GovernmentExecutive.com

Over Republican objections that an economic slowdown was no time to increase benefits for federal employees, the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee moved a bill giving federal employees paid parental leave.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., was sent to the full committee on a 7-3 party line vote. House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Tom Davis, R-Va., is the lone Republican co-sponsor.

The legislation would allow all federal employees eight weeks of paid leave with benefits for the birth or adoption of a child. The bill applies to both maternity and paternity leave.

An amendment from House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., changed the amount of paid leave to four weeks and allowed employees to use accrued sick leave for an additional eight paid weeks. The amendment allows the Office of Personnel Management to assess whether the provisions are comparable to what is offered in the private sector. The amendment passed by voice vote with Republicans voting no.

Waxman said parental leave was "one area where the federal government has lagged behind" the private sector. Democrats promoted the bill as a family values measure that would allow parents more time to bond with new children.

Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee Chairman Danny Davis, D-Ill., said that 168 countries offer some sort of paid parental leave for mothers, while 66 offer paid leave for fathers.

Currently, the Family and Medical Leave Act allows federal employees unpaid parental leave.

Federal Workforce Subcommittee ranking member Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, called the bill "not essential, given the limited resources of the government," and added that since paid paternity leave is not prevalent in the private sector, the government is going beyond simply trying to keep pace.

"This is the worst time to in fact increase public sector benefits, when in fact the private sector is seeing an increasing recession," said Rep. Darrell Issa as many private sector employees start to have benefits reduced due to the economic downturn.

"We're permitting a statement that we're out of touch with the people who are enjoying a bad economy," Issa said, adding that Waxman's amendment "falls short" of coming in line with Republican concerns.

Waxman tried to ease Republican fears that the bill would create new spending. Waxman said the money for benefits would come from discretionary spending and would not require additional appropriations.

COMMENTS

• I am totally for the bill. I dont think people (the public) understand that us Federal employees do not earn very much sick leave - 13 days per year. That means it takes over 3 years of saving each and every day just to have 6 weeks off with your baby. Thats just not right. The other option is leave without pay but i dont know very many people who can miss one paycheck let alone two or three. Elisabeth Posted November 24, 2008 2:44 PM
• Wow, I have been reading all of the hateful articles written by so many of you and I am just APPALLED!!! It disgusts me how so many American’s share in the “me, me, me” mentality that most of world criticizes the U.S. for….Congress is trying to enact legislation that is long overdue to help families out during the first “4” (not eight by the way, read the amended bill) weeks of having a newborn baby. This is not even close to any kind of “vacation” if you know ANYTHING about having a baby at all. For one to say “what do I get” miss the point of the bill….Thinking about yourselves of course and not the needs of new parents. This country is continuing to head in the wrong direction and has it’s priorities completely backwards. “Family Values” seem to be diminishing with each decade…Instead of complaining about 4 weeks of paid maternity leave for people who really need it, why don’t you refocus your energy on criticizing the hundred of BILLIONS wasted on the war in Iraq or the Corporate Welfare System that allows a CEO’s pay to continue to rise even when their own company’s profits have fallen for the period they are receiving record increases in pay for. When an Executive is making $14million annually when his/her co had a big net loss, now that is something to complain about. What about those hug tax breaks for the corporations that received hundreds of millions and whom benefit from the tax breaks much more that your average middle class working American ever would…. For those of you republican’s who call yourselves fiscally responsible, OPEN YOUR EYES!!! The last 8 years of this Republican Administration is anything but “FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE” I agree that there is a lot of wasteful spending in this country, you see it in the welfare system as well as the Corporate Welfare system, but to invest money on 4 weeks of paid maternity leave on families in need is not asking too much, I believe all families not just the federal government deserve that much…..I’m hoping in the next election we will have some new leadership in office that will bring this country together so for once, we can start thinking of us first and foremost as “Americans” and we can learn what “family values” actually mean. And just maybe we can even learn how to stop thinking about “me” and start thinking about “we”, wouldn’t that be a nice change! Melissa Posted June 20, 2008 10:56 AM
• I do not feel sorry for Federal Employees not have paid maternity leave. The rest of the USA does't have it either. Why does anybody think taxpayers should fund benefits that they have never had? This is wrong. cathy eaton Posted June 16, 2008 3:01 PM