Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5781, Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1277 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1277

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5781) to provide that 8 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Davis of Illinois or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5781 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. McGOVERN. 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. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1277 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and makes in order one of the two amendments submitted for consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2008, which in my opinion is a sensible, compassionate bill that provides Federal employees with 4 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child.

Today the Federal Government does not offer any paid time off specifically to care for an infant or newly adopted child. If a Federal employee needs time to take care of the newest addition to their family, their only option for paid leave is to use their accrued sick days and vacation time.

This policy is unfair and disadvantageous to relatively new Federal employees or those who have experienced extended health problems. Having a policy that assumes Federal employees will not get sick or take vacation is unsound and needs to be rectified.

Paid parental leave for Federal workers is long overdue, and it is a shame that the Federal Government, our country's largest employer, has not provided it yet. The Federal Government ought to set the standard as a family-friendly workplace, and not fall behind.

And even more especially in this economic downturn, the Federal Government needs to step up and provide its families with paid leave. It is unconscionable, Madam Speaker, to ask parents to choose between their job and their new child in these harsh economic times.

With two full-time working parents being the standard nowadays, forcing families to lose one salary while they face astronomical food and energy prices is unacceptable.

Now some may claim that we are expanding the total amount of time a Federal employee may take off to care for a new child. Let me be clear, this bill does not expand the amount of leave currently available to Federal employees. This bill simply allows for 4 weeks of paid leave out of the 12 weeks that Federal employees currently receive under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The bill does not expand the total amount of time a person may take off under FMLA, and any claims to the contrary are simply false.

Madam Speaker, it is also important to note that this legislation will not affect the strength of our Nation's military. Since the Armed Forces set their own policies for leave, active duty soldiers are exempt from H.R. 5781. However, this legislation will provide 4 weeks of paid leave to the 400,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense that serve with our armed forces at military bases across the country and around the world.

We depend on these mothers and fathers to make America safe, and providing them with 4 weeks of paid leave to care for their child is a much needed and much-deserved benefit.

Lastly, providing paid parental leave is a good recruitment tool for the Federal Government. In order to attract the best and the brightest and retain talent in our Federal workforce, Congress must provide important incentives like paid parental leave. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for families by supporting this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to respond by saying that Members on both sides of the aisle like to talk about family values all the time. Well, this is an effort that actually puts some real action behind those words. This is about helping families. I find it somehow puzzling that anybody would think this is a radical idea. And I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you know, you have messed up our economy, you have increased financial insecurity amongst working families in this country, you have done everything you can to help the oil companies at the expense of average citizens who are now paying extraordinary prices at the gas tank. I mean, you have put working families at an extreme disadvantage.

This is an effort to provide a little bit of relief when somebody has a new baby or adopts a new child. Boy, to think that is a radical idea just to me defies reason.

At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the author of this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me reiterate something I said earlier in the debate, and that is the Republican Congress and this Republican President have made a mess of this economy. Their legacy is a lousy economy. There are more people every day losing their jobs. Their legacy is that they have left my kids with a $300 billion deficit and a $9.4 trillion debt, the largest debt in the history of the United States of America. That's their legacy. That's their great economic achievement.

Their legacy is basically no energy policy except whatever the oil companies want, and that's what they have done when they were in power. Whatever the oil companies want, the oil companies get.

And quite frankly, it kind of took my breath away when I heard my colleague talk about the oil companies as ``our friends.'' Well, with friends like the oil companies, the consumers do not need enemies.

In 2002, the profits of the oil companies were at about $30 billion. In 2007, it's $123.3 billion. And yet we have seen rising gas prices. The consumers have been gouged. These oil companies have ripped off the citizens of this country.

The fact of the matter is that there are 68 million acres onshore and offshore in the United States that are leased by oil companies open to drilling and actually under lease, but they're not developed. They have 68 million acres. The fact is if oil companies tapped the 68 million Federal acres of leased land, it could generate an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day, six times what ANWR would produce at its peak.

The fact is 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies have not decided it's worth their time to drill there.

The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for 10 years and then would only save the consumer 1.8 cents per gallon in 2025. The bottom line is, Madam Speaker, is that these oil companies choose not to drill for more oil. They choose instead to do what they're doing and put the burden on the American consumer.

I have heard the issue about we need to expand refinery capacity. Well, we currently have excess oil refinery capacity. According to the Energy Information Administration, our refineries are currently running at 88 percent capacity, well below the 95 to 98 percent capacity, use rates we've seen this time of year for the last decade.

Now, no new oil refineries have been built in the last 30 years because major oil companies have not sought to build them. They have the ability. They've not sought to build them. ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell have publicly stated that they have no plans to build new refineries. Instead, they prefer to expand existing facilities. Shell, ConocoPhillips, and BP all testified that they were unaware of any environmental regulations preventing them from building new refineries or expanding existing ones. So there is nothing in the way that's preventing them from expansion.

And internal memos from oil companies make it clear that oil companies have decided that they needed to reduce refinery capacity to drive up their profits. They don't care. They don't care about the consumer. All they care about is profits. And for too long, our energy policy under the Republican Congress and this Republican President has been to give the oil companies whatever they want. We have done that, and we are now paying the price.

I should also point out that this Congress has enacted a number of pieces of legislation to try to deal with this issue. Interestingly enough, most of them have been either vetoed or threatened to be vetoed by the President. It's also interesting to note that among those that the President has threatened to veto are legislation that would take away the tax breaks and subsidies that we provide Big Oil, the companies that are making record profits, and put that into renewable clean forms of energy. That's what the administration is aghast at. They can't believe that we'd want to take away taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil, the companies that are now ripping off the American consumer, and put that into alternative energy research and development so that we're not so reliant on oil and we could become more energy independent.

We have tried to take the lead on energy independence in this Congress, but we have run into roadblocks by the Republicans here in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and this administration.

I would also point out that the American people get it. One of the reasons why Republicans are losing elections is because the American people are fed up with their policies. They want a new direction, and they will get a new direction come November with an expanded Democratic majority here in the House and in the Senate and a Democratic President.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just once again reiterate to my colleagues the importance of the underlying legislation. The Federal Employees Paid Parents Leave Act does not change the fundamental principles of the Family and Medical Leave Act in any way. The bill does not expand the number of weeks of leave available to workers under FMLA, the bill does not expand the number of employees who are eligible for FMLA leave, and the bill does not grant employees any additional sick leave.

For Federal employees who are currently entitled to FMLA coverage, this bill would simply allow them to be paid for four of those weeks if used for parental use, if used to care for a newborn child or a newly adopted child. I mean, this to me is common sense. This is the right thing to do.

As I said, Members talk all the time about family values. Well, here is our chance to show that we mean what we say. I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1277 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

SEC. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2279) to expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed military installations in the United States. All points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by Representative Dingell of Michigan or Representative Skelton of Missouri, which shall he considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

(The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition, a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question a resolution reported; from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the Opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative Plan.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source