U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

46–711 PDF 2009

INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE FEDERAL

WORKFORCE: PAID PARENTAL LEAVE IMPROVES RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

AND THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 6, 2008

Serial No. 110–114

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and

the Joint Economic Committee

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

——— ———

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

JOHN M. MCHUGH, NEW YORK

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

TANIA SHAND, Staff Director

(III)

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Senator, Chairman

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Representative, Vice Chairman

SENATE HOUSE

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania

JIM WEBB, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

RON PAUL, Texas

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 6, 2008 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Beard, Daniel, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of Representatives; and Nancy Kichak, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ............................... 6

Beard, Daniel ............................................................................................. 6

Kichak, Nancy ........................................................................................... 13

Kelley, Colleen, president, National Treasury Employees Union; Mary

Jean Burke, first executive vice president, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO; and Amy Costantino, Federal employee 58

Burke, Mary Jean ...................................................................................... 65

Costantino, Amy ........................................................................................ 73

Kelley, Colleen ........................................................................................... 58

Waldfogel, Dr. Jane, professor of social work, the Columbia University;

Sharyn Tejani, senior counsel, National Partnership for Women and

Families; and Dr. Vicky Lovell, director of employment and work-life

programs, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research ............................... 26

Lovell, Vicky .............................................................................................. 41

Tejani, Sharyn ........................................................................................... 33

Waldfogel, Jane ......................................................................................... 26

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Beard, Daniel, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of Representatives, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 8

Burke, Mary Jean, first executive vice president, American Federation

of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, prepared statement of .................. 67

Costantino, Amy, Federal employee, prepared statement of ........................ 75

Kelley, Colleen, president, National Treasury Employees Union, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 60

Kichak, Nancy, Associate Director for Strategic Human Resources Policy,

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, prepared statement of ................. 15

Lovell, Dr. Vicky, director of employment and work-life programs, the

Institute for Women’s Policy Research, prepared statement of ................ 43

Tejani, Sharyn, senior counsel, National Partnership for Women and

Families, prepared statement of .................................................................. 35

Waldfogel, Dr. Jane, professor of social work, the Columbia University,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 28

(1)

INVESTING IN THE FUTURE OF THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE: PAID PARENTAL LEAVE

IMPROVES RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, JOINT WITH THE JOINT ECONOMIC

COMMITTEE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Danny K. Davis (chairman of the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of

Columbia Subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis of Illinois, Marchant, Maloney,

and Sarbanes.

Staff present from the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the

District of Columbia Subcommittee: Tania Shand, staff director;

Lori J. Hayman, counsel; Mason Alinger, minority legislative director; Alex Cooper, minority professional staff member; and LaKeshia

N. Myers, clerk.

Staff present from the Joint Economic Committee: Nan Gibson,

deputy staff director; Stephanie Dreyer, policy analyst; and Heather Bouchey, senior economist.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The subcommittees will come to order.

This is an hearing entitled, ‘‘Investing in the Future of the Federal Workforce: Paid Parental Leave to Improve Recruitment and

Retention.’’

I want to welcome Vice Chair Maloney, Ranking Member

Marchant, members of the subcommittee and members of the Joint

Economic Committee, hearing witnesses and all of those in attendance. I welcome you to the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and

the District of Columbia Subcommittee and Joint Economic Committee Hearing entitled, ‘‘Investing in the Future of the Federal

Workforce: Paid Parental Leave to Improve Recruitment and Retention.’’

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the merits of the Federal Employees Paid Parent Leave Act of 2007, H.R. 3799, which

provides that all Federal employees receive 8 weeks of full pay and

benefits for leave taken for the birth or adoption of a child.

Hearing no objection, the Chair, Vice Chair, ranking member and

subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make opening

2

statements, and all Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record. I will begin with mine.

Members of the subcommittee, members of the Join Economic

Committee, especially Vice Chair Carolyn Maloney, and hearing

witnesses, welcome to the subcommittee’s joint hearing on paid parental leave for Federal employees.

Today’s hearing will examine the merits of H.R. 3799, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2007, the act introduced

by Vice Chair Carolyn Marilyn. The act provides that all Federal

employees receive 8 weeks of full pay and benefits for leave taken

for the birth or adoption of a child.

The issue of parental leave is an important one, and I am

pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

The United States is far behind the world in offering paid leave

for parents: 168 countries offer guaranteed paid leave to women in

connection with childbirth; 98 of these countries offer 14 or more

weeks paid leave. The United States guarantees no paid leave for

mothers in any segment of the work force.

The Family Medical Leave Act, enacted in 1993, added 12 weeks

of job-protected leave for the birth or adoption of a child. While this

unpaid leave has helped millions of families, many employees have

been unable to take time off to care for a new child or a seriously

ill loved-one, because they cannot afford the lost pay.

H.R. 3799 remedies this problem for Federal employees and will

bring the United States in line with the rest of the world.

The United States is supposed to be a world leader. In this area,

we have been followers. It is time for us to catch up and provide

paid family leave for Federal employees.

During the markup of H.R. 3799, I will offer an amendment that

directs the Government Accountability Office to study the feasibility of providing a disability insurance benefit to Federal employees.

The disability insurance benefit, excluding paternal leave, would

include paid time off for Federal employees caring for a spouse,

child or parent that has a serious health condition and cannot care

for themselves and/or a Federal employees that has a serious

health condition that renders him or her unable to perform their

job functions.

GAO would also analyze disability insurance benefits that are

currently being offered by States, local governments and the private sector.

Today, I will introduce legislation that will extend the maximum

age to quality for coverage for dependents under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program from age 22 to age 25. Young

adults are the fastest growing age group among the uninsured.

While the current law provides health insurance until age 22,

studies such as the one done by the Commonwealth Edison Fund,

which is an organization that aims to promote a high performing

healthcare system in the United States, found that college-educated or not, 22 year olds face waiting periods, temporary positions

and lower wage jobs as they enter the job market. Healthcare is

not available to them at a price they can afford.

Several States have enacted new legislation to avert this health

crisis.

3

Providing Federal employees with paid parental leave and raising the maximum age to quality for the FEHBP from 22 to 25 will

increase worker morale and improve productivity by creating a

more family friendly environment for Federal employees.

I thank all of you for being here today and look forward to the

witness testimonies.

I now yield to the Vice Chair of the Joint Economic Committee,

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you so much, Chairman Davis, for holding

this hearing on this incredibly important issue and, ranking member, we thank you.

Danny and I have a long history of successes, first with the census. We worked hand in glove to get a more accurate count and

later with the Postal Bill that took us maybe 10 years to pass. It

just never seemed to get done, but we did get a balanced and fair

bill passed.

I hope that our success will be a winning streak on this, and we

will be able to report this out of the committee and pass it and get

this important issue into the lives of Federal employees and their

families.

I do want to thank the witnesses for being here to testify today.

Very clearly, I know all of us understand that the American

workplace has not kept pace with the changing needs of workers

and families. Both Ozzie and Harriet go to work now. So most families no longer have a stay at home parent to care for a new child,

and they can’t afford to forego pay for any length of time.

Experts in child development tell us that mothers need time to

recover from childbirth and that mothers and fathers alike need

time to care for and bond with their new baby.

All Americans have the right to job-protected leave under the

Family and Medical Leave Act. I must say that was the first bill

I voted for in 1993 when I came here as a new Member of Congress. Yet, very little since then has passed to help parents balance

work and family. For a country that talks about family values, we

should be doing more to help our hardworking men and women.

I just feel very strongly about this. When I was expecting my

first child, I was working for the State of New York, and I called

them up and I asked them about their leave policies. They told me,

and this is a true story. They said, we don’t have any leave policies.

Women just leave.

There was no consideration, no Family and Medical Leave. You

just left.

She said, maybe you should apply for disability.

Well, pregnancy is not disability, and I would never do that for

pregnancy.

But, in any event, many women have been afraid of losing their

jobs because of doing the wonderful thing of having a child, and the

United States is very, very far behind the rest of the world. We are

the only industrialized country that does not ensure paid family

leave for all our workers.

In fact, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office

that I requested shows that the United States lags far behind other

industrialized countries in providing policies that help families balVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:01 Mar 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46711.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
4

ance the competing demands of work and family responsibilities.

You can go to my government Web site and get this entire report.

The European Union requires that member countries offer a minimum of 14 weeks of paid maternity leave as a basic employment

standard, but most countries offer more than the minimum.

Federal workers, like many U.S. workers, do not have access to

paid parental leave, so they are forced to choose between their paycheck and their new child. Federal employees who become new parents do have the option of using their accrued sick days and vacation time or tapping into a leave bank.

This may work for the lucky families who never get sick, never

need a vacation and are happy to rely on the kindness of strangers

but, as one of our witnesses will tell us this morning, even the best

prepared workers face difficult choices when children need their

care.

As our country’s largest employer, the Federal Government

should be leading the way in providing a family friendly work environment, but it is not. The Joint Economic Committee released a

report yesterday that I requested, which shows that the Federal

Government lags far behind Fortune 100 companies in providing

paid family leave as part of their benefits package. You can read

the report on my Web site, www.maloney.house.gov.

Fortune 100 companies overwhelmingly offer mothers paid leave

lasting 6 to 8 weeks long, yet the Federal Government has no family leave policy beyond Family and Medical Leave. With only 319

days left of the Bush administration, the President’s Office of Management and Personnel is here today to tell us only about their

plan for a short-term disability, but this plan falls fall short of

being a paid family leave policy.

The lack of paid family leave puts Federal agencies at a disadvantage when competing for the best and the brightest employees. Our Federal work force is aging as agencies have found it difficult to recruit and retain younger workers.

It is probably one of my children calling. I will take it in the

other room.

Providing paid parental leave would encourage younger workers,

who may be considering having a family, to stay with the Federal

Government. We need to keep these workers. If we as a country

truly value families, then we need new policies and investments

that support our working families and set out children on a path

of success early in life.

In the absence of a Federal paid leave program, California and

Washington have passed paid family leave laws. I am told New

Jersey just passed one. New York has a bill pending before their

legislature.

When we pass H.R. 3799, over 2.6 million workers in the United

States will have the right to paid parental leave, and we will be

setting a standard for the rest of the Nation to follow.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your outstanding leadership and

commitment to this really important issue to American families

and Federal workers. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Representative Maloney.

We will now go to the ranking member, Mr. Marchant.

5

Mr. MARCHANT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee. I want to thank the chairman today for holding this

hearing.

If you visit any suburban soccer field in America today, parent

after parent will tell you that trying to balance work responsibilities and family responsibilities is an ongoing battle. Obviously,

this battle is the most intense in the weeks right after the time a

child is born or joins a family through adoption.

So I come to today’s hearing, interested to hear how this suggested expansion of paid Federal leave might be viewed by Federal

employees. Is there call for increased paid family leave or are Federal employees asking for other types of new coverage instead?

How will this new increased benefit square against private sector

benefits?

It is important to make sure that Federal jobs are as competitive

and appealing as possible but, as good stewards of the taxpayers’

dollars, we have to be strategic in the way we choose to improve

the Federal workspace.

It should also be pointed out that we to understand the stress

such an expansion of benefits places on the employees required to

fill in while fathers and mothers take this needed leave.

It is important that we make choices here that balance the families’ needs with the needs of the government and understand the

direct and indirect cost involved before we proceed with the plan.

Hopefully, we can find a way to satisfy all of these varied interests

in one legislative vehicle.

Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Marchant.

We will now hear from our witnesses, and let me introduce them.

Mr. Dan Beard is the third Chief Administrative Officer for the

House of Representatives. Dr. Beard returned to the House of Representatives at the start of the 110th Congress after serving as a

senior advisor for the consultant firm, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

Previously, he spent 10 years on the staff of the House Appropriations and Natural Resources Committees.

His three decades of experience in policy affairs and management

issues also include positions with the Senate, White House, Interior

Department and the Library of Congress.

Thank you, Dr. Beard, for being here.

Ms. Nancy Kichak is the Associate Director for Strategic Human

Resources Policy for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. She

leads the design, development and implementation of innovative,

flexible, merit-based human resources policy.

Of course, it is policy that all witnesses be sworn in before this

committee, so if you would stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that each witness

answered in the affirmative.

Of course, your entire statement is already included in the hearing record.

The green light indicates that you have 5 minutes to summarize

your statement. The yellow light means your time is running down

and, of course, you have 1 minute remaining to complete your

statement. The red light means that your time is expired.

6

Of course, we will make sure that the light gets to working properly, and I am sure the technicians will be here in a minute.

Thank you very much, and we will begin with you, Mr. Beard.

STATEMENTS OF DANIEL BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; AND NANCY

KICHAK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BEARD

Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Maloney,

Congressman Marchant. I thank you for the opportunity to be here

with you today to discuss the importance of providing paid parental

leave for Federal employees including legislative branch employees.

I want to compliment you for introducing H.R. 3799. This is an

important bill, and it is my hope the bill can be enacted promptly.

It is important to note that section three of the bill provides for

8 weeks of paid family medical leave for legislative branch employees. I appreciate your including these employees because too often

they are left out of this type of legislation.

As the officer who would be charged with implementing this legislation, I can assure we will not have any problems implementing

it, the legislation as written, and I hope that it will be enacted as

soon as practical.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will fill a significant gap in our

employee benefits portfolio.

The legislative branch, as well as the executive branch, is operating in a highly competitive job market. We must compete against

other private sector, non-profit and government organizations to attract a talented and diverse work force. Since it is difficult to compete based solely on salary, it is even more vital that we have a

strong employee benefit package to present prospective employees.

In addition, having a strong pay and benefit package is absolutely essential to retaining the work force that we currently have.

It is naive to think that we can attract and retain a first class work

force without strong pay and benefit packages, and that is why

H.R. 3799 is so vitally important.

You know one of the great myths about the Federal work force

is that they are benefit-rich. I think the myth is that the Federal

work force is under-worked, overpaid and wallowing in cushy benefits, and I just think this is absolute false based on my 35 year experience. Federal employees may have had great benefits and a

great benefit package in the 1950’s, but that certainly isn’t the case

today.

Last fall, I hired the consulting firm of Watson Wyatt to compare

the benefits received by employees of the House of Representatives

against employees of 14 other private firms, hospitals, universities

and State governments.

I have included two charts with my testimony that identify the

firms and organizations that we were compared against. As you

can see from the second table, our defined benefits retirement program and our retiree life insurance programs are ranked first

among the 15 organizations examined.

7

However, in every other area, our benefit package did not measure to our competitors. We have a long way to go before the benefit

package of our work force is competitive for purposes of attracting

and retaining employees.

There is one other myth I want to raise with respect to paid family and medical leave benefits. As major criticisms, one of the major

criticisms that is used to oppose this benefit is that it costs too

much money. I just don’t think this is the right way to look at it.

Salary budgets for Federal employees remain the same whether

the employee takes leave or not. The salary for that employee has

already been included in a budget and whether the employee is on

paid leave or not doesn’t really affect the budget of the employing

authority.

It is also incorrect to assume that if an employee takes family

or medical leave or parental leave, the employee must automatically be replaced by a paid replacement worker.

The question of whether you need to replace an employee for up

to 12 weeks is a management decision based on the particular

characteristics of the organization. In fact, in most cases, careful

management of human resources, which includes the effective absorption of the on-leave employee’s workload by other staff, can

minimize or eliminate the cost of providing FMLA benefits.

I would even argue that such a benefit saves money in the long

term because employee morale is always greater when an employer

treats their employees with dignity and especially in times of crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to

be here with you today, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beard follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Beard.

Ms. Kichak.

STATEMENT OF NANCY KICHAK

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittees, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss parental leave. We share your interest in this topic and ensuring that

the Federal Government has programs to assist employees in balancing their work and personal needs.

Today’s hearing is focused specifically on H.R. 3799, the Federal

Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2007. H.R. 3799 would provide 8 weeks of paid leave in addition to the employees’ accrued annual or sick leave that could be substituted for any portion of the

12 weeks of Family Medical Leave Act leave. Employees would not

be required to use their accumulated annual leave and sick leave

before using the 8 weeks of paid leave.

Results from the Federal Human Capital Survey show Federal

employees are very satisfied with benefits, including paid leave for

personal and family illness. Very few employers provide for unlimited accumulation of sick leave by the employees, but that is what

we do in the Federal Government.

Full-time employees covered by our leave system earn 13 days of

paid sick leave each year. Any amount they do not use by the end

of each year accumulates and remains available for their use in future years.

Federal employees may use up to 12 weeks of accrued sick leave

in a year to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Pregnancy and childbirth are included in the definition of serious health condition for this purpose. An employee can use this

leave to accompany the expectant mother to prenatal appointments, to be with her during her period of hospitalization and to

care for her during her recovery from childbirth.

The FMLA provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave within 12 months

of the birth or adoption of a child. Federal employees may substitute any accumulated annual leave for unpaid leave. Sick leave

may also be substituted for periods such as the mother’s recovery

from childbirth and for routine medical or well baby appointments.

The Federal Government also has advanced leave, leave banks

and leave-sharing programs to assist our employees needing more

help.

Even with all these benefits and flexibilities, we recognize there

is one missing piece we need in order to have a truly complete

package of quality benefits. That missing piece is income support

for employees who experience short-term disabilities, including as

a result of childbirth, early in their careers or when they have been

unable to accumulate sufficient sick or annual leave to meet their

needs.

We appreciate that H.R. 3799 recognizes this gap and proposes

a solution with respect to parental leave. We believe, however, any

solution should recognize there are other circumstances involving

short-term disabilities in which an employee may need benefits beyond those already available.

Accordingly, we are proposing to establish a new short-term disability insurance program for Federal employees. It would offer emVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:01 Mar 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\46711.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
14

ployees an opportunity to purchase STDI coverage on a voluntary

basis. It would be available at affordable premiums based on group

rates that leverage the size of the Federal population.

The new STDI program would safeguard Federal employees during their temporary inability to perform their jobs because of a

non-work-related disability including accidents, illnesses or maternity.

The more comprehensive nature of the program would make it

more attractive to employees than the coverage under H.R. 3799.

In addition, the short-term disability insurance would not adversely affect agencies’ ability to budget for staffing requirements.

We look forward to working with you to explore in more detail

the best approach to meeting the needs of all our employees for income support during periods of absence due to parental responsibilities and temporary disability.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue, and I will

be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kichak follows:]

15

16

17

18

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Kichak.

We will now proceed with questions of the witnesses.

Mr. Beard, again, let me thank you for your testimony. You stated that paid family leave would not affect the employing authorities’ bottom line. Could you further expound on this since OPM

states that this type of plan would be too expensive?

Mr. BEARD. Well, I can only relate our experiences with the Chief

Administrative Officer’s Office. We, since 2002, have averaged approximately 90 requests for FMLA each year. Thirty-six percent of

those were parental or spousal health conditions, and 44 percent

were with requests due to medical leave associated with the individual, and only approximately 20 percent were for parental leave.

So we know. We know the statistics on how many people are

going to be out, what the requests are. It is not an unknown to us

each year.

So, as we develop our budgets, we develop our budgets with an

eye to how many people do we anticipate will be out, approximately

how many of those would we have to backfill for with temporary

employees and how many can we handle through job sharing or

having other employees pick up their jobs, the functions or activities that an individual may carry out.

So I just don’t think it is an unknown fact. It is not like you suddenly run around or you are going along in a car, and you go off

a cliff.

We know exactly what—we know what is going to happen each

year. We can anticipate it. It is a management issue more than

anything else.

Frankly, I think, and I think the real positive here is that too

often we forget Family and Medical Leave Act requests are requests at a time of crisis for employee. These are not made routinely, and you can’t get approval for them as if they were routine

sickness. This is a moment in an employee’s life when something

major is occurring, and we as an employer really have to make a

decision that we want to try to help our employees in this time of

crisis or, in the case of parental leave, happiness, I guess.

But, you know, it behooves the management of any organization

to look at FMLA in a positive way. This is an activity that you

want to undertake at a time of crisis, and you want to help your

employees, because you want to retain those employees, because if

we lose employees, if we have a high turnover rate, it hurts the institution as a whole.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Do you see any downside?

I mean, you have testified, obviously, in favor of the legislation.

Do you see any downside to it at all?

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think the biggest downside in the House of

Representatives is we have operated here historically under a concept that each member is a separate employing authority and can

decide what it is they want to do. This legislation would interject

into that concept or philosophy by saying that there is a fundamental prerequisite here that at least you at least get 8 weeks of paid

FMLA.

Right now, it is all over the board. I do know of one office that

provides 18 weeks of paid FMLA for parental purposes, and then

I know of offices that don’t provide any paid leave. So it is all over

19

the board with the 440 member offices as well as approximately

another 50, no, more than that, about 100 offices that would be employing authorities that would have made a decision about that.

So I think, to me, that is the biggest problem. I don’t think that

it is a monetary one.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Ms. Kichak, did OPM work employee groups in developing the

short-term disability insurance program?

Ms. KICHAK. Right now, the proposal that we have submitted allows us to contract for a coverage. We haven’t. We haven’t fully designed it yet. So, there is always opportunity for discussion.

We are very mindful of letters that we receive from people, telling us that they have a need for short-term disability early in their

career. So the proposal was designed, based in recognition of input

we have received from employees.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Currently, Federal employees can donate

only annual leave to agency leave bank programs and not sick

leave.

Ms. KICHAK. Right.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Would you support a change in the law

to allow a Federal employee to donate unused sick leave in the

same way that they can donate unused annual leave?

Ms. KICHAK. As a new proposal, we would have to look at that

and consider its consequences. That hasn’t been proposed before, so

I don’t have a position on that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You state in your testimony that full-time

employees covered by our leave system earn 13 days of paid sick

leave each year. Any amount that they do not use by the end of

each year accumulates and remains available for their use in future years without limitations, and I think that is great.

What options, though, do new employees have, who have not accrued any sick leave?

Ms. KICHAK. Well, first of all, we have recognized that for new

employees who haven’t accrued sick leave, we have a gap in coverage, which is why we are proposing the short-term disability.

But currently, folks who have not accumulated leave have the option of the leave banks. They also have the option of advanced

leave. We can grant up to 30 days of advanced sick leave in a year.

We can also grant advanced annual leave for those folks, and then

of course they have the right to request Family and Medical Leave

Act leave for serious health conditions, and that is 12 weeks.

So there are options today. We are just not saying there are as

many options as we would like to have. We would like to have an

additional option.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

I am going to now yield to Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Beard, just a couple of questions about your interpretation

of how this bill is written. In the case of two parents in an adoption, would one parent choose to be the person taking the leave or

would both parents take the leave?

Mr. BEARD. I have no idea. I mean, I honestly don’t know the answer to that question. I would have to work with the staff to figure

out what the right answer is.

20

But, certainly, in an adoption or the birth of a child, both parents

are—they are both parents, and they both bond and build a relationship with that child over time.

So I don’t think it is necessarily so that you would have to—that

the choice—that a couple would have to make a gut-wrenching

choice that only one parent would be able to stay home. That

wouldn’t seem to me to be fair.

Mr. MARCHANT. So it would be your recommendation then that

the bill would be written to where both parents would?

Mr. BEARD. It certainly would be my recommendation, but I am

just a simple administrator, Mr. Marchant.

Mr. MARCHANT. In your administrative opinion, when you made

the statement that this has all been factored in and there would

be significant impact, were you thinking that both parents would

be taking off?

Mr. BEARD. Yes. We had a couple who had—two people who

worked for me had a premature set of twins, which, unfortunately,

died. Both of the couple was out for a time period. One of them

came back earlier than the other.

But, I think, in that traumatic experience, it was a terrible experience to have happen to your employee, and I think the employees

of our organization—I was proud of the fact that they were more

than willing to jump in and to try to help out in that particular

instance.

I don’t think it would have been fair to say to those employees,

‘‘well, one of you has to, you know, not get paid for this period of

time.’’

Mr. MARCHANT. Yes. The question was not about the quality of

the answer but just how you quantify it as far as the effect on the

budget.

I think the other thing that I would personally be concerned

about, as far as our legislative staffs, and not so much our district

staffs but our staffs here is the concern that I might have if my

legislative director in the middle of a session had to avail himself

of this. Actually, I think your observation that this would significantly impact some of the way we ran our offices would be something that I hadn’t thought of.

Mr. BEARD. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. Will the gentleman yield for a point of information?

Mr. MARCHANT. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. The bill does not cover congressional offices.

Mr. MARCHANT. OK. I misunderstood.

Mrs. MALONEY. Often, we are in a different category. So it

doesn’t cover congressional offices, but it covers those who work for

the legislature, the sergeant-at-arms, the legislative offices that

work in the various agencies that interact with the legislature.

Mr. MARCHANT. OK. I thank you. I appreciate that. I misunderstood what he said then.

Mr. BEARD. I think the real difficulty here and I think one of the

great challenges with respect to the legislative branch is what kind

of—you know we have to make a decision—what kind of employer

do we want to be? Do we want to be a strong employer or do we

want to be a springboard employer?

21

We have a history here, at least in the legislative branch. Our

employees come in for a few years, and then they, you know, they

go out, they go downtown, and they make a lot more money. Every

day, they pick up the paper, and they are flooded with ads of—well,

here is a good ad.

In one sense, we are in a competitive environment. All the staff

here are. They are hounded daily with, you know, ‘‘gee, there are

some goods jobs here that make a lot more money than I do, a lot

better benefit package.’’

Just like the Federal Government is now holding, going to job

fairs, trying to attract employees, we have to attract and retain

good employees in the legislative branch, because it is extremely

expensive to train new workers. If somebody leaves, the general

rule of thumb is a year to year and a half of salary is going to be

the cost that will be incurred for recruitment, training and getting

that employee back up to speed. So it is an extensive process, and

it is one that we have grown to accept.

Mr. MARCHANT. As far as the proposed short-term disability

plan, can you give me an idea of what you say would be inexpensive? Can you quantify that; $30, $40 a month?

Ms. KICHAK. Well, the legislation we have proposed does not

have the actual benefit design in it to allow us to negotiate the best

deal when we procure this, but we have estimated for a program

that covers 12 weeks at 60 percent, that the premium be $1,000 a

year, which would be less than $40 a pay period for Federal employees.

Mr. MARCHANT. OK.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Marchant.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. First of all, I would like to thank both of the panelists and thank you for your support of the legislation, and I am

really thrilled with that.

I would like to ask both of you. The Federal Government has

never been able to compete with private industry with regard to

wages. So one of the selling points for Federal employment is focused on the benefits we offer.

One point you both agree on is that the Federal Government is

missing an important piece in its benefits package, and that is

some kind of income support for parental leave, but you seem to

have different views of how best to provide such benefits.

I would like to ask each of you, how do you each see the lack of

paid Family and Medical Leave type leave affecting our competitiveness with other sectors, meaning the Federal Government’s

competitiveness?

Ms. KICHAK. OK, I will go first.

We definitely have heard as we go out recruiting and through

letters to our office that having some income support for folks during the maternity period is an important recruitment tool, and that

is why we have included the short-term disability, but we definitely

hear it is needed for recruitment.

Mrs. MALONEY. Can you each discuss how H.R. 3799 would affect

the Federal Government’s ability to recruit and retain workers?

22

Mr. BEARD. Well, I will jump in this time. I think one of the

things that you need to look is your work force, and in our particular case, the 10,000 employees of the House of Representatives, 40

percent of those employees are under age 30 and another 14 percent are between 31 and 35.

Mrs. MALONEY. Really?

Mr. BEARD. So over half of our work force is under 35 years of

age, and that is a time in your life when having children is a major

part of your life. As a result, this kind of benefit would be very attractive and very helpful for us to keep and retain our employees.

That is the other reason that I had Watson Wyatt look at the

benefit package that we offer and try to compare it against the private and non-profit sectors. It is not a perfect study, and the benefits vary widely within the House of Representatives. But the important point is we at least have some indication of where we are

weak. This is one area where we are weak, and this bill would correct that weakness.

Mrs. MALONEY. Ms. Kichak, if I could ask you as a followup, as

employees retire, the loss of experienced workers could have adverse effects on productivity and economic growth. What specific

activities has OPM suggested that agencies implement to address

the need to recruit and retain our valuable workers?

Ms. KICHAK. We are working very hard with our agency, with the

agencies throughout the Federal Government to help them develop

programs for retention. We have a lot of flexibilities. We have retention incentives that could be used for pay.

We also have succession planning activities that get us to work

with folks so that if we aren’t able to retain them and they leave,

we have plans in place to transfer that expertise.

We also have, to recruit folks, a very good benefit package, even

with this gap that we admit is there. The Watson Wyatt study

shows that our pension plans are very good. As I said before, the

Federal Human Capital Survey of our employees—we had 86 percent satisfaction with our leave programs for illnesses.

So we are working on some pay programs to keep people, some

succession planning, and then we are also looking at the recruiting

area and what we need there.

Mrs. MALONEY. I was struck, Dr. Beard, by the testimony that

you provided that paid leave would not have an impact on salary

budgets, that careful management could minimize the need for

temporary help, therefore actually saving taxpayers’ dollars.

So, it seems to me that paid parental leave is a good investment

in our valuable work force and could save taxpayers’ dollars in the

long run. Would you agree, Mr. Beard?

Mr. BEARD. Absolutely. You know, we have to be a good employer. We have all heard stories of valuable employees who leave

this institution because they can make more money and they get

a better deal some place else. And, the information and knowledge

that they have here is critical, and somebody is willing to pay a lot

of money for it and provide a lot of benefits.

But the institution loses, no matter who leaves, and I think it behooves us to provide the best benefit package we possibly can so

that employees can make this a profession and that we keep and

retain good employees.

23

And, if our management is good, if we are careful and thorough

and we anticipate problems that are coming, we can work our ways

through that, and I think in the long run, it has a tremendous benefit to the institution.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you so much.

Could I ask one last question to Ms. Kichak? OPM, is your shortterm disability, your paid leave policy—are you developing a paid

leave policy or planning to implement one before the end of this administration?

Ms. KICHAK. Our short-term disability is our proposal to deal

with this gap, and so we are not. This is the only proposal we are

working in that area.

Mrs. MALONEY. OK.

Ms. KICHAK. We are working on lots of other things, though, to

retain employees. We also have a reemployed annuitant bill to try

to, in the event that we are not able to retain folks, to allow our

annuitants to come back on a part-time basis and help us.

So those are the two big things for us. We are concerned about

the short-term disability and, of course, our reemployed annuitants.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you both very much.

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to salute

Congresswoman Maloney for this important legislation.

I was looking at the chart that you had at the end of your testimony, Dr. Beard. I guess it doesn’t appear there. There isn’t a category on paid parental leave because it doesn’t currently exist, is

that right?

Mr. BEARD. No. It wasn’t included in this.

Mr. SARBANES. OK. Do you have a sense of how dominant that

offering is in the private sector?

Mr. BEARD. I don’t. I could answer for the record.

But I would say that in our case I mentioned earlier that approximately 80 percent of the use of FMLA in the Chief Administrative Officer’s Office is for medical reasons associated with the individual or their parent or spouse, and only 20 percent is for pregnancy or child-related kinds of benefits. So paid FMLA is important

not only for new parents, but it is also important for other employees for health reasons, either their health or the health of their

spouse or a parent.

Mr. SARBANES. I have a sense that the different kinds of benefits

are more or less eye-catching than others when people are considering where they should go work, and I think paid parental leave

is one of these things that kind of will jump out at people.

In some ways, with the effect that you might see it offered in

some private sector arena, it will catch your eye. It will be a

motivator for you to go there. You may look past, unwittingly, the

fact that the rest of the benefits offered by that same employer actually are not all that great compared to, for example, what the

Federal Government could offer, but you are already, kind of, on

24

your way with the psychology that this is a workplace that is more

responsive to your needs.

I would be curious to have you comment on that because I could

see where—I mean there are two benefits to this. Obviously, there

is the substantive benefit to the individual of having this available

to them and what that means for their family and their quality of

life. That is critically important and it is a driver for this kind of

legislation.

But the other is getting back to this conversation we have been

having about competition. This is one of those, to be crass, one of

the kinds of benefits that is a real bell and whistle when people

are making those comparisons.

We can have wonderful benefits available that stack up very well

against all the other lists of benefits that might be offered in another job and if this one is not there, that could be the reason that

somebody decides to take the other job, and so we have a competitive disadvantage.

Maybe you can talk about that just a little bit.

Mr. BEARD. Well, I could certainly jump in. I mean, as I mentioned earlier, 40 percent of our work force is 30 years of age or

younger. The first thing that employee is going to look at is how

much am I going to be paid. If we are reasonably competitive, then

they are going to look beyond that.

Probably the next thing they are going to look at is what kind

of a contribution are we going to give to repayment of a student

loan if they have a student loan, and right now we are capped at

$6,000. We have requested money to increase that to $10,000 for

next year, so we are on par with the executive branch.

But the third item they are probably going to look at, especially

if they are married, is going to be what kind of parental leave policy do we have and probably what kind of a day care or day care

arrangement do we have. But it is going to be in the first tier of

benefits that they are going to look at if they are making that job

decision.

And, I think it is instructive. Newsweek carried a story this week

on the competition that the Federal, that the executive branch is,

you know, interviews with some of the employees that they are

meeting with at these job fairs, and salary is No. 1 on their mind,

but they are also looking at benefit packages as well.

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. Our research shows that 76 percent of companies, and I think it is the same Watson Wyatt that you use, provide

for the care during the childbirth time through the short-term disability packages. So that is the vehicle they use.

We also do some research into which of our benefit programs are

attractive in hiring and in the Federal Government—and by the

way, we have an older work force than he quoted. We don’t have

30 percent under 30. I don’t have the exact number, but the executive branch is a little older.

We find that the thrift plan that we have is the most important

thing to employees for recruitment and retention, but we still believe we need, have a gap in this area. That is not to say just because we have the thrift plan, we have everything we need. We just

know it is No. 1 in people’s view.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you.

25

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

I don’t have any further questions, and I want to thank the witnesses, unless someone else did. I want to thank this panel of witnesses. We appreciate your being here.

Mr. BEARD. Thank you.

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We will proceed to our second panel and,

while they are being set up, I will just go ahead and introduce

them.

Jane Waldfogel is a professor of social work and public affairs at

Columbia University School of Social Work. She is also a research

associate at the Center for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics. Dr. Waldfogel has written extensively on

the impact of public policies on child and family well being.

We thank you for being here.

Sharyn Tejani is the senior policy counsel at the National Partnership for Women and Families in its Work and Family Program.

At the National Partnership, she works on all aspects of the Work

and Family Program including paid leave, paid sick days and protecting and expanding the FMLA.

Thank you for coming.

And, Vicky Lovell is the director of employment and work-life

programs at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research in Washington, DC. Dr. Lovell’s work focuses on issues related to women’s employment and economic security including job quality, paid and unpaid time off policies, pay equity, work supports and unemployment

insurance. She has provided extensive technical assistance to national, State and local policymakers on paid sick days and paid

Family and Medical Leave programs.

We thank you for coming.

It is the policy of this committee to swear in all witnesses, so if

you would stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

We are delighted that you are here. Of course, all of your statements are included in the record.

We would ask that you summarize in 5 minutes, and we have

this light to assist in knowing how the time is going. The green

light means that you have the full 5, the yellow light means that

you are down to 1 minute and, of course, the red light is asking

that you would conclude.

Dr. Waldfogel, we will begin with you.

26

STATEMENTS OF DR. JANE WALDFOGEL, PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL WORK, THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; SHARYN TEJANI,

SENIOR COUNSEL, NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN

AND FAMILIES; AND DR. VICKY LOVELL, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-LIFE PROGRAMS, THE INSTITUTE

FOR WOMEN’S POLICY RESEARCH

STATEMENT OF JANE WALDFOGEL

Ms. WALDFOGEL. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Vice Chair

Maloney, Ranking Member Marchant, Congressman Sarbanes.

Thank you very much for having me to testify today.

We have heard from the first panel about benefits of extending

parental leave, paid parental leave in terms of the productivity and

retention. However, the main purpose of paid leave is to allow families time together when they need it. So I would like to use my

time today to talk about the effects of paid parental leave on child

and family well being.

My testimony today will focus on three points: first, that research shows that parental leave is beneficial for children and parents; second, the FMLA has increased leave coverage, but its effects on usage have been limited due to the leave not being paid;

and third, providing paid leave as other countries do would improve child and family health and well being.

So, point one, research shows that parental leave is beneficial for

children and parents. Research has shown that women who return

to work later in the first year have better mental health, less depression.

We also know that when paid leave periods are longer, infant

mortality rates are lower. That is not the case with unpaid leave.

It doesn’t have the same protective effect because parents are less

likely to take it.

We also know that children whose mothers stay home longer in

the first year of life receive more preventive healthcare and are

more likely to be up to date on their immunizations. They are also

more likely to be breast-fed and they are breast-fed for longer.

We also know that when fathers take longer parental leaves,

they are more involved in the care of their infants, nine to 10

months later when we interviewed them again.

Second, the FMLA has increased leave coverage, but its effects

on parental leave-taking have been limited due to the fact that the

leave is not paid. The FMLA was a landmark piece of legislation,

and it had a dramatic impact on raising parental leave coverage in

the United States, especially for men who were less likely to be

covered before the law.

But the impact law on parental leave usage has been less pronounced and especially concerning is the fact that we find that

leave laws have a larger effect on leave-taking among high income

families than among low income families, suggesting that families

are income-constrained. Surveys confirm this. They confirm that

some parents don’t take leave to which they are entitled under the

FMLA because they can’t afford it.

Among parents reported that they needed a leave but didn’t take

it, the most frequent reason was the inability to afford it. Others

27

take leave but undergo financial hardship, falling into debt or turning to welfare for support.

Among those who take unpaid leave, more than half report it

was difficult to make ends meet. About half say they would have

taken longer leave if additional pay had been available.

Point three, providing paid leave as other countries would improve child and family health and well being. The evidence indicates that a substantial share of parents in the United States are

not able to take the leave to which they are entitled under FMLA

because they don’t have the right to paid leave.

If we consider how parental leave in the United States compares

to the situation in other countries, the results are clear. American

mothers go back to work much more quickly than mothers in other

peer nations in large part due to the lack of paid parental leave.

The OECD countries, our peer countries, now provide an average

of 18 months of childbirth-related leave, and much of that is paid.

Our neighbor to the north, Canada, extended its leave coverage

in 2002 and now offers a year of childbirth-related leave with 50

weeks of that leave paid from a social insurance fund.

The U.K. also recently extended its leave provisions. It now provides a year of job-protected maternity leave to all new mothers

with the first 9 months paid from social insurance funds and a

commitment to go to 12 months of paid leave in the next parliament.

So, in conclusion, let me thank you again for inviting me to testify today on this important piece of legislation. By providing new

parents with 8 weeks of fully paid leave, H.R. 3799 would be an

important step in improving the health and well being of both children and parents.

Thank you again, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Waldfogel follows:]

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, and we will go to

Ms. Tejani.

STATEMENT OF SHARYN TEJANI

Ms. TEJANI. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and

Madam Vice Chair.

I am here on behalf of our president, Debra Ness, who regrets

that she wasn’t able to make it today.

The National Partnership is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy

group that promotes fairness in the workplace, access to quality

healthcare and policies that help workers meet their dual responsibilities of work and family.

We lead a diverse coalition of 200 groups dedicated to protecting

and expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act. When we are

not protecting the Family and Medical Leave Act from regulatory

changes that could scale back its protections, we are working to expand it by securing paid family and medical leave so that no worker has to choose between a paycheck and caring for a loved one or

recovering from their own illness.

We are very pleased to have the chance to testify in support of

the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2007 which

would give Federal employees, eights weeks of paid leave after the

birth or adoption of a child. Its enactment would be an important

step toward making family and medical leave a reality for many

more workers.

Nearly the entire world recognizes the importance of being able

to take time off after the birth of a child. A major international

study last year found that the United States is one of four countries—the others being Liberia, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland—that do not provide any paid leave after childbirth.

In fact, right now, the FMLA is the only Federal statute that

guarantees workers here time off after the birth or adoption of a

child. It provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Unfortunately, two in

five workers are not covered by the FMLA, and many more cannot

afford to take FMLA leave because it is unpaid.

We simply can and must do much better for America’s workers.

The FMLA has been a huge help to millions of workers because of

the unpaid leave that it provides, but it is time to take the next

step and offer paid family and medical leave.

The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2007 will

help a lot more workers afford the leave that they need. The bill

covers nearly all Federal workers and legislative employees and

gives them 8 weeks of full paid family leave.

Many people assume that Federal workers already have paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave in part because people assume that the Federal Government would be a model employer in

all respects. Sadly, in this instance, it is not true. So this legislation would not only tremendously help Federal workers, but it

would also create a model for the Nation and show the country that

the government really does value families.

The Federal Employees Parental Leave Act would make paid maternity and paternity leave a reality for a work force that is very

diverse, racially, economically and geographically, and it provides

34

8 weeks of leave for both men and women, a parity which we consider equally important to any leave program.

It also contains parity for birth parents and adoptive parents,

which is another important point of parity and basic fairness.

The bill will do for Federal workers what several States are currently doing for all the workers in those States. In 2004, California

became the first State to offer wage replacement while workers are

on all types of family leave. Its law has given more 13 million California workers, partial income replacement while caring for a new

child or a seriously ill family member.

Last May, Washington became the second State to offer a program. In Washington’s programs, parents, mothers and fathers get

5 weeks of leave after the birth or adoption of a new child.

There are active campaigns to make paid family and medical

leave available to workers in New Jersey, New York, Illinois, and

Oregon. Just this week, New Jersey Senate passed a bill that is

very similar to California’s bill and hopefully that will go to the Assembly next week and will become the law there as well.

I want to stress that the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave

Act is really only a start. The maternity and paternity leave it will

provide is critical for new parents, but it will not come close to

meeting all the caregiving needs that Federal workers have because they also need paid leave to recover from their own illnesses,

to care for spouses and older children and parents. Nevertheless,

the bill would be a significant step forward.

Too often, we give only lip service to the family values we claim

to hold dear. Passing this act is a chance to show that lawmakers

really do believe that caring for a new child is important and we

will support that.

The National Partnership for Women and Families will do all we

can do to see that this becomes a law soon.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tejani follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, and we will move

to Dr. Lovell.

STATEMENT OF VICKY LOVELL

Ms. LOVELL. Thank you, Vice Chair Maloney, Chairman Davis.

Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to testify on the

importance of paid leave for the Federal work force.

My written testimony discusses how State temporary disability

insurance programs offer a model for paid parental and family care

leave.

As we have heard already heard about SDI this morning from

Ms. Kichak, I will focus my remarks instead on two questions:

First, is paid parental and family care leave important for the Federal work force and, second, what are the likely benefits to the Federal Government of creating new paid time off programs?

In regard to the first point, the experience of paid family leave

in California is instructive. A comprehensive paid family leave insurance program was enacted in California in 2002 with benefits

starting in 2004. Workers there have been receiving benefits under

the new program for 31⁄2 years to care for a seriously ill child,

spouse, parent or domestic partner or to bond with a minor child.

The program is administered by California’s Employment Development Department in conjunction with the preexisting short-term

disability insurance program.

We heard from Dr. Waldfogel about the impact of mothers’ parental leave on infants’ well being. The majority of claims under

California’s paid family leave program are for bonding with a new

child: 69 percent are mothers’ claims and 18 percent have been

from fathers.

In California, a birth mother may take both pregnancy maternity

disability under short-term disability and 6 weeks of bonding leave.

But infants are not the only beneficiaries of paid family leave in

California. Another 8 percent of leaves in that State are taken by

women for family care with the final 4 percent taken by men.

Only a very small fraction of California’s workers take family

care leave in a given year, only 0.17 percent or about 2 of every

1,000 workers.

But for those who need the leave the time with their family can

be absolutely critical. One-fourth of those California workers cared

for family members who had cancer. Another one-eighth cared for

family members with heart disease. About one-third of the leaves

were to care for workers’ parents and another third were for their

spouses.

Paid leave allowed these workers to provide urgently needed care

without also facing a financial crisis from lost earnings in situations that could affect any family at any time.

We have some evidence of the benefits of paid maternity leave

for employers, and it is reasonable to expect that family care leave

would have some similar effects of lowering costs of turnover, increasing productivity and positioning the Federal Government to be

more competitive in hiring top talent.

Women who have paid maternity leave work later into their

pregnancies than those with only unpaid leave, and they are more

likely to return to employment following the birth of their child.

42

Other benefits, such as paid sick leave and health insurance, also

reduce voluntary turnover because workers whose health and family care needs are met by their current employer are less likely to

think about changing jobs. Thus, a paid family care leave program

will allow the Federal Government to retain valuable staff with jobspecific skills.

Retaining workers is a big cost saver for employers. If we look

in detail at what is involved in replacing a worker, we can see how

the costs can add up: exit interviews, advertising and employment

agency fees, background checks, drug tests, interviews and training.

Then there are more subtle impacts such as lost productivity involved with having a vacant position, low productivity of a worker

who plans to leave soon and low productivity and mistakes while

a new learner gets up to speed.

One commonly cited rubric is that employers pay 25 percent of

total annual compensation to fill a position. This is a very significant expense for employer who cannot hold on to their workers.

Workers who have benefits they value may also be more productive. A study of family friendly policies and working mother best

companies found that those providing paid leave to care for sick

family members are more profitable than companies that don’t.

It may be that these firms inspire greater work effort by providing higher overall compensation than might be available elsewhere

in the labor market or, in the case of family friendly policies in particular, workers may simply be less anxious and distracted about

their family care situation and better able to focus on their work.

Employees may feel more loyal when their parenting needs are accommodated and put more effort into their work. In all these scenarios, the employer enjoys greater productivity.

The Federal Government does not compete with the average

American employer for the average American worker. Because the

Federal work force is highly skilled and highly educated, the Federal Government competes for the best workers.

To build the most productive work force, Federal employment

should be compensated so as to attract and retain top talent that

could choose lucrative work in the private sector. Paid time off

could provide an important competitive advantage in this effort.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lovell follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you very much, and I thank

all three of you for your testimony.

Two votes are coming up. One is already on, and the other one

is a 5-minute vote. So we would have to recess for about no more

than 15 minutes, and we will be back.

Thank you so much.

[Recess.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. OK, well, I do have a question for her.

Thank you very much for remaining, Dr. Waldfogel. I have a

question. I was looking at the references at the end of your testimony, and it is obvious to me that you have done a tremendous

amount of research and extensive writing on the question and the

subject of what it is that concerns parents or what it is that concerns people who have children.

How big an effect would paid family leave benefit have on the

question of retention of Federal employees or even the recruitment

of individuals?

We talk about the fact that we are always in competition with

the private sector to try and find those individuals who would

come. How much impact would you think this actually has on one’s

decisionmaking relative to where they will go to work?

Ms. WALDFOGEL. I agree with the speaker who spoke earlier

about the salience of these kinds of benefits for young people looking for a job, especially the kind of employees who are coming to

work here, here in the government.

It is the value of the benefit to the family, the substantive value,

but it is also the signaling value, that this is an employer who

cares about families and who will be responsive to family needs,

not just at the time of the birth of a child but later on throughout

the employee’s career.

So I think these kinds of benefits are hugely important in terms

of recruiting and retaining workers. They are very salient in terms

of the decisions that workers make.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I guess, especially for those who actually

have options in terms of whether you can either do this or do that,

whether you can go here or you can go there. Generally, those individuals who would be considered as the best and the brightest are

the ones who have the most options.

Let me just thank you, and I certainly appreciate the fact that

you stayed, and we recognize if you have to leave. Thank you so

much.

Ms. WALDFOGEL. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Ms. Tejani, you testified that last year

one-fifth of your staff was on family leave.

Ms. TEJANI. That is right.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. A very interesting group. How much

would you estimate this cost or what impact did it have? Did it

place any kind of financial burden or impact on the organization?

Ms. TEJANI. Well, what the National Partnership was able to do

was hire one temporary worker, so there was a cost for that. We

used contractors a little more, so there was a cost for that. The rest

of the work was parceled out among the staff who remained.

Well, of course, there are financial costs to doing that kind of

thing. What we got to do was keep all of our workers. The parents

56

came back because of the leave that they had, and so whatever

small costs we had in covering the work, we made money on it, because we didn’t have to retrain or rehire or find new workers because all of our workers returned.

And, there is an immense amount of loyalty that comes into this.

When you give people a benefit like this, they are much more willing to stay with you and to work hard when the next worker needs

family medical leave and other people need to pick up the slack.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so, you practice what you preach.

Ms. TEJANI. Absolutely.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think that is great also.

I will just tell you that I am appreciative of your organization,

because the first major amendment that I got passed when I came

to Congress, your organization was one of the groups that assisted,

and we were very pleased with that.

Dr. Lovell, if the Federal Government only offers a short-term

disability program and not paid family leave, do you think enough

prospective parents sign up for such a program and would this benefit be sufficient to cover the needs of those families if only the

short-term disability program is in place?

Ms. LOVELL. I think the issue about whether enough workers

would take up a voluntary disability program is very important, because we know from other benefits that are offered to Federal

workers, that people who will need the benefit won’t make the calculation that is in their best interest, and they won’t take it when

they need it. For instance, with dental and vision insurance, for the

Federal Government, take-up is only 10 percent.

So with temporary disability insurance, if people don’t know, if

they can’t predict they are going to need it, they have a choice between having a little higher take-home pay or providing or participating in the insurance program, they may choose unwisely not to

have the insurance. And, then when they have a difficult pregnancy or a serious disability, they won’t be covered.

And, that is one reason why I think the programs in the States,

such as California, that provide coverage to all workers have been

so effective and also so cost-effective because they follow kind of a

better insurance model of covering all workers. So they pool the

risk of their entire work force, meaning the premiums can be lower

for individual workers and when someone does need it, they have

it.

They didn’t have to make a choice, ‘‘do I want to pay for this or

that?’’ They are covered.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Could you describe the best short-term

disability program that you are aware of?

Ms. LOVELL. The ones in the five States that have mandatory

short-term disability, which are California, Hawaii, New Jersey,

New York, and Rhode Island, are fairly similar in their benefit levels.

They replace about 55 to 67 percent of a worker’s earnings. They

give benefits usually for up to 26 weeks, although in California an

employee can get disability benefits for 52 weeks, and they tend to

be similar in the kinds of conditions that they offer in terms of covering workers’ own disabilities.

57

Then in California, of course, they have now an insurance program for paid family leave, for family care leave.

So it is, I would assume, that a Federal program would be kind

of similar to that kind of policy that the State programs have.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you all very much. It seems

as though my colleagues may have been waylaid or had to attend

to something else and haven’t come back yet. So I won’t ask you

to stay any longer.

Thank you very much, and we are delighted that you were able

to stay and be with us. Thank you.

Ms. TEJANI. Thank you.

Ms. LOVELL. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. We will now proceed to our third panel

and, while we are setting up for them, I will go ahead and introduce them.

Ms. Colleen M. Kelly is the national president of the National

Treasury Employees Union, the Nation’s largest independent Federal sector union, representing employees in 31 separate government agencies. As the union’s top elected official, she leads NTEU’s

efforts to achieve the dignity and respect Federal employees deserve.

Ms. Mary Jean Burke currently serves as the first executive vice

president of the American Federation of Government Employees

[AFGE], National VA Council. She has served as the council’s National Safety Representative and has been a member of the council’s legislative committee for many years. Ms. Burke is the Secretary Treasurer of AFGE Local 609 at the Indianapolis Veterans

Administration Medical Center where she works as a physical therapist.

Ms. Amy Costantino has worked for Health and Human Services

since 1991 and is currently a team leader. Ms. Costantino is the

mother of 9 month old twin boys who were born 31⁄2 months premature. Despite careful planning and conscientiously accumulating

paid time off to care for her sons after their birth, the premature

delivery forced her to make a difficult decision about whether or

not to take her leave to be with her children in the neonatal intensive care unit or to wait until they were released from the hospital.

We thank all three of you for coming. As the tradition of this

committee, we swear all witnesses in, so if you would rise and raise

your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. The record will show that the witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

Ladies, I thank you very much for being here, and we will proceed with Ms. Kelley.

58

STATEMENTS OF COLLEEN KELLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION; MARY JEAN BURKE, FIRST

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO; AND AMY

COSTANTINO, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE

STATEMENT OF COLLEEN KELLEY

Ms. KELLEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis. I appreciate your hearing or convening this hearing and having an opportunity to testify.

When the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act was passed, it was

viewed as an important step in helping Americans balance family

needs and work needs, but it was also just a first step. Since that

time, it has become clear that many who would take advantage of

time off for family or medical reasons have not done so because

they were not able to forego that income.

We have to ask ourselves, is it fair to have a benefit that many

Federal employees cannot afford to take advantage of?

It is time for the Federal Government, as the largest employer

in the country, to step up and make family leave real, not just a

mirage that few can afford to use.

NTEU applauds Congresswoman Maloney’s efforts in H.R. 3799

and your support to provided this paid parental leave. Being able

to substitute any leave without pay under FMLA with 8 weeks of

paid leave in addition to any leave accrued or accumulated will

make a significant difference in the lives of both parent and child.

According to Columbia University’s Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies, some

128 countries currently provide paid and job-protected leave each

year. The average paid leave is for 16 weeks which includes pre

and post-birth time off. The United States, of course, has none.

In a time when there are dire predictions about being able to attract and retain enough employees to do the work of the government, when it has become clear that the Federal Government is

going to have step up in order to continue to attract the best and

the brightest, this paid family and medical leave can provide a valuable incentive. Let me share with you the situations of just two

NTEU members that exemplify the deficiencies of the present system.

The first had her fourth child 2 years ago and took advanced sick

leave to recover from the birth. She needed to maintain her income.

Shortly after she returned to work, she was diagnosed with cancer. She had surgery and then chemotherapy. She was out for 6

months.

Two of her children have asthma and are sick frequently. She

now wears a heart monitor and must be checked by a doctor every

few weeks. She still owes 60 hours of sick leave. Now she must

take leave without pay every time she or the children need to go

to the doctor, and she cannot afford that.

Another member took advanced sick leave to recover from her

pregnancy and birth of her child. She still owes 162 hours.

Her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and, with two

small children at home, she worked overtime to get the compensatory time to be able to stay home with her mother.

59

She has postponed surgery she needs twice because she cannot

afford to take leave without pay. She wants to be able to take time

off to be involved in her children’s activities, but she cannot see a

time when that would feasible.

NTEU strongly supports the 8 weeks paid parental leave and

Congresswoman Maloney’s bill, H.R. 3799.

Sadly, even with that substantial benefit, people will still find

themselves in trouble when a serious health condition befalls them

or a loved one. Some form of an insurance program that replaces

pay would offer support employees to recover from an illness, to

care for adult family members, helping to reduce or avoid the cost

of nursing, to aid in the recovery of a child or to care for a relative

wounded in the war.

Paid parental leave in combination with a short-term disability

insurance program would provide broader coverage for these kinds

of situations, both parental and medical, that we wanted to address

when the Family and Medical Leave Act was first passed.

Quite some time ago, OPM promised an outline of such a shortterm disability insurance plan that would be available to Federal

employees, but we have yet to see one developed. Today is the first

I have heard that they have some details out there in a design that

obviously was drafted without any union input, and the $40 per

pay period cost that they cite is one that will make this a program

that will not be used by Federal employees.

State programs, such as the one operating in California, have resulted in an insurance benefit that everyone can afford, not just the

wealthy.

We would be happy to join in any discussions of providing such

a program on a Federal level, and we welcome your leadership, Mr.

Chairman, in getting the facts and in pursuing a study on a shortterm disability program to replace wages lost when taking family

or medical leave at much less cost than $40 a pay period and, preferably, at no cost to employees.

In conclusion, it is time for the United States to catch up with

the rest of the world by offering paid family and medical leave.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Federal Government, once thought of as

pioneering and inventive in its personnel programs, was at the

forefront of this growing movement?

Of course, I would be glad to answer any questions, but if it

would not be inappropriate I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to

thank you for your introduction of the bill to increase the age of

children of Federal employees who can continue to be covered by

FEHB insurance. This is something that has been identified as a

very real need for employees, and I thank you for your leadership

on that issue as well as so many others.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]

60

61

62

63

64

65

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Kelley, and

we will proceed to Ms. Burke.

STATEMENT OF MARY JEAN BURKE

Ms. BURKE. On behalf of the more than 600,000 Federal and District of Columbia employees our union represents, I am delighted

to be here today to testify on the subject of paid parental leave for

Federal employees.

Despite the protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act,

Federal workers are among those who must choose between a paycheck and meeting their family obligations because they currently

have no paid parental leave. H.R. 3799 would change this to provide income support for up to 8 weeks of parental leave, and AFGE

strongly supports this legislation.

Virtually all research on child development and family stability

supports the notion that parent-infant bonding during the earliest

months of life is crucial. Children who form strong emotional bonds

or attachment with their parents are most likely to do well in

school, have positive relations with others and enjoy good health

throughout their lifetimes.

Spending time with a newborn or newly adopted child shouldn’t

be viewed as a personal choice or a luxury that only the rich should

be able to afford.

The only reason a new parent would ever go back to work immediately after the birth or an adoption of a child, even with the protections of the FMLA, is because she or he could not do without his

or her paycheck. Far too many workers in both the Federal Government and outside must make this terrible choice. H.R. 3799 would

allow Federal employees never to have to make this choice.

Some would make distinctions among adoptive parents, birth

parents, mothers and fathers. These distinctions are mostly irrelevant when the question is whether the worker should be able to

continue to receive her salary during leave taken solely to care for

a new family members. AFGE also supports this legislation for taking as given that all parents, male, female and adoptive—deserve

equal treatment.

Others have proposed creating employer-finance short-term disability insurance as a means to provide paid maternity leave for

birth mothers. This is not a solution because it discriminates

against new fathers and adoptive mothers.

OPM, in 2001, claimed that paid parental leave for Federal employees was unnecessary because they have adequate options and

opportunities to paid parental leave through the accumulated sick

and annual leave and leave transfer and bank programs. OPM’s

findings are both irresponsible and false.

First, employees must accumulate sick leave to support themselves and their families if they are unable to work for a certain

period. Second, Federal employees are only able to accumulate a

maximum of 30 days of annual leave, not enough time to provide

care for a newborn or newly adopted child, an unlikely amount of

time that the young workers most likely to become parents to accrue.

Other Federal workers, such as VA nurse, accumulate annual

leave under a totally different process.

66

OPM’s blithe attitude betrays a vast ignorance of what it takes

to raise a family successfully while holding down a job at a Federal

agency. Sick leave is for when a worker is sick. Annual leave is

when a worker needs mental and physical renewal. Parental leave

is for when a worker becomes a parent.

Some will undoubtedly respond to paid parental leave bills with

cries of fiscal prudence and affordability. No one can accurately

project the cost of extending this benefit to new parents, but we

can speculate on the categories of the cost of failing to do so.

How much productivity is lost when a parent returns to work before they have found proper day care for a newborn or a newly

adopted child or when a Federal employee must come to work

when she is ill because she has used up all her sick leave when

adopting a child she had 8 months ago?

How much does it cost the Federal Government when a good

worker, trained at taxpayers’ expense, decides to leave the Federal

work service for another employer who does offer paid parental

leave?

I also want to bring to your attention the dilemma of approximately 43,000 Federal workers who did not receive the benefits of

paid parental leave if H.R. 3799 is enacted into law, the Transportation Security Officers or TSOs who work on our front line of national security at our Nation’s airports, screening passengers and

baggage for threats to aviation safety.

Federal courts have interpreted a footnote in the law, creating

the TSO position as allowing the TSA Administrator the authority

to deny Federal workplace protections to TSOs. The TSO members,

AFGE reports that their applications for FMLA are often denied

arbitrarily and that they face retaliation and unfair discipline for

attempting to exercise their rights under FMLA.

Unless TSOs are granted the same FMLA and other workplace

protections as other Federal workers, including the right to bargain

collectively, TSA’s incredibly high attrition rate will continue and

aviation safety will be in peril.

The time has come for the Federal Government to set the standard for the U.S. employers are paid parental leave. It is clear that

left to their own discretions, employers will not extend this crucial

benefit to their employees unless their competitors or the law requires it of them.

The benefits to children and families of 8 weeks of paid parental

leave are enormous and long-lasting. AFGE urges the Congress to

do the right thing and pass H.R. 3799.

This concludes my statement. Of course, I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, and we will proceed to Ms. Costantino.

STATEMENT OF AMY COSTANTINO

Ms. COSTANTINO. Chairman Davis, Vice Chairman Maloney and

members of the committee, I thank you for the invitation to testify

today. I am honored to be here.

I have been a member of the Federal work force for 16 years. I

am here today to ask Congress to consider a paid parental leave

benefit for the Federal work force. This is a highly desired benefit

for Federal employees and would be an effective tool in recruiting

and retaining a high quality Federal work force.

Last summer, I unexpectedly went into labor even though I was

just 6 months pregnant. My twin sons, Louis Anthony and Benjamin Abraham, were born on June 9th at 31⁄2 months premature.

Both of my sons had to be intubated at birth and placed on conventional ventilators.

Their birth weights were 1 pound, 7 ounces and 1 pound, 11

ounces, and their immune systems were nonexistent. This is how

my sons began their 90 day stay at the Georgetown University

Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

I am pleased to tell you today that both of my sons are healthy,

active and curious, exactly what every parent desires for their

child.

As a new mother facing the most difficult challenge of my life,

I was immediately forced to weigh my new personal responsibilities

against my existing professional responsibilities. We had to make

tough decisions about the immediate care for our children.

Each day, we learned more about what our sons had to face: further therapy, blood transfusions, cranial sonograms, fluctuating

heart rates, apneas and respiratory distress syndrome, to name a

few. We need to figure out immediately how we would be able to

care for our sons during and beyond their hospital stay.

My husband and I both work full time for employers that have

generous leave policies, but we still had to make the decision of

when to use them. I had two choices. The first was to use the leave

I had accrued over the past 16 years which would have given me

the opportunity to spend all of my time in the NICU.

My other choice was to save the paid leave I had accrued so I

could be home with my sons when they were released from the hospital. This would mean returning to work immediately and visiting

my sons around my work schedule.

After much deliberation and angst, we chose the second option.

We knew our sons were receiving outstanding care. However,

there are certain things only a parent can provide, especially the

mother. If I were able to remain with my sons throughout the day,

I would have been able to attend to all of their cyclical cares which

include feeding, holding, changing and kangaroo care, which is

holding the baby on my chest, skin to skin, to keep him warm.

There is a dramatic decrease in the infant mortality rate among

premature babies who are held and talked to.

I will never forget feeding my sons after they were born. I would

put no more than a thimble full of fortified breast milk in a syringe

and feed my sons through a tube.

74

The NICU is a very busy place and, as talented and committed

as the doctors and nurses were, they were still limited in the

amount of time they were able to spend with each patient.

Feeding my sons was one of the first bonding moments I shared

with them, and I am certain that feeding my sons had a stronger

impact than taping the feeding tubes to the sides of isolettes and

having them eat alone which is what happened when I was not

present.

There were pressing issues that needed our immediate attention.

Treatments had to be given expeditiously. We needed to be present

to understand and approve them and, of course, to support our

sons.

As our sons became more stable, it was incumbent upon us to

spend more time with them, though they were still not mature and

developed enough to leave the NICU.

Finally, our sons were able to come home. It was a special time

for our family. Since I had decided not to exhaust my paid leave

during my sons’ stay in the NICU, I was able to use it when they

came home. I was fortunate enough to have accrued enough paid

sick and annual leave to allow me to take off for 2 months.

I often wonder, though, if I made the right decision. Maybe I

should have used my paid leave while my sons were in the NICU.

The Paid Parental Leave Act would create a paid parental leave

benefit which would have far exceeded its value in terms of my

compensation. It would have given me the opportunity to be with

my children and the peace of mind that I had given them the best

possible start in life.

The Family and Medical Leave Act provides for up to 12 weeks

of unpaid leave which was not a viable option for our family. The

followup care after our sons came home from the hospital required

visits to the pediatrician, apnea clinic, neurosurgeon, pediatric surgeon, ophthalmologist, audiologist, developmental clinic, occupational and physical therapist and three surgeries. The previously

mentioned appointments alone would have exhausted all of the

leave that I had earned over 16 years.

We are very fortunate to have the support of family who helped

us through this time, and my husband and I are both extremely

grateful for the caring and thoughtful approach taken by our employers and supervisors. I feel my agency did everything they could

under the existing law to make the situation the best it could be

for my family.

I am here today to ask Congress to consider providing paid parental benefits to the Federal work force. This benefit would enhance our government’s ability to recruit and retain a high quality

Federal work force.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you

today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Costantino follows:]

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you very much, and I thank

all of you.

On our way to vote, one of our colleagues implied that this was

8 additional weeks of vacation. Let me ask how you all would respond to that notion, beginning with you, Ms. Kelley.

Ms. KELLEY. I don’t think I can respond on the record to that,

Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]

I think I would be inappropriate.

Ms. COSTANTINO. I respectfully decline.

Ms. KELLEY. That says it all.

Ms. BURKE. I agree with Ms. Kelley.

Ms. KELLEY. I actually think it is very frightening that anyone

who would be making a decision like this, even if it is a position

they disagree with, even if it is legislation they disagree with. The

idea that it could be framed that way just shows, I would say, not

only lack of information and knowledge, but I could say a lack of

caring or human compassion also, and I would think the comment

is absolutely inappropriate.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me ask either one of you or all

of you, OPM stated in its testimony that new employees or people

who have exhausted all of their annual leave and sick leave should

borrow leave or borrow in advance and say, ‘‘let me borrow, and

then as I accumulate it I can pay it back.’’

What are your thoughts on this?

Ms. KELLEY. In my experience, there are situations where that

is an appropriate tool and it does help an employee, but it is in

very limited situations, because even in the two examples that I

cited in my testimony, what the position that puts an employee in

is if it is something that requires continuing care of attention—it

is not an isolated incident that will end in 1 week or 2 weeks or

4 weeks—it puts the employee in a situation where they never are

able to pay back the leave.

And, then any other absences that they have to take, they are

back in the situation of leave without pay again or making them

make choices as with one of NTEU’s members that needs surgery

and twice she has had to postpone it because she cannot afford.

She has borrowed. She has advanced sick leave. She has not been

able to pay it all back yet, and she cannot afford to be on leave

without pay to go and have the surgery that she needs.

Ms. BURKE. Yes. I would just add, just to let you know, at our

local level, the first line supervisors do annual leave and sick leave.

If you were going to get advanced annual leave, that goes up to the

director’s level. So it is a lot more stringent in order to even get

it approved, and it kind of depends on what occupation you are in

and the position and everything.

So it is not just a free rein of who gets it and who doesn’t as well.

I agree with Ms. Kelley in the fact that once you start in this

pattern, it is hard for employees to pay all that back as they go

along in the work force.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, do you think that short-term disability would take care or does suffice for family leave?

Ms. KELLEY. I don’t think it is an either/or, I think it should be

a both.

82

I think the paid parental leave, as offered in 3799, should be

passed as is, and I think that is a giant step forward in addressing

the situations that are so real among the Federal work force. But,

I think a short-term disability policy to supplement that as well as

other FMLA situations so that it is much broader and not just

about parental leave are needed.

But I have to say, I was very surprised and disappointed to hear

what OPM reported this morning of the draft design that they are

going to be proposing, because I see it as a program that will not

benefit Federal employees if the program is rolled out the way Ms.

Kichak described it this morning, and NTEU would not support

that program.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me ask you, Ms. Burke and Ms.

Kelley, can you think of any other benefit of family leave? For example, would you view it as being beneficial in recruitment of individuals to come into the Federal work force?

Ms. BURKE. Last year, the Veterans Health Administration, and

I hope I am quoting this correctly, noted that of their quit rates for

registered nurses—and of course we all know how much we need

registered nurses across the county—cited that 75 percent of those

people left within the first 5 years.

So when you take into account that VA can’t be a market leader,

the next thing is to look at the benefit package, and it is attractive

to people, especially with women starting families later in life and

having higher risk pregnancies, that there is a sense of security

that this bill would provide for.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Ms. Costantino, had this type of benefit

been in effect when it was time for your children to be born, would

you have made any different decisions than what you ended up

making?

Ms. COSTANTINO. Yes. This benefit would have allowed me to not

have to make the difficult decision, and I would have been able to

have been at the hospital with my sons and use this benefit while

they are in the hospital and use my accrued leave when they came

home.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. And so, it would have been of serious

benefit to you and your family?

Ms. COSTANTINO. Absolutely.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. From any way that you would look at it?

Ms. COSTANTINO. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, thank you all very much.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. First of all, I want to thank you all for your wonderful testimony, and I would like to ask Amy Costantino.

Thank you for sharing your personal story with us. It was quite

an ordeal to have twins, and you had to do what many Federal

workers have to do. You cobbled together your annual leave, your

sick leave, unpaid leave in order to meet your parenting needs. As

you mentioned, you exhausted all your leave to care for your children.

From your story, I believe you are fortunate that you did become

ill in the particular situation you were in.

83

May I ask you, where does your leave stand now and what are

your contingency plans, say, if the children become sick again seriously? What could you do?

Have you exhausted all of your leave in all of that?

Ms. COSTANTINO. I have not exhausted all of my leave. I have

planned, but I would probably have to take leave without pay

which would be a hardship for our family.

Mrs. MALONEY. Danny and I were going to the floor, and we were

talking about the bill. One of our esteemed colleagues called it—

what did he call it? Vacation pay.

Another one I was talking to said, well, you know, why don’t they

cobble together their sick leave and their vacation leave? That is

what should cover it.

So what is your answer to that, anyone?

Ms. KELLEY. I think there are just so many very real examples

out there and not just in the Federal Government. Obviously, those

are the examples that we have firsthand knowledge of, but there

are so many examples of where that just isn’t viable and where employees have had to make choices as we have heard described here

today in very real terms and decisions that employees are having

to face every day, whether they lose their job and risk losing their

job or can afford to not have the income.

Those are choices that, I guess, I would suggest that—I would

like to see what your colleagues who made these comments said if

they were in the same situation, how it is they would feel if someone made that comment to them or about their son or their daughter or their grandson or their granddaughter.

Mrs. MALONEY. I appreciate it.

I just have no further questions.

I think this is a good bill. I hope the chairman will support it

and mark it up and send it to the full committee.

I think we have had a very good hearing today. The support for

it, based on science and need, is there.

We are trailing the world, not leading the world, in terms of providing this very important benefit to families. For a country that

spends so much time talking about family values, it is time that

we took some steps to take the word out of rhetoric and put it into

the lives of employees so that they can better balance work and

family.

Statistics show most men and women have to work. That is what

it takes to put the food on the table and pay the rent. We, as a

government, in my opinion, should have more hearings like this,

looking at ways that we can balance work and family and really

show that we are a government that cares about family values and

wants to work with parents to allow them to spend more time with

their children.

I know it is heartbreaking when you can’t get time to go to a doctor’s appointment or you can’t be at the school for the teacher’s appointment and you can’t be there for really important purposes because you are working.

I really believe that if there was more flexibility, you would have

a more vibrant and committed work force to be there for the issues

before us.

84

I want to thank you for what you do every day, and I am very

proud of the Federal work force. You do a great job.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to join you today on

this important hearing.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. It is indeed a

pleasure.

I do have one additional question I would like to ask you, Ms.

Burke. You stated in your testimony that OPM’s 2001 study failed

to survey any of the employees who had actually left service during

the years when they were having children. Are you aware of any

ongoing effort to survey this group of individuals?

Ms. BURKE. No, sir, I am not, but we could get back to you if I

found out something.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, we would appreciate that.

Ms. BURKE. OK.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I think it could, in fact, be beneficial to

know what the experiences have been and how they have felt about

whether or not this, in any way, was part of the reason that they

decided to leave.

Again, let me thank all of you for coming and testifying, participating with us.

I certainly want to thank my colleague, Representative Maloney,

for her introduction and the work that she has done on this measure for a number of years.

It has been a pleasure, Representative Maloney, to share another

hearing with you, and I look forward to doing so in the future.

With that, we will declare that this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee and committee

were adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Æ