[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-711 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
------ ------
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 KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Columbia JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman JIM JORDAN, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Tania Shand, Staff Director
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Senator, Chairman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Representative, Vice Chairman
SENATE HOUSE
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico BARON P. HILL, Indiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JIM WEBB, Virginia LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON PAUL, Texas
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
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 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.
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 balance 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.
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.
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.005
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 employees 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.008
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 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.
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?
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?
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.
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
short-term 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 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.
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.
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.013
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 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.019
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 3\1/2\ 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.
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 job-specific 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.031
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 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.
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 3\1/2\ 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.
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.
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
short-term 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 short-term 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.036
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.042
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 3\1/2\ 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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.048
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.
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.
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.
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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6711.079