave and under most circumstances, they may already do this. so the amendment's only alleged new benefit to employees is to allow newer hires to go into a deficit on their leave in order to get days paid in their parental leave. again, federal agencies can already offer advance leave so there's no new benefit here. the true effect of this benefit is to gut the primary purpose of the bill to support families and child development by providing four weeks of unconditional paid leave to new mothers and fathers in the federal work force. in addition to gutting the bill, the amendment is inequitable because it would impact new employees and older employees differently. plfer, the amendment is not good policy because employees should not be forced to use uh up their accrued annual sick leave to care for a new child this can leave employees in a desperate situation if any

emergency arises or if they become seriously ill down the road. this amendment is somewhat shortsighted, it ignores the strategic invest thament h.r. 626 makes in the federal work force at a time we need to be attracted young, talented employees to prepare far wave of upcoming retirements. currently we have about 315,000 federal employees that are eligible to retire. unfortunately, those are the most experienced and in some cases the most ablest employees we have in the federal government. so this bill -- this amendment ignores the social benefits to society as a whole that result from supporting families with progressive work life policy such as a paid parental leave program. because it guts the pending legislation, i have to oppose it for all the reasons i have stated, in spite of the gentleman's good intentions and i ask that members continue to support the bill and oppose

this amendment. i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i now proudly yield one minute to the ranking member of the subcommittee and somebody who is very aware of family values and the importance of this legislation, mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: there's no more precious time than those with your children. we want to be as compassionate as we can. but at a time when we have millions and millions of people out of work and are looking at a $1.8 trillion budget deficit just this year alone, i don't want to straddle that new kid, that new child who is coming into the world with this unbelievable debt. so it's something i'd like to do, but i think what mr. issa's amendment offers is a very reasonable alternative to create the atmosphere and

create the program and create the way our federal employees can tap into something they have earned, but i think we have an obligation to recognize the proper role of government. we have to remember, for every dollar, every benefit that we want to hand to a federal worker, we're going to have to take that money from somewhere and we're going to have to take it from the american people's pockets to give to it someone else. when we recognize that balance we recognize that somebody is going to have to pay for that -- mr. issa: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i appreciate what mr. issa is proposing. let's remember it's the american people's money, not congress' money. it's the american people's money. at a time of hurt a time of deficit, now is not the time to go out and spend billions more dollars when we're so far in debt. i thank mr. issa and yield back the balance of my time

the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. lynch: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i believe i have the right to close. the chair: that's not correct, the gentleman from massachusetts has the right to close. mr. issa: then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining, the gentleman from massachusetts has 30 seconds remaining. the -- who seeks time? is the gentleman from massachusetts -- mr. lynch: i continue to reserve. the chair: is the gentleman from massachusetts prepared to close? mr. lynch: yes. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i want to review one more time why we believe that doing this within the existing means of the program dollars already available to the

federal work force is a common sense compromise. meeting the majority halfway but recognizing that 14 million americans making no money except for their unemployment insurance and those who are making so much less this year demand that we find ways not to increase our spending. so madam chair, i would like to review one last time, the federal work force, if you have been only three years, you have four weeks of paid vacation and 13 days which is nearly three weeks, of sick leave per year. you already have that every year. isn't it family values to be willing to give up some of that to be able to stay with your family? why wouldn't you use some of that first? madam chair, i want to recognize that the work force, the federal work force is a good workforce. we want it to be a great workforce. but at a time when 14 million americans are looking for jobs, we are not having a hard time

finding people who want to come to work for the federal government. we're offering jobs, we're hiring, we're growing. if we're ever going to need an inducement, it'll be at a boom time when we have to compete against higher salaries and bonuses, not at a time when americans are being laid off and suffering in record numbers. lastly, madam chair, i would like to refer to the president's statement in support of the bill he redelites bill. he says the administration is currently reviewing existing federal leave policies to determine the extent of the 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 the federal agencies and employees as well as their families masm dam chair, what that says to me is, this is not the right bill. they'd like to work with us to make it better. hopefully this amendment will make it better here today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i'd like to yield

for the purpose of closing to the individual, along with congressman hoyer, mrs. maloney has championed the bill for the past 15 years. i yield her the remaining time in order to close. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: may i inquire how much time i have? the chair: 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: i appreciate my colleague's hard work and effort but i rise in opposition to the amendment. the amendment would do absolutely nothing but maintain the status quo. it asks federal employees to continue to cobble together sick and annual leave if they want to get a paycheck while they care for their new child. this policy does not help relatively new employees, younger workers, or those with health problems who have little accrued leave to draw on. it also puts the health and well being of our employees and their families at risk. a new baby typically -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i would request an opportunity to place in the