[House Report 111-116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Rept. 111-116
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
======================================================================
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAID PARENTAL LEAVE ACT OF 2009
_______
May 18, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Towns, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 626]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred 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, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and
recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Legislative History.............................................. 2
Section-By-Section............................................... 3
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Rollcall Votes................................................... 3
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 3
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 4
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 4
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 4
Federal Advisory Committee Act................................... 4
Unfunded Mandates Statement...................................... 4
Earmark Identification........................................... 4
Committee Estimate............................................... 4
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of
2009, was introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on
January 22, 2009. The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
(FEPPLA) would amend section 6382 of title 5, U.S.C., the
Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) and the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to provide four weeks of paid parental
leave to federal and congressional employees for the birth,
adoption, or placement of a child, out of the twelve weeks of
unpaid leave that are currently available to employees under
the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Background and Need for Legislation
Under existing law, most federal and congressional
employees are entitled to a total of twelve workweeks of unpaid
leave during any 12-month period because of the birth or
adoption of a child. Federal employees must use accrued annual
leave if they want to receive pay for any of the time that they
are out on leave. Under some circumstances, accrued sick leave
may be used to care for the new child, but only if the child is
ill or if there were complications with the pregnancy or birth.
Many employees cannot afford to take unpaid leave, and are
forced to choose between spending more time with their new
child and maintaining an income to support their family.
H.R. 626 will help families by providing four weeks of paid
parental leave to federal and congressional employees. In
addition to the four weeks, employees will also be allowed to
use accrued annual or sick leave for parental leave. Unlike
current law, employees using their sick leave for parental
leave will not need to demonstrate a medical need for the
leave. Enactment of this measure will ensure that the federal
government, as an employer, is providing the type of benefits
offered to government workers in other industrialized
countries. This family friendly measure will also have a
positive impact on our ability to attract and retain a highly
qualified federal workforce.
Legislative History
Earlier versions of H.R. 626 (H.R. 3158, H.R. 3799, H.R.
5718 and H.R. 5781) were introduced in previous Congresses.
H.R. 5781 was introduced and passed in the House of
Representatives in 2008. H.R. 626 was introduced on January 22,
2009, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, and the Committee on House Administration.
The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee held a markup on March 25, 2009, where the
bill was forwarded to the Full Committee by voice vote. The
Oversight and Government Reform Committee then held a markup of
the bill on May 6, 2009. The Committee ordered the bill to be
reported by voice vote.
Section-by-Section
Sec.1. Short title
The short title of the bill is the Federal Employees Paid
Parental Leave Act of 2009.
Sec.2. Paid parental leave under Title 5
This section would amend section 6382 of title 5, U.S.C.,
to provide paid parental leave to most federal employees.
Under this section, covered employees would be permitted to
substitute up to four workweeks of paid parental leave for any
of the unpaid leave currently provided for the birth or
placement of a child. The Office of Personnel Management would
be allowed to promulgate regulations to increase the amount of
paid parental leave to 8 administrative workweeks. OPM would
have to analyze the benefits and costs to the federal
government and trends in the private sector before doing so.
Sec.3. Paid parental leave for Congressional employees
Section 3 would amend section 202 of the Congressional
Accountability Act to provide paid parental leave to
congressional employees.
Sec. 4. Conforming amendment to Family and Medical Leave Act for GAO
and Library of Congress employees
This section amends the FMLA to make paid parental leave
benefits available to Government Accountability Office (GAO)
and Library of Congress employees, who are not otherwise
covered by 5 U.S.C. 6382 and section 202 of the CAA.
Explanation of Amendments
No amendments to H.R. 626 were offered or adopted in
Committee.
Committee Consideration
On Wednesday, May 6, 2009, the Committee met in open
session and favorably ordered H.R. 626 to be reported to the
House by a voice vote.
Rollcall Votes
No rollcall votes were taken.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
Sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 626 would apply to congressional
and legislative branch employees by providing paid parental
leave to the aforementioned employees.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report, including the need to provide federal and
congressional employees with paid parental leave for the birth
or adoption of a child.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions
of this report, including the requirement that executive and
legislative branch agencies and congressional offices provide
employees with paid parental leave for the birth or adoption of
a child.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee must include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law
proposed by H.R. 626. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the
Constitution of the United States grants the Congress the power
to enact this law.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
Unfunded Mandates Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement on
whether the provisions of the report include unfunded mandates.
In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received
a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included herein.
Earmark Identification
H.R. 626 does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Committee Estimate
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 626. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that
this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included
in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following cost estimate for H.R. 626 from the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2009.
Hon. Edolphus Towns,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 626, the Federal
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Barry Blom.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
SUBPART E--ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 63--LEAVE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6382. Leave requirement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d)] (1) An employee may elect to substitute for leave under
[subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or] subparagraph (C) or (D) of
subsection (a)(1) any of the employee's accrued or accumulated
annual or sick leave under subchapter I for any part of the 12-
week period of leave under such subsection, except that nothing
in this subchapter shall require an employing agency to provide
paid sick leave in any situation in which such employing agency
would not normally provide any such paid leave. An employee may
elect to substitute for leave under subsection (a)(3) any of
the employee's accrued or accumulated annual or sick leave
under subchapter I for any part of the 26-week period of leave
under such subsection.
(2) An employee may elect to substitute for any leave without
pay under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) any paid
leave which is available to such employee for that purpose.
(3) The paid leave that is available to an employee for
purposes of paragraph (2) is--
(A) subject to paragraph (6), 4 administrative
workweeks of paid parental leave under this
subparagraph in connection with the birth or placement
involved; and
(B) any annual or sick leave accrued or accumulated
by such employee under subchapter I.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to require
that an employee first use all or any portion of the leave
described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) before being
allowed to use the paid parental leave described in
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3).
(5) Paid parental leave under paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund
available for salaries or expenses for positions within
the employing agency;
(B) shall not be considered to be annual or vacation
leave for purposes of section 5551 or 5552 or for any
other purpose; and
(C) if not used by the employee before the end of the
12-month period (as referred to in subsection (a)(1))
to which it relates, shall not accumulate for any
subsequent use.
(6) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management--
(A) may promulgate regulations to increase the amount
of paid parental leave available to an employee under
paragraph (3)(A), to a total of not more than 8
administrative workweeks, based on the consideration
of--
(i) the benefits provided to the Federal
Government of offering increased paid parental
leave, including enhanced recruitment and
retention of employees;
(ii) the cost to the Federal Government of
increasing the amount of paid parental leave
that is available to employees;
(iii) trends in the private sector and in
State and local governments with respect to
offering paid parental leave;
(iv) the Federal Government's role as a model
employer; and
(v) such other factors as the Director
considers necessary; and
(B) shall prescribe any regulations necessary to
carry out this subsection, including, subject to
paragraph (4), the manner in which an employee may
designate any day or other period as to which such
employee wishes to use paid parental leave described in
paragraph (3)(A).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 202 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995
SEC. 202. RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
OF 1993.
(a) Family and Medical Leave Rights and Protections
Provided.--
(1) In general.--The rights and protections
established by sections 101 through 105 of the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611 through
2615) shall apply to covered employees. In applying
section 102(a)(1)(A) and (B) of such Act to covered
employees, subsection (d) shall apply.
* * * * * * *
(d) Special Rule for Paid Parental Leave for Congressional
Employees.--
(1) Substitution of paid leave.--A covered employee
taking leave without pay under subparagraph (A) or (B)
of section 102(a)(1) of the Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)) may elect to
substitute for any such leave any paid leave which is
available to such employee for that purpose.
(2) Amount of paid leave.--The paid leave that is
available to a covered employee for purposes of
paragraph (1) is--
(A) the number of weeks of paid parental
leave in connection with the birth or placement
involved that correspond to the number of
administrative workweeks of paid parental leave
available to Federal employees under section
6382(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code;
and
(B) any additional paid vacation or sick
leave provided by the employing office to such
employee.
(3) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
considered to require that an employee first use all or
any portion of the leave described in subparagraph (B)
of paragraph (2) before being allowed to use the paid
parental leave described in subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (2).
(4) Additional rules.--Paid parental leave under
paragraph (2)(A)--
(A) shall be payable from any appropriation
or fund available for salaries or expenses for
positions within the employing office; and
(B) if not used by the covered employee
before the end of the 12-month period (as
referred to in section 102(a)(1) of the Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C.
2612(a)(1))) to which it relates, shall not
accumulate for any subsequent use.
[(d)] (e) Regulations.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e)] (f) Effective Date.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 102 OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993
SEC. 102. LEAVE REQUIREMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Relationship to Paid Leave.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Special rule for gao and library of congress
employees.--
(A) Substitution of paid leave.--An employee
of an employer described in section
101(4)(A)(iv) taking leave under subparagraph
(A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) may elect to
substitute for any such leave any paid leave
which is available to such employee for that
purpose.
(B) Amount of paid leave.--The paid leave
that is available to an employee of an employer
described in section 101(4)(A)(iv) for purposes
of subparagraph (A) is--
(i) the number of weeks of paid
parental leave in connection with the
birth or placement involved that
correspond to the number of
administrative workweeks of paid
parental leave available to Federal
employees under section 6382(d)(3)(A)
of title 5, United States Code; and
(ii) any additional paid vacation or
sick leave provided by such employer.
(C) Limitation.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be considered to require that an employee
first use all or any portion of the leave
described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B)
before being allowed to use the paid parental
leave described in clause (i) of such
subparagraph.
(D) Additional rules.--Paid parental leave
under subparagraph (B)(i)--
(i) shall be payable from any
appropriation or fund available for
salaries or expenses for positions with
the employer described in section
101(4)(A)(iv); and
(ii) if not used by the employee of
such employer before the end of the 12-
month period (as referred to in
subsection (a)(1)) to which it relates,
shall not accumulate for any subsequent
use.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing
H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of
2009, will cost taxpayers $938 million over the next five
years. H.R. 626 sends the wrong message at the wrong time to
working American taxpayers and families that are struggling in
a difficult economy.
I fully recognize and appreciate that, like their private
sector counterparts, most federal employees work hard and
deserve competitive compensation and benefits packages. But in
these perilous economic times, it is inappropriate for us to
heap even more generous benefits on federal employees, at
further taxpayer expense, while their private sector
counterparts are struggling.
Americans in the private sector are losing their jobs at a
rate unseen since the Great Depression. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics just reported that Metropolitan unemployment rates
were higher in March 2009 than March 2008 in every Metropolitan
area across the nation. Eighteen Metropolitan areas recorded
jobless rates of at least 15%. The national unemployment rate
is currently at 9%, a 5.2% percent increase over 2008.
Private sector workers arrive at work every morning scared
that they might be losing their job completely, if they haven't
already. If not facing job loss, they are certainly facing the
real possibility of slashed benefits. At the same time, federal
employees enjoy one of the highest levels of job security of
any sector in the nation along with generous benefits packages.
According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the rate of
layoffs and discharges (turnover) in the federal workforce was
a decade low of 3.9%. The private sector workforce has not been
so lucky, with a 2008 turnover rate of 20.2%. In fact, since
June 2008 the private sector has shed roughly 4.4 million jobs
while the federal government workforce has grown by 37,000
employees during the same period.
Moreover, the Office of Personnel Management has determined
that federal and private sector leave policies compare
favorably and the additional benefits of this bill would not be
a major factor in enhancing recruitment and retention.
Currently, federal government leave policies and programs
already provide employees with paid parental leave through the
sick and annual leave system. Federal employees enjoy a
benefits package that includes: annual leave, sick leave that
has unlimited accrual, paid holidays, a guaranteed government
pension and a matching 401K style retirement account.
Federal employees with 3-15 years of service accrue four
weeks of annual leave per year, those with more than 20 years
of service accrue five weeks of annual leave, and all full time
employees accrue 13 days of sick leave per year. Furthermore,
federal employees also enjoy 11 paid holidays, which means
federal employees generally enjoy seven or eight weeks off of
work while those in the private sector get significantly fewer.
Federal employees also receive generous retirement
benefits. Retiring federal employees take advantage of one of
the only remaining retirement plans that include a guaranteed
pension. In addition to the pension, the federal government
pays into an employee's 401K style account. This is all in
addition to job security that is second to none.
When it comes to the issue of parental leave, the birth
mother may use accrued sick leave (which has no accrual limit)
for medical appointments and/or hospitalization and the period
of incapacitation following delivery. The birth father may use
up to 12 weeks accrued sick leave each year to accompany the
mother to prenatal appointments, to be with her during the
period of hospitalization, and/or care for her during her
approximate six week recovery period. Beyond that, if the
mother and father exhaust their sick leave they are free to use
their accrued annual leave (30 days may be accrued by federal
employees stationed within the United States and 90 days may be
accrued by members of the senior executive service, senior-
level, scientific and professional employees) for any purpose,
including pregnancy and child birth. Additionally, if the
mother or father is a new employee the agency may advance
mother and father up to 30 days of annual and/or sick leave for
purposes related to childbirth. After the mother and/or father
have exhausted their sick and annual leave they may receive
donated annual leave from the employing agency's leave bank
program. Finally, each parent is entitled to 12 weeks of leave
without pay under FMLA.
This bill is being considered during a time when the
federal government should be acting with greater fiscal
responsibility. In fact, President Obama has made concerted
efforts to emphasize fiscal discipline. According to the New
York Times, the President has said that the government must act
``the same way any responsible family does in setting its
budget . . .'' He has challenged his entire cabinet to cut $100
million from their federal budgets, which, according to the
CBO, is approximately 1/10th of the $938 million cost of this
one piece of legislation.
This legislation is the forerunner to H.R. 1723, the Family
Leave Insurance Act of 2009, which has been introduced in the
111th Congress and has been referred to the Ways and Means
Committee. This companion legislation will create yet another
burden on the nation's struggling private sector, and will hit
small businesses especially hard. H.R. 1723 creates a Family
Medical Leave Insurance Fund that will provide up to 12 weeks
of paid medical leave for all employees through an insurance
fund administered by the federal government. This fund would be
``self-financing'' and be created by premiums paid by employer
and employee. Thus, during this time of economic hardship for
the private sector, through these two bills, Congress is both
gold-plating already generous federal employee benefits and
creating yet another financial burden for the private sector.
Taxpayers are reaching the breaking point when it comes to
subsidizing higher federal spending at their expense.
Responsible American families are cutting costs and dealing
with job loss and the destruction of their savings and
retirement accounts. It is simply not the right time to ask
taxpayers to pay for a new benefit for federal employees.
Darnell Issa.