Federal paid parental leave bill heads to full House committee
Legislation would allow all federal employees eight weeks of paid leave with benefits for the birth or adoption of a child.
Over Republican objections that an economic slowdown was no time to increase benefits for federal employees, the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee moved a bill giving federal employees paid parental leave.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., was sent to the full committee on a 7-3 party line vote. House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Tom Davis, R-Va., is the lone Republican co-sponsor.
The legislation would allow all federal employees eight weeks of paid leave with benefits for the birth or adoption of a child. The bill applies to both maternity and paternity leave.
An amendment from House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., changed the amount of paid leave to four weeks and allowed employees to use accrued sick leave for an additional eight paid weeks. The amendment allows the Office of Personnel Management to assess whether the provisions are comparable to what is offered in the private sector. The amendment passed by voice vote with Republicans voting no.
Waxman said parental leave was "one area where the federal government has lagged behind" the private sector. Democrats promoted the bill as a family values measure that would allow parents more time to bond with new children.
Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee Chairman Danny Davis, D-Ill., said that 168 countries offer some sort of paid parental leave for mothers, while 66 offer paid leave for fathers.
Currently, the Family and Medical Leave Act allows federal employees unpaid parental leave.
Federal Workforce Subcommittee ranking member Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, called the bill "not essential, given the limited resources of the government," and added that since paid paternity leave is not prevalent in the private sector, the government is going beyond simply trying to keep pace.
"This is the worst time to in fact increase public sector benefits, when in fact the private sector is seeing an increasing recession," said Rep. Darrell Issa as many private sector employees start to have benefits reduced due to the economic downturn.
"We're permitting a statement that we're out of touch with the people who are enjoying a bad economy," Issa said, adding that Waxman's amendment "falls short" of coming in line with Republican concerns.
Waxman tried to ease Republican fears that the bill would create new spending. Waxman said the money for benefits would come from discretionary spending and would not require additional appropriations.