79–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPT. 111–116 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAID PARENTAL LEAVE ACT OF 

2009 

MAY 18, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. TOWNS, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 626] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 626) to provide that 4 of the 12 weeks 

of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be 

paid leave, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 

the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 2 

Section-By-Section ................................................................................................... 3 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Rollcall Votes ............................................................................................................ 3 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 3 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 4 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 4 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 4 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 4 

Unfunded Mandates Statement .............................................................................. 4 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 4 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
2 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 4 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 5 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 7 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 

2009, was introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) 

on January 22, 2009. The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave 

Act (FEPPLA) would amend section 6382 of title 5, U.S.C., the 

Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to provide four weeks of paid parental leave 

to federal and congressional employees for the birth, adoption, or 

placement of a child, out of the twelve weeks of unpaid leave that 

are currently available to employees under the Family and Medical 

Leave Act. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Under existing law, most federal and congressional employees 

are entitled to a total of twelve workweeks of unpaid leave during 

any 12-month period because of the birth or adoption of a child. 

Federal employees must use accrued annual leave if they want to 

receive pay for any of the time that they are out on leave. Under 

some circumstances, accrued sick leave may be used to care for the 

new child, but only if the child is ill or if there were complications 

with the pregnancy or birth. Many employees cannot afford to take 

unpaid leave, and are forced to choose between spending more time 

with their new child and maintaining an income to support their 

family. 

H.R. 626 will help families by providing four weeks of paid parental leave to federal and congressional employees. In addition to 

the four weeks, employees will also be allowed to use accrued annual or sick leave for parental leave. Unlike current law, employees 

using their sick leave for parental leave will not need to demonstrate a medical need for the leave. Enactment of this measure 

will ensure that the federal government, as an employer, is providing the type of benefits offered to government workers in other 

industrialized countries. This family friendly measure will also 

have a positive impact on our ability to attract and retain a highly 

qualified federal workforce. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Earlier versions of H.R. 626 (H.R. 3158, H.R. 3799, H.R. 5718 

and H.R. 5781) were introduced in previous Congresses. H.R. 5781 

was introduced and passed in the House of Representatives in 

2008. H.R. 626 was introduced on January 22, 2009, and referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the 

Committee on House Administration. 

The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and 

the District of Columbia of the Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee held a markup on March 25, 2009, where the bill was 

forwarded to the Full Committee by voice vote. The Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee then held a markup of the bill on 

May 6, 2009. The Committee ordered the bill to be reported by 

voice vote. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
3 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Sec.1. Short title 

The short title of the bill is the Federal Employees Paid Parental 

Leave Act of 2009. 

Sec.2. Paid parental leave under Title 5 

This section would amend section 6382 of title 5, U.S.C., to provide paid parental leave to most federal employees. 

Under this section, covered employees would be permitted to substitute up to four workweeks of paid parental leave for any of the 

unpaid leave currently provided for the birth or placement of a 

child. The Office of Personnel Management would be allowed to 

promulgate regulations to increase the amount of paid parental 

leave to 8 administrative workweeks. OPM would have to analyze 

the benefits and costs to the federal government and trends in the 

private sector before doing so. 

Sec.3. Paid parental leave for Congressional employees 

Section 3 would amend section 202 of the Congressional Accountability Act to provide paid parental leave to congressional employees. 

Sec. 4. Conforming amendment to Family and Medical Leave Act 

for GAO and Library of Congress employees 

This section amends the FMLA to make paid parental leave benefits available to Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Library of Congress employees, who are not otherwise covered by 5 

U.S.C. 6382 and section 202 of the CAA. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments to H.R. 626 were offered or adopted in Committee. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, May 6, 2009, the Committee met in open session 

and favorably ordered H.R. 626 to be reported to the House by a 

voice vote. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

No rollcall votes were taken. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to terms and conditions of employment or access to public 

services and accommodations. 

Sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 626 would apply to congressional and 

legislative branch employees by providing paid parental leave to 

the aforementioned employees. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
4 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in 

the descriptive portions of this report, including the need to provide 

federal and congressional employees with paid parental leave for 

the birth or adoption of a child. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including the requirement that executive and legislative branch 

agencies and congressional offices provide employees with paid parental leave for the birth or adoption of a child. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 626. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of 

the United States grants the Congress the power to enact this law. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement on whether the 

provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance 

with this requirement the Committee has received a letter from the 

Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 626 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 626. 

However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
5 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 626 

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 11, 2009. 

Hon. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, 

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Barry Blom. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 626—Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 

Summary: H.R. 626 would amend title 5 of the United States 

Code, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Family and 

Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) by creating a new category of 

leave under FMLA. This new category would provide four weeks of 

paid leave to federal employees following the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. In addition, the legislation permits the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) to increase the amount of paid leave 

provided to a total of eight weeks based on the consideration of several factors such as the cost to the federal government and enhanced recruitment and retention of employees. 

Under current law, federal employees who have completed at 

least 12 months of service are entitled to up to 12 weeks of leave 

without pay after the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. Upon 

return from FMLA leave, an employee must be returned to the 

same position or to an ‘‘equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and conditions of employment.’’ 

Employees may get paid during that 12-week period by using any 

annual or sick leave that they have accrued. The leave provided by 

this bill would be available only within the 12-week FMLA leave 

period. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 626 would cost $67 million in 2010 and a total of $938 million over the 2010–2014 period, 

subject to appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting H.R. 626 

would not affect direct spending or receipts. 

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
6 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 626 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation would fall in all budget functions (except functions 900 and 950). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010– 

2014 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................... 69 215 219 221 224 947 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 67 209 218 221 223 938 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 626 

will be enacted by October 1, 2009, and that the necessary amounts 

for implementing it will be appropriated each year. Under the legislation, the new category of leave would become available six 

months after enactment (that is, around April 2010). As a result, 

the cost of the legislation in 2010 reflects implementation for only 

half of the year. After 2010, CBO has included in its estimate a 50 

percent probability that OPM will use its authority to increase the 

amount of paid leave available from four weeks to eight weeks. 

Costs in future years are projected to grow with inflation. 

CBO assumes that the potential users of the new leave would be 

primarily the roughly 700,000 civilian employees who are between 

the ages of 20 and 44 and have been employed at least 12 months. 

(This figure excludes employees of the Postal Service because H.R. 

626 amends title 5 of the United States Code, which does not apply 

to them.) 

Estimating an adoption rate based on data from the Department 

of Health and Human Services and applying birth rate information 

for the relevant age cohorts from the National Center on Health 

Statistics to the roughly 313,000 women eligible for the new leave 

yields about 17,800 women who might give birth or adopt in a 

given year. Based on average salary information from OPM, CBO 

estimates that four weeks of paid leave—the maximum amount 

guaranteed by the bill—for female employees would cost between 

$2,800 (for those in the youngest age cohort) and $5,400 (for those 

in the 40–44 age cohort). Assuming that nearly all of those women 

took the maximum amount of leave, CBO estimates the cost of the 

leave to be $77 million this year (if it were available for the entire 

12-month period). 

Applying those same calculations to the 390,000 men in the affected age groups, CBO estimates that roughly 24,000 men would 

be eligible for the four weeks of paid leave, at an average cost of 

between $3,100 and $6,000 per male employee. Assuming that eligible men would take the leave at about one-half the rate of 

women, CBO estimates that men would use another $54 million 

worth of leave this year (if it were available for the entire 12– 

month period), bringing the total to $130 million. 

Since CBO assumes that the new leave would not be available 

until half-way through fiscal year 2010, there would be no costs for 

2009 and the 2010 costs would represent only six months of the 

year, totaling $67 million. Beyond 2010, CBO assumes a full year 

of availability and has included a 50 percent probability that OPM 

would increase the amount of paid leave available to employees. As 

a result, anticipated costs increase to $209 million in 2011. (The 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
7 

2011 costs would be about $140 billion if the benefit were kept at 

a maximum of four weeks.) 

The effects of this bill on the budget derive from the provision 

of a new form of paid leave. To the extent that such a new benefit 

enables people to take advantage of paid leave rather than taking 

leave without pay, the costs are clear. However, employees who 

would currently use annual or sick leave upon the birth, adoption, 

or fostering of a child may choose to use this new form of paid 

leave and save their accrued leave for a later date. CBO has no 

basis for estimating the magnitude of such substitution, but the deferral of annual and sick leave also represents a cost either in 

terms of increased availability of paid leave or cash payments upon 

separation. 

In addition, providing a more generous benefit to employees may 

enhance the federal government’s ability to retain employees after 

the birth or adoption of a child and thereby lower recruitment and 

training costs. CBO estimates that such potential savings are likely 

to be relatively small over the next five years. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 626 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Barry Blom; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART E—ATTENDANCE AND LEAVE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 63—LEAVE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER V—FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
8 

§ 6382. Leave requirement 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d)¿ (1) An employee may elect to substitute for leave under 

øsubparagraph (A), (B), (C), or¿ subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (a)(1) any of the employee’s accrued or accumulated annual 

or sick leave under subchapter I for any part of the 12-week period 

of leave under such subsection, except that nothing in this subchapter shall require an employing agency to provide paid sick 

leave in any situation in which such employing agency would not 

normally provide any such paid leave. An employee may elect to 

substitute for leave under subsection (a)(3) any of the employee’s 

accrued or accumulated annual or sick leave under subchapter I for 

any part of the 26-week period of leave under such subsection. 

(2) An employee may elect to substitute for any leave without pay 

under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) any paid leave 

which is available to such employee for that purpose. 

(3) The paid leave that is available to an employee for purposes 

of paragraph (2) is— 

(A) subject to paragraph (6), 4 administrative workweeks of 

paid parental leave under this subparagraph in connection with 

the birth or placement involved; and 

(B) any annual or sick leave accrued or accumulated by such 

employee under subchapter I. 

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to require that 

an employee first use all or any portion of the leave described in 

subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) before being allowed to use the 

paid parental leave described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3). 

(5) Paid parental leave under paragraph (3)(A)— 

(A) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund available 

for salaries or expenses for positions within the employing agency; 

(B) shall not be considered to be annual or vacation leave for 

purposes of section 5551 or 5552 or for any other purpose; and 

(C) if not used by the employee before the end of the 12-month 

period (as referred to in subsection (a)(1)) to which it relates, 

shall not accumulate for any subsequent use. 

(6) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management— 

(A) may promulgate regulations to increase the amount of 

paid parental leave available to an employee under paragraph 

(3)(A), to a total of not more than 8 administrative workweeks, 

based on the consideration of— 

(i) the benefits provided to the Federal Government of offering increased paid parental leave, including enhanced 

recruitment and retention of employees; 

(ii) the cost to the Federal Government of increasing the 

amount of paid parental leave that is available to employees; 

(iii) trends in the private sector and in State and local 

governments with respect to offering paid parental leave; 

(iv) the Federal Government’s role as a model employer; 

and 

(v) such other factors as the Director considers necessary; 

and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
9 

(B) shall prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out this 

subsection, including, subject to paragraph (4), the manner in 

which an employee may designate any day or other period as 

to which such employee wishes to use paid parental leave described in paragraph (3)(A). 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 202 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL 

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995 

SEC. 202. RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993. 

(a) FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS PROVIDED.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The rights and protections established by 

sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act 

of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611 through 2615) shall apply to covered 

employees. In applying section 102(a)(1)(A) and (B) of such Act 

to covered employees, subsection (d) shall apply. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR PAID PARENTAL LEAVE FOR CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.— 

(1) SUBSTITUTION OF PAID LEAVE.—A covered employee taking 

leave without pay under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 

102(a)(1) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 

U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)) may elect to substitute for any such leave any 

paid leave which is available to such employee for that purpose. 

(2) AMOUNT OF PAID LEAVE.—The paid leave that is available 

to a covered employee for purposes of paragraph (1) is— 

(A) the number of weeks of paid parental leave in connection with the birth or placement involved that correspond 

to the number of administrative workweeks of paid parental leave available to Federal employees under section 

6382(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code; and 

(B) any additional paid vacation or sick leave provided 

by the employing office to such employee. 

(3) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to require that an employee first use all or any portion of 

the leave described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) before 

being allowed to use the paid parental leave described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2). 

(4) ADDITIONAL RULES.—Paid parental leave under paragraph (2)(A)— 

(A) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund 

available for salaries or expenses for positions within the 

employing office; and 

(B) if not used by the covered employee before the end of 

the 12-month period (as referred to in section 102(a)(1) of 

the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 

2612(a)(1))) to which it relates, shall not accumulate for 

any subsequent use. 

ø(d)¿ (e) REGULATIONS.— 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
10 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e)¿ (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 102 OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 

OF 1993 

SEC. 102. LEAVE REQUIREMENT. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) RELATIONSHIP TO PAID LEAVE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR GAO AND LIBRARY OF CONGRESS EMPLOYEES.— 

(A) SUBSTITUTION OF PAID LEAVE.—An employee of an 

employer described in section 101(4)(A)(iv) taking leave 

under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) may 

elect to substitute for any such leave any paid leave which 

is available to such employee for that purpose. 

(B) AMOUNT OF PAID LEAVE.—The paid leave that is 

available to an employee of an employer described in section 101(4)(A)(iv) for purposes of subparagraph (A) is— 

(i) the number of weeks of paid parental leave in connection with the birth or placement involved that correspond to the number of administrative workweeks of 

paid parental leave available to Federal employees 

under section 6382(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States 

Code; and 

(ii) any additional paid vacation or sick leave provided by such employer. 

(C) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this paragraph shall be 

considered to require that an employee first use all or any 

portion of the leave described in clause (ii) of subparagraph 

(B) before being allowed to use the paid parental leave described in clause (i) of such subparagraph. 

(D) ADDITIONAL RULES.—Paid parental leave under subparagraph (B)(i)— 

(i) shall be payable from any appropriation or fund 

available for salaries or expenses for positions with the 

employer described in section 101(4)(A)(iv); and 

(ii) if not used by the employee of such employer before the end of the 12-month period (as referred to in 

subsection (a)(1)) to which it relates, shall not accumulate for any subsequent use. 

* * * * * * * 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(11) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing 

H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, 

will cost taxpayers $938 million over the next five years. H.R. 626 

sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working American 

taxpayers and families that are struggling in a difficult economy. 

I fully recognize and appreciate that, like their private sector 

counterparts, most federal employees work hard and deserve competitive compensation and benefits packages. But in these perilous 

economic times, it is inappropriate for us to heap even more generous benefits on federal employees, at further taxpayer expense, 

while their private sector counterparts are struggling. 

Americans in the private sector are losing their jobs at a rate unseen since the Great Depression. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

just reported that Metropolitan unemployment rates were higher in 

March 2009 than March 2008 in every Metropolitan area across 

the nation. Eighteen Metropolitan areas recorded jobless rates of at 

least 15%. The national unemployment rate is currently at 9%, a 

5.2% percent increase over 2008. 

Private sector workers arrive at work every morning scared that 

they might be losing their job completely, if they haven’t already. 

If not facing job loss, they are certainly facing the real possibility 

of slashed benefits. At the same time, federal employees enjoy one 

of the highest levels of job security of any sector in the nation along 

with generous benefits packages. 

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the rate of layoffs 

and discharges (turnover) in the federal workforce was a decade 

low of 3.9%. The private sector workforce has not been so lucky, 

with a 2008 turnover rate of 20.2%. In fact, since June 2008 the 

private sector has shed roughly 4.4 million jobs while the federal 

government workforce has grown by 37,000 employees during the 

same period. 

Moreover, the Office of Personnel Management has determined 

that federal and private sector leave policies compare favorably and 

the additional benefits of this bill would not be a major factor in 

enhancing recruitment and retention. 

Currently, federal government leave policies and programs already provide employees with paid parental leave through the sick 

and annual leave system. Federal employees enjoy a benefits package that includes: annual leave, sick leave that has unlimited accrual, paid holidays, a guaranteed government pension and a 

matching 401K style retirement account. 

Federal employees with 3–15 years of service accrue four weeks 

of annual leave per year, those with more than 20 years of service 

accrue five weeks of annual leave, and all full time employees accrue 13 days of sick leave per year. Furthermore, federal employees 

also enjoy 11 paid holidays, which means federal employees genVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:46 May 19, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR116P1.XXX HR116P1

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
12 

erally enjoy seven or eight weeks off of work while those in the private sector get significantly fewer. 

Federal employees also receive generous retirement benefits. Retiring federal employees take advantage of one of the only remaining retirement plans that include a guaranteed pension. In addition 

to the pension, the federal government pays into an employee’s 

401K style account. This is all in addition to job security that is 

second to none. 

When it comes to the issue of parental leave, the birth mother 

may use accrued sick leave (which has no accrual limit) for medical 

appointments and/or hospitalization and the period of incapacitation following delivery. The birth father may use up to 12 weeks 

accrued sick leave each year to accompany the mother to prenatal 

appointments, to be with her during the period of hospitalization, 

and/or care for her during her approximate six week recovery period. Beyond that, if the mother and father exhaust their sick leave 

they are free to use their accrued annual leave (30 days may be 

accrued by federal employees stationed within the United States 

and 90 days may be accrued by members of the senior executive 

service, senior-level, scientific and professional employees) for any 

purpose, including pregnancy and child birth. Additionally, if the 

mother or father is a new employee the agency may advance mother and father up to 30 days of annual and/or sick leave for purposes 

related to childbirth. After the mother and/or father have exhausted their sick and annual leave they may receive donated annual leave from the employing agency’s leave bank program. Finally, each parent is entitled to 12 weeks of leave without pay 

under FMLA. 

This bill is being considered during a time when the federal government should be acting with greater fiscal responsibility. In fact, 

President Obama has made concerted efforts to emphasize fiscal 

discipline. According to the New York Times, the President has 

said that the government must act ‘‘the same way any responsible 

family does in setting its budget . . .’’ He has challenged his entire 

cabinet to cut $100 million from their federal budgets, which, according to the CBO, is approximately 1/10th of the $938 million 

cost of this one piece of legislation. 

This legislation is the forerunner to H.R. 1723, the Family Leave 

Insurance Act of 2009, which has been introduced in the 111th 

Congress and has been referred to the Ways and Means Committee. This companion legislation will create yet another burden 

on the nation’s struggling private sector, and will hit small businesses especially hard. H.R. 1723 creates a Family Medical Leave 

Insurance Fund that will provide up to 12 weeks of paid medical 

leave for all employees through an insurance fund administered by 

the federal government. This fund would be ‘‘self-financing’’ and be 

created by premiums paid by employer and employee. Thus, during 

this time of economic hardship for the private sector, through these 

two bills, Congress is both gold-plating already generous federal 

employee benefits and creating yet another financial burden for the 

private sector. 

Taxpayers are reaching the breaking point when it comes to subsidizing higher federal spending at their expense. Responsible 

American families are cutting costs and dealing with job loss and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
13 

the destruction of their savings and retirement accounts. It is simply not the right time to ask taxpayers to pay for a new benefit for 

federal employees. 

DARNELL ISSA. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS