[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                  BALANCING WORK, HEALTH, AND FAMILY:
                   THE CASE FOR EXPANDING THE FAMILY
                         AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS


                         COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND LABOR
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

           HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-53

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
      
      
      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
      



    Available via the: https://edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
    
    
    
    
                        ______                       
    

              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 39-733 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2022 
 
 
 
     
    
                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

             ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

Susan A. Davis, California           Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut            David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Tim Walberg, Michigan
  Northern Mariana Islands           Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon             Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California              Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina        Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Jim Banks, Indiana
Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
Joseph D. Morelle, New York          James Comer, Kentucky
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
Josh Harder, California              Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Steve Watkins, Kansas
Kim Schrier, Washington              Ron Wright, Texas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Andy Levin, Michigan*                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
David J. Trone, Maryland
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
                                 ------                                

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

               ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman

Mark DeSaulnier, California          Bradley Byrne, Alabama,
Mark Takano, California                Ranking Member
Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Ron Wright, Texas
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on February 11, 2020................................     1

Statement of Members:
    Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce 
      Protections................................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Cline, Hon. Ben, Representative of Congress from the State of 
      Virginia...................................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:
    Batch, Mrs. Sydney, J.D., M.S.W., Representative, North 
      Carolina House of Representatives, Raleigh, NC.............     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Greszler, Ms. Rachel, Research Fellow in Economics, Budgets, 
      and Entitlements, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC..    22
        Prepared statement of....................................    25
    Jacobs, Ms. Elisabeth, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Urban Institute, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    39
        Prepared statement of....................................    42
    Sandkamp, Mr. Anthony, Owner, Sandkamp Woodworks LLC, Jersey 
      City, NJ...................................................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    16

Additional Submissions:
    Chairwoman Adams:
        Prepared statement from the National Partnership for 
          Women and Families.....................................   105
        Prepared statement from The Leadership Conference........   115
        Prepared statement from Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
          Rights Under Law.......................................   120
        Prepared statement from the National Education 
          Association (NEA)......................................   125
        Prepared statement from New America......................   136
        Prepared statement from YWCA.............................   130
        Prepared statement from A Better Balance.................   136
    Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington:
        Construction 21st Century Rights for A Changing 
          Workforce: A Policy Brief Series.......................    71
    Wild, Hon. Susan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Pennsylvania:
        Prepared statement from Barry Klueger and Kelly Farley...    93
    Questions submitted for the record by:
        McBath, Hon. Lucy, a Representative in Congress from the 
          State of Georgia 



        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in 
          Congress from the State of Virginia 



        Stevens, Hon. Haley M., a Representative in Congress from 
          the State of Michigan 



    Responses submitted for the record by:
        Mrs. Batch...............................................   163
        Ms. Jacobs...............................................   165
        Mr. Sandkamp.............................................   169


                  BALANCING WORK, HEALTH, AND FAMILY:

                   THE CASE FOR EXPANDING THE FAMILY

                         AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 11, 2020

                       House of Representatives,

                 Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,

                   Committee on Education and Labor,

                            Washington, D.C.

                              ----------                              

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:46 p.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Alma Adams 
(Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Adams, DeSaulnier, Takano, 
Jayapal, Wild, Scott (ex officio), Cline, Murphy, and Foxx (ex 
officio).
    Also Present: Representatives Porter and Schneider.
    Staff Present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; Emma Eatman, 
Press Assistant; Eli Hovland, Staff Assistant; Eunice Ikene, 
Labor Policy Advisor; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy Communications 
Director; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff 
Director; Richard Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore, 
Staff Assistant; Udochi Onwubiko, Labor Policy Counsel; 
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Ivorie Stanley, Health and 
Labor Policy Fellow; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of 
Information Technology; Gabriel Bisson, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of Member 
Services and Coalitions; Akash Chougule, Minority Professional 
Staff Member; Rob Green, Minority Director of Workforce Policy; 
Jeanne Kuehl, Minority Legislative Assistant; John Martin, 
Minority Workforce Policy Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Minority 
Director of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications 
Director; Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; and Ben 
Ridder, Minority Professional Staff Member.
    Chairwoman Adams. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
will come to order. I want to welcome everyone.
    I note that a quorum is present, and I note for the 
subcommittee that Ms. Underwood of Illinois, Mr. Schneider of 
Illinois, and Ms. Porter of California are permitted to 
participate in today's hearing. Members who sit on the 
subcommittee and are present shall have first priority to ask 
questions, followed by members who sit on the full committee 
and are present. And only after all Committee Members who are 
present have gone shall members who are not on the Committee on 
Education and Labor can ask questions.
    The subcommittee is meeting today in a legislative hearing 
to hear testimony on ``Balancing Work, Health, and Family: The 
Case for Expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act.''
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are 
limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to 
hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all members with 
adequate time to ask questions.
    I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today we are gathered to discuss our responsibility to 
ensure that all workers have the right to comprehensive family 
and medical leave to care for themselves and their loved ones.
    Working people should be able to contribute to the economy 
knowing that if personal health or family caregiving needs 
demand it, they can take leave from work without losing their 
jobs or facing financial ruin. This means comprehensive Federal 
family and medical leave policy must ensure leave is 
guaranteed, job protected, and paid.
    In 1993, Congress took an important step toward 
guaranteeing workers the right to family and medical leave when 
it passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA. Over the 
past 27 years, this law has enabled millions of workers to take 
unpaid time off to care for themselves and their families.
    Unfortunately, 27 years later, we failed to build upon that 
legislation. Although a patchwork of States have expanded paid 
and unpaid leave laws, Federal law leaves millions of workers 
either without the right to take unpaid family and medical 
leave under the FMLA or unable to afford unpaid leave when they 
are eligible.
    Workers are often excluded from the FMLA by requirements 
that restrict which employers are covered, who is eligible to 
take leave, for whom workers can take leave, and the reasons 
for which workers can take leave.
    To be eligible for FMLA leave, an individual must work for 
a covered employer, who have worked for that employer for 12 
months, and also have worked for 1,250 hours in the year before 
taking leave. And these restrictions leave out 44 percent of 
private sector workers or 49 million workers from the FMLA.
    A large share of the workers left out are low-income 
workers, working parents, and workers of color.
    Even if a worker can take FMLA leave, Federal law does not 
guarantee that a worker can take leave to care for family 
members in a way that reflects today's caregiving 
responsibilities and family compositions.
    For example, siblings, LGBTQ couples, domestic partners, 
and the millions of grandparents exclusively raising their 
grandchildren face a patchwork of policies that allow them to 
take leave in some States but not in others.
    Moreover, even if a worker is eligible for FMLA leave and 
is a caregiver under the law's definition of family, they may 
still be excluded because of their reason for seeking leave.
    So while the FMLA covers parental and serious health needs, 
it does not cover other reasons for leave, including parents 
taking time to be more involved in their children's schooling, 
individuals donating their organs to save lives, or parents 
taking time to grieve a child's death.
    Finally, if working people have the right to unpaid leave 
under the FMLA, currently most workers cannot afford to forego 
wages to take unpaid FMLA leave. Nearly half of those eligible 
for unpaid FMLA leave cannot afford to take it, and nearly two-
thirds of those who can still report financial difficulties.
    All of these barriers add up to fewer workers actually able 
to exercise their right to take the leave they have earned.
    For families, paid family and medical leave means improved 
maternal and infant health, as well as better long-term 
outcomes for children and mothers.
    For businesses, it means stronger work recruitment, 
increased employer loyalty, and reduced employee turnover.
    And for the economy, which currently loses $22.5 billion in 
wages each year because of inaccessible paid leave, it means 
more money in the pockets of American consumers and a reduced 
need for public assistance.
    S&P Global estimates that if women entered the workforce at 
the same rate as Norway, a country with a generous paid family 
and medical leave policy, the U.S. economy would be $1.6 
trillion larger.
    Congress has the power to remedy this.
    Today we will discuss how we can build on the promise of 
the FMLA. We will discuss how to expand who is eligible for 
FMLA leave by reducing or eliminating the law's 50-employee 
threshold, its 12-month tenure requirement, its hours worked 
requirement, and eliminating its marriage penalty.
    We will learn about proposals to update for whom workers 
can take leave and the reasons for which leave would be 
permissible under the FMLA.
    These proposals include H.R. 5456, the Family Medical Leave 
Modernization Act, which would expand the FMLA's range of 
recognized family caregiving relationships; the Family Leave 
for Parental Involvement and Education Act, which would allow 
parents and grandparents to use the FMLA to attend their 
children's educational activities; H.R. 983, the Parental 
Bereavement Act, which would add the death of a child as an 
allowable use of the FMLA leave; and H.R. 1224, the Living 
Donor Protection Act, which would include living organ 
donations as a serious health condition under the FMLA.
    In addition, we will also discuss H.R. 1185, the FAMILY 
Act, which provides wage replacement for all workers so they 
can remain financially stable while on leave.
    And at the end of the day, this hearing is about making 
sure that we leave here dedicated to the cause of ensuring 
guaranteed, job protected, paid leave for all workers. This is 
about ensuring working people can sustain their careers and 
livelihoods while giving workers and their loved ones the care 
needed to thrive.
    Thank you.
    And now I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Byrne, for an 
opening statement.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 
                         Workforce Protections

    Today, we are gathered to discuss our responsibility to ensure that 
workers have access to family and medical leave to care for themselves 
and their loved ones.
    All workers should be able to contribute to the economy knowing 
that, if personal health or family needs demand it, they can take leave 
from work without losing their jobs and their livelihoods.
    In 1993, Congress took an important step toward establishing 
comprehensive leave when it passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, or 
FMLA.
    Unfortunately, 27 years later, we have failed to build upon that 
legislation. As a result, federal law still leaves many workers without 
the right to take unpaid leave or unable to afford unpaid leave where 
they are eligible.
    Workers are often excluded from the FMLA by a layered system of 
requirements that restricts who is eligible to take leave, for whom 
workers can take leave, and the reasons for which workers can take 
leave.
    To be eligible, an individual must work for a covered employer, 
have worked for said employer for 12 months, and have worked 1,250 
hours in the year before taking leave.
    These restrictions, alone, leave out 44 percent of private sector 
workers--or 49 million workers--from the FMLA. They also 
disproportionally exclude low-income workers, working parents, and 
workers of color, who face higher rates of job turnover.
    Even if a worker can take FMLA leave, federal law does not 
guarantee coverage for all family members and caregivers. The 
individuals a worker can take leave for have expanded over time. Yet, 
LGBT couples, domestic partners, and the 2.9 million grandparents 
exclusively raising their grandchildren still face a patchwork of 
policies that allow them to take leave in some states, but not others.
    However, even if a worker is eligible for FMLA leave and fulfills 
the law's definition of ``family,'' they may still be excluded because 
of their reason for seeking leave.
    While the FMLA covers personal, infant, and family health needs, it 
does not cover a wide range of other reasons that workers might need to 
take leave, including parents taking time to be more involved in their 
children's schooling, individuals donating their organs to save lives, 
or family members taking time to grieve a child's death.
    Finally, even if workers fulfill all FMLA requirements, most 
workers may not be able to afford to lose their wages as the FMLA does 
not cover lost wages during leave.
    Nearly half of those eligible for FMLA cannot afford to take it, 
and nearly two-thirds of those who can still report financial 
difficulties.
    All of these compounding barriers leave few workers actually able 
to take the leave they need. Yet, we know that access to paid, job-
protected leave is critical for healthy families, businesses, and 
communities.
    For families, paid family and medical leave means improved maternal 
and infant health as well as better long- term outcomes for children.
    For businesses, it means stronger worker recruitment and reduced 
employee turnover.
    And for the economy--which currently loses $22.5 billion in wages 
each year because of inaccessible paid leave--it means more money in 
the pockets of American consumers and less need for public assistance.
    Congress has the power to fully realize the benefits of paid leave 
for communities across the country.
    Today, we will discuss how we can fulfill the promise of the FMLA 
by updating federal law to expand who is eligible for leave, who 
workers can take leave for, and the eligible reasons why workers take 
leave.
    We will also discuss legislative solutions, like the FAMILY Act, 
that provide wage replacement for all workers so they can remain 
financially stable while on leave.
    At the end of the day, this hearing is about making sure we can 
sustain our careers and livelihoods while giving ourselves and our 
loved ones the care needed to thrive.
    I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Byrne, for an opening 
statement.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Cline. I thank the chair, and I thank our witnesses for 
being here.
    Balancing a career and a family can be a challenge for many 
workers, especially when life-altering events, like the birth 
or adoption of a new child, or a serious illness occur. 
Allowing workers to take time away from their jobs during these 
moments ensures that these employees can remain in the 
workforce.
    Committee Republicans recognize the benefits provided by 
the Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires employers to 
provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected family and 
medical leave to eligible employees.
    Furthermore, Republicans in Congress have encouraged 
workplace flexibility and support for working families through 
the paid family and medical leave tax credit, which rewards 
businesses that provide paid leave benefits, and allowing new 
parents to borrow from their private retirement account 
following the birth or adoption of a child free from penalty.
    While the FMLA has helped many workers balance work and 
family, there are an ever-growing number of employer-provided 
options that Congress should continue to recognize. In fact, 
many businesses already provide robust leave options for their 
employees to help ensure a positive and productive workplace.
    Family-friendly policies have become an important tool for 
companies to attract and retain quality employees in our 
competitive job market. According to the Society for Human 
Resource Management, the percentage of firms offering paid 
maternity leave nearly tripled between 2014 and 2018. The 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 66 percent of wage and 
salaried workers had access to paid leave in 2018, up from 60 
percent in 2011.
    Companies know they need to understand their current and 
prospective employees' workplace concerns and be prepared to 
address them. Congress should allow our Nation's employers the 
flexibility to develop and offer personalized solutions that 
work best for their employees and themselves.
    As this committee examines the issue of family and medical 
leave, we should avoid implementing one size fits all solutions 
and instead focus on how we can foster an environment that 
encourages employers to meet the needs of their workers.
    Take the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for example. The 2017 pro-
growth, pro-worker tax reform passed by Republicans and signed 
into law by President Trump included a tax credit for employers 
who voluntarily offer at least 2 weeks of paid family and 
medical leave to their employees, which is set to expire at the 
end of this year. This allows employers to claim a tax credit 
for up to 25 percent of the amount of wages paid to qualified 
employees taking between 2 and 12 weeks of paid family and 
medical leave.
    Another Republican-led initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working 
Families Flexibility Act, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act 
to allow private sector employers to offer their employees the 
choice of paid or comp time in lieu of cash wages for working 
overtime. This provides hourly workers the choice to access 
additional paid leave options not currently available to them. 
The Working Families Flexibility Act passed the House in the 
115th Congress.
    These initiatives help create solutions for working 
individuals and families without burdening the American 
taxpayer and without creating new burdens on employers. 
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues' initiatives on the other 
side that we will hear about today have a different approach, 
with overarching government involvement and a hefty price tag 
for workers and employers.
    The bottom line is that Congress should avoid burdening the 
American taxpayer and employers through additional Washington 
knows best Federal mandates when the private sector is already 
innovating solutions that create workplace flexibility for 
employees.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 
how the Federal Government can continue encouraging employers 
to develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and their 
families.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    [The statement of Mr. Cline follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Cline, Representative of Congress from 
                         the State of Virginia

    Balancing a career and a family can be a challenge for many 
workers, especially when life-altering events, like the birth or 
adoption of a new child, or a serious illness occur. Allowing workers 
to take time away from their jobs during these moments ensures that 
these employees can remain in the workforce.
    Committee Republicans recognize the benefits provided by the Family 
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which requires employers to provide up to 
12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected family and medical leave to eligible 
employees.
    Furthermore, Republicans in Congress have encouraged workplace 
flexibility and support for working families through the paid family 
and medical leave tax credit, which rewards businesses that provide 
paid leave benefits, and allowing new parents to borrow from their 
private retirement account following the birth or adoption of a child, 
free from penalty.
    While the FMLA has helped many workers balance work and family, 
there are an ever-growing number of employer-provided options that 
Congress should continue to recognize.
    In fact, many businesses already provide robust leave options for 
their employees to help ensure a positive and productive workplace. 
Family-friendly policies have become an important tool for companies to 
attract and retain quality employees in our competitive job market.
    According to the Society for Human Resource Management, the 
percentage of firms offering paid maternity leave nearly tripled 
between 2014 and 2018. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 66 
percent of wage and salary workers had access to paid leave in 2018--up 
from 60 percent in 2011.
    Companies know they need to understand their current and 
prospective employees' workplace concerns and be prepared to address 
them. Congress should allow our nation's employers the flexibility to 
develop and offer personalized solutions that work best for their 
employees and themselves.
    As this Committee examines the issue of family and medical leave, 
we should avoid implementing one-size-fits all solutions, and instead 
focus on how we can foster an environment that encourages employers to 
meet the needs of their workers.
    Take the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for example. The 2017 pro-growth, 
pro-worker, tax reform passed by Republicans and signed into law by 
President Trump included a tax credit for employers who voluntarily 
offer at least two weeks of paid family and medical leave to their 
employees, which is set to expire at the end of this year. This allows 
employers to claim a tax credit for up to 25 percent of the amount of 
wages paid to qualified employees taking between two and 12 weeks of 
paid family and medical leave.
    Another Republican led initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working Families 
Flexibility Act, amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow private-
sector employers to offer their employees the choice of paid or comp 
time in lieu of cash wages for working overtime. This provides hourly 
workers the choice to access additional paid leave options not 
currently available to them. The Working Families Flexibility Act 
passed the House in the 115th Congress.
    These initiatives help create solutions for working individuals and 
families without burdening the American taxpayer and without creating 
new burdens on employers. Unfortunately, many of the Democrats' 
initiatives we'll hear about today have a different approach, with 
overarching government involvement and a hefty price tag for workers 
and employers.
    Bottom line, Congress should avoid burdening the American taxpayer 
and employers through additional Washington-knows-best, federal 
mandates when the private sector is already innovating solutions that 
create workplace flexibility for employees.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the 
federal government can continue encouraging employers to develop 
solutions that meet the needs of workers and their families.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    Without objection, all other Members who wish to insert 
written statements into the record may do so by submitting them 
to the Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format 
by 5 p.m. on February 24, 2020.
    I will now introduce our witnesses.
    Representative Sydney Batch represents District 37 in the 
North Carolina House of Representatives, which encompasses 
Holly Springs, Apex, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, and Angier. 
Representative Batch is also a family law attorney, child 
welfare advocate, and social worker. She lives in Holly Springs 
with her husband and two sons.
    Mr. Tony Sandkamp is the owner of Sandkamp Woodworks LLC, a 
small independent custom architectural woodworking business. 
The business has been based in Jersey City, New Jersey, for the 
past 23 years. Mr. Sandkamp is a leader with the Main Street 
Alliance of New Jersey, a statewide network of small business 
owners.
    Ms. Rachel Greszler is a research fellow in economics, 
budgets, and entitlements at the Heritage Foundation. Ms. 
Greszler provides research and commentary on workplace issues, 
including Federal employee compensation, women's issues in 
labor policies, such as minimum wage and paid family leave.
    Dr. Elizabeth Jacobs is a senior fellow at the Urban 
Institute focusing on issues related to family economic 
security and economic mobility. Dr. Jacobs is a nationally 
recognized expert on family income and earnings instability, 
low wage employment, job quality, intergenerational mobility, 
and opportunity, as well as a wide range of related policies, 
including social insurance, labor market regulations, and 
safety net policies.
    Thank you all very much for being here. We appreciate all 
of the witnesses. We look forward to your testimony today. But 
let me remind the witnesses that we will have read your written 
statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and committee practice, 
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-
minute summary of your written statement. And let me remind the 
witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 
1001, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully falsify any 
statement, representation, writing, document, or material fact 
presented to Congress, or otherwise conceal or cover up a 
material fact.
    So before you begin your testimony, please remember to 
press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it 
will turn on and the members can hear you. As you begin to 
speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After 4 
minutes, the light will turn yellow to signal that you have 1 
minute remaining. And when the light turns red, your 5 minutes 
have expired, and we ask that you please wrap up at that time.
    So we will let the entire panel make their presentations 
before we move to member questions. When answering a question, 
please remember to, once again, turn your microphone on.
    I would first like to recognize Representative Batch.

 STATEMENT OF MRS. SYDNEY BATCH, J.D., M.S.W., REPRESENTATIVE, 
      NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RALEIGH, NC

    Mrs. Batch. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairwoman Adams, 
Ranking Member Cline, and members of the subcommittee. I am 
Sydney Batch, a State Representative in the North Carolina 
House representing Southern Wake County, an attorney, a part 
owner of a small law firm, a breast cancer survivor, the mother 
of two fantastic sons, and a member of MomsRising.
    I am here today because I have needed family and medical 
leave during the happiest and hardest times in my life. I know 
from personal experience how important family and medical leave 
is to my employees and constituents, to small businesses like 
mine, and to my community and State. I know how badly our 
country needs a comprehensive family and medical leave plan 
that ensures all employees have the right to take leave and 
return to their same or similar job and one that provides wage 
replacement during leave.
    We don't have that today. For 27 years, the Family and 
Medical Leave Act has helped working families and people take 
unpaid leave. But it has its limitations. It exempts small 
businesses, employees who have been at their jobs for less than 
a year, and many part-time workers, and it also uses a narrow 
definition of family.
    I encourage you to expand the FMLA to address those 
problems and I urge you to enact national paid leave insurance.
    Because the law firm my husband, business partner, and I 
own has eight employees, we are not covered by FMLA. I had the 
flexibility to take 3 months of leave and maintain my health 
insurance when my sons were born because I am a business owner, 
but few people can do that.
    While my unpaid leave created financial stress for my 
family, I didn't have the stress of worrying whether my job 
would be there when I was ready to return to work because I am 
a part owner of the firm. Everyone deserves that same type of 
job protection.
    What is the purpose of being able to take paid family leave 
if your job isn't protected, or of having job protection if you 
can't pay your bills while on leave? We need expanded FMLA 
protections and a paid leave insurance plan.
    I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018. I had a 
mastectomy on a Friday and my husband returned back to work on 
the following Monday. In 2019, I needed a second mastectomy and 
reconstructive surgery. I had three surgeries and radiation 
treatment in 1 year, and that was while I was caring for my 6 
and 8-year-old sons, working full time at my firm, and serving 
in the North Carolina House.
    My mother, sisters, grandmother, and friends cared for me 
when they could negotiate time off, but their leave was not 
covered because FMLA does not include siblings or care for 
adult children. It should be expanded to cover leave taken by 
more relatives, domestic partners, and people who aren't blood 
relatives.
    And many fellow North Carolinians have suffered without 
adequate leave as well. For instance, Jonathan in Wilmington, 
who didn't have FMLA coverage when his sibling, who lives 400 
miles away, was dying of bladder cancer. And Meryl, in 
Weaverville, whose father lost his job and parents had to sell 
their home after her father took earned time off to care for 
her mother who had a stroke. Job protection and paid leave 
would have protected his job and their home.
    Studies, in my own experience, show it is good for 
employees and businesses when workers can hold on to their jobs 
while caring for their families or recovering from an illness.
    I strongly support Representative Carolyn Maloney's FMLA 
Modernization Act. Lack of job protection is a major barrier 
that prevents working people from taking leave. Ensuring that 
all workers, including those at small businesses, those who 
work part time, and those who are recent hires, have job 
protection through the FMLA is essential.
    Another tremendous barrier to taking leave is lack of wage 
replacement. The FAMILY Act is the best paid family and medical 
insurance leave bill. Its passage is a priority for families 
and small businesses, and it should be for Congress.
    I am proud to cosponsor a paid family and medical leave 
insurance bill in North Carolina. It shares costs between the 
employer and the employee and covers small businesses and 
people who are self-employed. It also uses an inclusive 
definition of family, provides job protection, and addresses 
the needs of military families.
    I will continue to fight for it, but people in every State 
need paid leave insurance so action by Congress is essential. 
Please expand the Family and Medical Leave Act protections so 
more people can access the unpaid leave and job protection it 
provides, so it no longer exempts small businesses, employees 
who are new to their jobs, and part-time workers, and so it 
uses an inclusive definition of family.
    And I hope that you will pass the FAMILY Act as well. When 
you do both, we will have the comprehensive medical and family 
leave coverage everyone in America deserves.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mrs. Batch follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
 
    

    Chairwoman Adams. Mr. Sandkamp, you have 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY SANDKAMP, OWNER, SANDKAMP WOODWORKS 
                      LLC, JERSEY CITY, NJ

    Mr. Sandkamp. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member 
Cline, and members of the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections.
    My name is Tony Sandkamp, and I started my business, 
Sandkamp Woodworks, in 1991. My four full-time employees and I 
provide custom cabinetry and architectural woodwork from my 
shop in Jersey City, New Jersey. I am a member of the Main 
Street Alliance, a national network of more than 30,000 small 
business owners.
    This past week we celebrated the Family and Medical Leave 
Act's 27th anniversary, which allows millions of eligible 
American workers to take job-protected leave. While this was 
landmark legislation in 1993, the FMLA leaves out over 44 
percent of American workers. It is past time for Congress to 
update the family and medical leave protections to better 
address the needs of today's workforce.
    Today I would like to address several issues as they relate 
to family and medical paid leave and the importance of having a 
good program in place.
    Family and medical leave programs should have a modernized, 
21st century definition of family. To be effective, paid leave 
must include job protection, and small business owners 
overwhelmingly support and need Congress to take action to pass 
paid leave.
    As a small business owner based in New Jersey, I have a 
before and after experience to share about what happens when 
paid leave is available to small business. And as a family 
member, I have a personal experience to share about family 
definition.
    Three years ago my sister in Minnesota received a diagnosis 
of stomach cancer. Luckily, our other sister, Rose, who lived 
nearby who was not working at the time, was able to care for 
our ill sister for 4 months. Our parents were elderly, and they 
could not care for her, and if it had not been for Rose, I 
don't know what we would have done.
    If Rose had been working, her job would have been at risk 
as the FMLA does not include siblings in their family 
definition. For far too many other families, caring for a loved 
one in their time of need means putting their job on the line.
    New Jersey provides a great example of what can be done. 
Last year the New Jersey Legislature updated the definition of 
a family member in the State's family leave program to include 
siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and close associations 
that are the equivalent of a family relationship.
    This is particularly important to the LGBTQ community and 
employees who have disabilities as they are especially 
dependent on care by chosen family members. I want any of my 
employees, no matter who they love or deem as a family member, 
to be able to take the time they need to care for a loved one.
    New Jersey also expanded job protection and increased wage 
replacement so more workers could afford to use the family and 
medical leave benefit.
    Without job protection, paid leave can just end up being 
severance pay. Ensuring that employees can go out on leave and 
know that their job will be there when they return is a 
necessary component of any leave program.
    Strong job protection ensures that all companies do the 
right thing so that high road businesses, like mine, are not at 
a competitive disadvantage.
    Most significantly, small businesses and our employees need 
access to a paid leave program. Small firms lack the capital 
and scale to provide paid leave. The lack of a national paid 
leave program hands the advantage to large corporations that 
can use their size and market power to offer such benefits, 
resulting in a hiring disadvantage for small business. We can 
change this picture.
    Before New Jersey adopted paid leave, I had an employee who 
left my company to care for his dying mother in Florida. He was 
her only family and he needed leave to provide care for her. He 
didn't tell me why he was leaving, but even if he had, my 
business could not have covered his salary and the additional 
cost of a replacement worker.
    If New Jersey had family leave insurance available during 
this time, we would have avoided the pain and damage that 
occurred to both my employee and my business. He would have had 
the opportunity to take paid leave without feeling like he was 
asking me for a personal favor and my business would have 
retained a valuable employee.
    But the State of New Jersey did not have a paid leave 
program yet and my business paid the price. This employee was 
one of the best performers on our team. The costs in time and 
money to replace him were astronomical. Replacing employees is 
expensive, with turnover costs averaging one fifth of an 
employee's annual salary.
    Now for the after picture. Four years later an employee 
came to me and informed me that his wife was pregnant with 
twins. He needed paid time off, and I had recently joined the 
Main Street Alliance and learned about the New Jersey Family 
Leave Insurance Program. The paperwork was straight forward, 
and I worked with my employee to ensure that it was completed. 
The program provided him with wage replacement while he was 
bonding with his twins.
    The plan we created for him to take time off was inclusive 
of my entire team taking part. I had the funds to pay for a 
part-time employee to move to full-time and my employee had the 
time off he needed, and he came back after leave and remains a 
valuable part of my team.
    A national paid leave program that covers all of us, pools 
our funds, and spreads costs will be a tremendous benefit and a 
huge relief for small business. This is why a Federal leave 
program is supported by 70 percent of small businesses by one 
recent survey, and we need Congress to act. I look forward to 
working with this committee and small business owners from 
across the country to move the family and medical paid leave 
across the finish line.
    [The statement of Mr. Sandkamp follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     

    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Sandkamp.
    Ms. Greszler, you have 5 minutes, ma'am.

STATEMENT OF MS. RACHEL GRESZLER, RESEARCH FELLOW IN ECONOMICS, 
BUDGETS, AND ENTITLEMENTS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, 
                               DC

    Ms. Greszler. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this 
afternoon.
    As a mother of six young children and having close family 
members who have experienced serious medical conditions 
recently, I understand the need for workers to be able to take 
leave and I also understand the need for that leave to be 
flexible and accommodating.
    Flexibility is actually what workers want most. A recent 
Cato poll asked workers: What would help you balance your work 
and family needs the most? And according to that poll, 6 
percent of people said more paid parental leave. Compared to 
that, six times as many people, 34 percent, said that they 
wanted more workplace flexibility.
    Unfortunately, the FMLA and other regulations that put 
politicians and bureaucrats in charge of decisions like who 
qualifies to take leave and how and when they can take that, 
they end up limiting the ability for workers and employers to 
sit down together and to figure out leave plans that balance 
both of their needs. For example, a Harvard study that was 
looking at the wage gap revealed that 45 percent of all workers 
at a local transportation authority in Massachusetts had FMLA 
certifications.
    It is really difficult as an employer to be able to offer 
flexibility to your employees if on any given day half of them 
might not be showing up for work.
    And despite that desire for flexibility, the House passed a 
bill last week, the PRO Act, that would destroy flexible work 
options, telling workers who want to be their own bosses that 
they must instead answer to a boss or else form their own 
incorporation.
    The majority of workers do support a Federal paid family 
and medical leave program, but that support plummets when they 
are faced with the actual costs. And the reality is, paid 
family and medical leave can't be free. So long as workers are 
providing value to their employers, there are going to be costs 
and consequences from them not being there, and a government 
program can't erase those costs, it can only redistribute them.
    It turns out that government programs across the world and 
in the U.S. do a really bad job at redistribution. They end up 
shifting resources away from lower-income workers and families 
to middle- and upper-income ones. In California, five times as 
many workers in the highest income bracket filed paid family 
medical leave claims compared to those in the lowest bracket. 
Canada's program is said to exacerbate class inequality and, 
quote, ``aid the social reproduction of higher income 
families.''
    Both Norway and San Francisco expanded their programs 
trying to attempt to remedy this redistribution, and yet low-
income mothers in San Francisco were still half as likely as 
those in the highest income levels to take paid leave from the 
State, and in Norway the expansion was, quote, ``costly, had no 
measurable effect on outcomes and poor redistribution 
properties.''
    Meanwhile, in the U.S. we have a number of large employers, 
companies like Starbucks, Lowe's, Target, Walmart, that have 
all expanded new paid family leave policies for these lower 
wage workers.
    Government programs also have unintended consequences for 
women. In California and New Jersey, their programs resulted in 
higher unemployment rates and increased the unemployment 
duration for young women. And in California, the program 
resulted in 7 percent lower employment and 8 percent lower 
annual earnings for the mothers who used it.
    Across the world, these programs also lead to fewer 
promotions for women. That is important because, according to 
that Cato poll, only 29 percent of workers supported a Federal 
program if it meant fewer benefits for them or fewer chances of 
promotions for women.
    Another factor that reduced worker support was tax 
increases. A cup of coffee a week program, such as the FAMILY 
Act, would only finance a tiny fraction of the leaves that 
workers actually want to take. More realistic estimates peg the 
price tag at an extra $1,500 to $2,900 per worker. Most 
families can't afford to give up one or two mortgage payments a 
year.
    What I think we all want is common sense and compassionate 
paid leave policies. Most employers do have compassion for 
their workers, and even those who don't have the common sense 
to know that they risk losing their workers if they refuse to 
help meet their needs.
    The best solution that we can offer workers who face 
unreasonable employers is a strong economy with plentiful job 
opportunities. But the more rules and regulations that the 
government imposes, the fewer workers businesses will employ 
and the fewer benefits and the less flexibility that they will 
offer them.
    As a working mom, I know the value of flexibility, and I 
urge you all to enact policies that will add flexibility 
instead of take it away. The Working Families Flexibility Act, 
for example, would give lower income hourly workers the choice 
to accumulate paid leave in exchange for overtime work, and 
universal savings accounts and increasing private disability 
insurance coverage would help workers and families balance 
their needs.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Greszler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    

    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    Dr. Jacobs, you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MS. ELISABETH JACOBS, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, URBAN 
                   INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Chair Adams, Ranking Member Cline, 
and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today 
to address an important topic for workers, families, and our 
economy as a whole: the role that family and medical leave 
plays in supporting the millions of Americans balancing work 
and caregiving responsibilities. And I will note that the views 
I express today are my own and should not be attributed to the 
Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
    My testimony draws four main conclusions.
    First, the historic passage of the FMLA in 1993 has had 
important positive effects for families and workers with 
minimal evidence of negative consequences for business or 
economic growth.
    However, family earnings dynamics, caregiving needs, and 
the structure of the labor market have evolved in the past 
quarter century. For example, women now play an equally 
important role as family breadwinners as they do as family 
caregivers. Indeed, 41 percent of mothers were the sole or 
primary earners for their families, earning at least half of 
their household's total earnings.
    Family caregiving needs extend beyond parents carrying for 
a new baby, especially as America ages. The sheer number of 
baby boomers means that the number of elderly individuals grows 
annually, and the fastest growing group of older adults are 
those 80 and older.
    And the structure of work is shifting. While still a 
relatively small share of the overall labor force, alternative 
work arrangements accounted for 94 percent of employment growth 
between 2005 and 2014.
    Second, FMLA provides important protections for families 
balancing work and care responsibilities, but the most 
economically vulnerable workers too often are excluded from 
accessing those rights.
    More than 14 million workers took FMLA leave in 2012, the 
most recent year for which we have available data from the BLS. 
However, many more workers are unable to take leave for family 
or medical reasons without risking job loss.
    Forty-four percent of the workforce is not covered by the 
FMLA, and there are substantial demographic disparities in 
worker access to FMLA-protected leave.
    For example, 42.6 percent of working women of childbearing 
age are not eligible for FMLA protection. Less than half of all 
workers living in families with incomes under $40,000 are FMLA 
eligible. And Hispanic and non-White workers are less likely 
than White workers to be FMLA eligible.
    Given FMLA's limits, it is not surprising that unmet demand 
for needed leave is high. Sixteen percent of workers report a 
time when they needed to take time off for an FMLA-qualifying 
reason but were unable to do so. And nearly a third of workers 
in low-income households were not able to take a needed leave.
    Third, modernizing the FMLA to reflect contemporary work 
and family would expand access to needed leave for millions of 
workers. For instance, FMLA excludes part-time workers, 
including those who work a full-time schedule split across 
multiple employers. Updating FMLA to protect part-time workers 
could help millions of families.
    FMLA's definition of family is limited and, as such, does 
not include the most important caregiving relationships for 
many workers.
    For example, FMLA doesn't offer protection for grandparent 
caregivers. We know that nearly 1 million grandparents serve as 
their grandchildren's primary caregiver and over half of these 
grandparents were in the labor force.
    Updating the definition of covered family to reflect the 
multigenerational households of contemporary America would 
expand access to leave.
    Fourth, job protection is one of a number of important 
policy elements that Congress should consider. Wage replacement 
is another. A growing number of States have implemented paid 
leave programs that allow workers to earn paid time off for 
parental, family, and medical leave.
    All of these State programs use a social insurance model 
with leave funded by a very small payroll contribution, and 
many of those States have combined those paid parental leave 
policies with rights to job protection that go beyond those 
provided by Federal law and provide medical and caregiving 
leave as well.
    Evidence tells us that these policies can have wide-ranging 
positive impacts on child and adult health as well as on 
earnings and employment outcomes for leave takers.
    Because labor force participation rates are a critical 
element of economic growth, policies like paid leave that boost 
labor force attachment are a macroeconomic growth strategy as 
well as a support for working families.
    Businesses in States with paid family and medical leave 
programs in place view these policies favorably. Paid leave 
programs may also improve productivity by reducing turnover.
    The States have provided models for what works, but the 
evidence suggests that the time has come for updating Federal 
policy to meet the challenges of a 21st century economy.
    A Federal program with uniform eligibility requirements, 
protections, and benefit schedules would eliminate the 
unevenness between the States, create a level playing field for 
State finances for employers and for workers.
    A federally administered system, coupled with Federal 
protections, would be substantially more efficient to 
administer than 50-plus separate State and local programs.
    In conclusion, the evidence tells us that working families 
are facing substantial challenges to combining their economic 
and caregiving responsibilities. But research also tells us 
that we have policy solutions available, solutions that work 
for families, for workers, for employers, and for the economy 
as a whole.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     

    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
    Under Committee Rule 8(a), we will now question witnesses 
under the 5-minute rule, alternating between the parties. I now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Jacobs, you mentioned in your testimony that 
economically vulnerable workers are too often excluded from the 
right to family and medical leave. I want to talk about some of 
the limitations in the FMLA that lead to this exclusion.
    Many low-wage workers work in industries with high turnover 
rates. How does this contribute to these workers being excluded 
from the right to FMLA leave?
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for the question.
    FMLA requires workers to have at least a year, 50 weeks of 
tenure with an employer to be eligible for FMLA-protected 
unpaid leave, and as a result, workers in industries with high 
turnover rates, like those that you mentioned, are less likely 
to be eligible for FMLA because they are more likely to have 
been on the job for less than a year when the need for leave 
arises.
    And we know that turnover rates are especially high in low-
wage industries such as leisure and hospitality, retail. These 
are places with lower-than-average medium wages, and they have 
also got very high turnover rates. So you have some of these 
most economically vulnerable workers who don't have job 
protection when they need to take time out of work to care for 
themself or a family member.
    Chairwoman Adams. Many workers struggle to get the hours 
that they need each week and may be involuntarily part time or 
work part-time jobs for more than one employer to make ends 
meet. So how does this contribute to these workers being 
excluded from the right to FMLA leave?
    Ms. Jacobs. So in addition to the year-long tenure 
requirement that we just talked about, the FMLA also requires 
that an employee have worked at least 1,250 hours per year, and 
that is about 25 hours per week on average, with a covered 
employer in order to have the right to unpaid leave.
    So this eligibility requirement means that many part-time 
workers are excluded. That includes workers who may be working 
a full-time schedule, patching together two different part-time 
jobs but for multiple employers, because this requires them to 
have hours amassed with one employer.
    On top of that we know that the share of workers who are 
working part time for involuntary reasons, so that means folks 
who would really like to be working a full-time job but just 
haven't been able to find one, that number remains elevated 
above pre-recession rates. In other words, we know that more 
workers are stuck in these involuntary part-time jobs for 
longer periods in today's economy, and those workers are the 
folks who are excluded from FMLA protections.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    Representative Batch, you have a bill pending in the North 
Carolina House--I served there for 20 years, so I am real 
familiar with them--that would create a State-level family and 
medical leave insurance program in North Carolina.
    Given your efforts at the State level, why is it important 
that we at the Federal level ensure that all workers have the 
right to take time off to care for a loved one and the ability 
to afford to take that time off?
    Mrs. Batch. That is an excellent question.
    One of the concerns and issues is that we live in a 
transient society, people move from State to State. And if we 
have protections that are only in North Carolina or only in 
Kentucky or only in California, those are the workers that are 
protected.
    However, we know that we have family members, including Mr. 
Sandkamp who gave a perfect example of his sibling, who, if he 
had FMLA protections and paid insurance, he would be able to 
use that. But if we don't have a national program, individuals 
who live in other States would not be able to care for their 
loved ones, and that is one of the main reasons.
    I also think it is important for the Federal Government to 
create a clear baseline for protections, and States can do more 
if they choose to.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    Dr. Jacobs, what are the impacts of job-protected paid 
family and medical leave on maternal mortality rates, 
especially for working mothers of color?
    Ms. Jacobs. So I can say something about the impact of job-
protected leave on infant mortality rates, which we know has 
been substantial. And I can say that we know that job-protected 
leave has also provided mothers with the chance to actually go 
to more well-baby visits, take care of themselves. It has 
reduced postpartum depression and allowed mothers to take 
better care of themselves. All of which, I think it is 
reasonable to say, connect to better women's health outcomes 
more generally.
    Chairwoman Adams. Okay. I did have another question here.
    So why is it important, Representative Batch, that all 
workers, including your employees and constituents, have access 
to job-protected paid family and medical leave?
    Mrs. Batch. So I think that 12 percent of North Carolinians 
right now are currently covered by paid leave programs, but 
that leaves a significant and vast majority of North 
Carolinians without it.
    And so if you are putting in your sweat equity into 
businesses and, of course, contributing to society as a worker, 
you should have the ability to go ahead and actually have paid 
leave when you need it most. So I think it is essential that we 
take care of that now.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thanks very much.
    I want to recognize the Ranking Member for the purpose of 
questioning the witnesses now, 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Greszler, your testimony explains that with regard to 
Federal paid leave programs or proposals it is difficult to 
design a single program that can meet the needs of all the 
workers who require it without being so expansive as to invite 
misuse, abuse, and excessive cost.
    Does this rationale also apply to legislative proposals to 
expand the definitions and permissible use of leave under the 
Family and Medical Leave Act?
    Ms. Greszler. Yes, I do think it would make it more costly 
and burdensome. There are definitions that are not clearly 
defined. In current FMLA, a serious medical condition is not 
well defined, and employers have had employees report 
conditions such as a hurt toe or a migraine or a severe cough 
that ends up resulting in FMLA certification.
    And if we add an additional uncertainty in there in terms 
of what is a close family-like relationship, this could end up 
being any leave for any reason, and then you prevent employers 
from being able to have those flexible policies.
    Most people would rather shoot an email or go and sit down 
and ask for their boss and tell them about what their 
circumstance is, whether it is to attend a child's conference 
at school or whether it is a sick family member or maybe a sick 
nonrelative.
    It is easier to have that conversation than it is to fill 
out the paperwork, go and get one, two, maybe three medical 
certifications, potentially have to challenge this. It is just 
easier for the employers to work directly with their employees.
    Mr. Cline. And again to Ms. Greszler, family-friendly 
policies like flexible work schedules and telework options have 
become an important tool for employers around the country to 
attract and retain quality employees. This is particularly true 
in more rural areas like many in my district.
    Such benefits have become more important as unemployment 
levels remain at record lows and businesses compete for talent. 
Simply put, it is a buyer's market for job seekers.
    How would government interference impact employer-provided 
benefits?
    Ms. Greszler. It would end up taking more away. I recently 
saw a survey about what are employers doing to attract 
employees when we have such low unemployment rates, and the 
highest thing they are doing, 44 percent of them are offering 
more flexible workplace policies because that is what workers 
want. When we start taking those away, they can't offer those.
    I had the opportunity to sit in with about 25 HR 
representatives and they were all representing larger 
companies. And I said, well, if there weren't a State-based 
policy there--these were in States that had them--you know, if 
that policy weren't there, would you provide less to your 
workers? And they all said, no, we would provide more because 
we wouldn't have to be spending so many of our resources and 
our employees wouldn't be spending so much time trying to 
figure out how they can comply with these laws.
    And they have had cases where they had told workers they 
could take leave and then it ended up they couldn't and they 
had to give their checks back, or they had to dock FMLA down to 
every 3-minute increment. And this just prevents them from 
providing the flexibility and the benefits that they otherwise 
would offer those employees.
    And then on a Federal level here, it would ring true for 
all of you, thinking about if you had to shift a lot of your 
budget to mandatory spending, you would no longer have that 
discretionary spending and the resources to actually address 
the needs of your constituents because so much of it is tied up 
in what mandatory spending is telling you what you need to do.
    Mr. Cline. Now, H.R. 1185, the FAMILY Act, would impose new 
taxes on working families and job creators. Now, the proposal 
is to have a 0.4 percent payroll tax.
    And, Mrs. Batch, you specifically endorsed 1185, so I will 
ask you first. An analysis of this bill found that 0.4 percent 
payroll tax would only cover 15 percent of the benefit 
payments, and that fully funding benefit payments would require 
a payroll tax as high as 2.9 percent.
    The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that covering the 
true cost of the FAMILY Act would require a payroll tax 
increase of between 2.7 and 3.1 percent.
    So would you not agree that is a significant burden on 
employers to have to meet that hidden tax increase?
    Mrs. Batch. So I can't speak to the actual research. I know 
what you just read. I am more than happy to follow up later on 
with my response to that.
    But what I would say specifically is that in North Carolina 
the proposal in the legislation that we have introduced is $2 
per week from the paycheck of the employee and $2 from the 
employer.
    And so $104 a year, as a small business owner right now, 
would be nothing compared to the costs in the overturn and all 
of the other expenses that occur when I have an employee leave, 
frankly, their job earlier because they have all of the other 
issues that they need to address.
    Mr. Cline. Ms. Greszler, from what we know of other Federal 
programs, should American taxpayers be assured that Uncle Sam 
won't come asking for more of their paycheck? And can you 
respond to that analysis?
    Ms. Greszler. Yeah. Well, I think we can look back at 
Social Security. When it first started it cost 2 percent of 
payroll, and those lawmakers promised: We will never take more 
than 6 percent of your paycheck.
    It is now 12.4 percent. It is actually costing 15.3 
percent. And these proposals can start with taxes, and it is 
easy to specify what you are going to collect, but very quickly 
that is not enough.
    If you look at what the FAMILY Act is collecting, this is 
basic math. Compared to what you would collect versus the leave 
that workers are already taking, some of that without pay, the 
FAMILY Act could only finance between 3 and 5 percent of 
leave--well, 3 and 5 percent of workers could take leave--but 
we know that 16 to 24 percent of workers either do take leave 
or want to take leave in a given year. And so it is easy to see 
that would not actually finance a program that would cover 
people's needs.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Ms. Jayapal, I recognize you 5 minutes, 
ma'am.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And welcome to our witnesses.
    For years, I have heard from workers in my home State of 
Washington about why they need paid leave, stories like 
Adrianna, a home care worker who couldn't take leave from work 
when her mother was dying; Angela, who struggled to decide 
whether or not to go to a prenatal doctor's appointment or to 
save her very limited vacation days for after she gave birth; 
at the age of 33, with a 20-month old, Jennifer, who needed 
paid leave so that she could get treatment for breast cancer.
    These stories were horrific, but now Washington State 
workers are breathing a sigh of relief. The State's 
comprehensive paid family and medical leave program went into 
effect this year, and under that State-paid family and medical 
leave program almost every worker, regardless of the size of a 
workplace, can take paid leave.
    But, unfortunately, many workers across the country can't 
enjoy these same benefits, and I wanted to focus particularly 
on those employers who have a limited number of employees, so 
small businesses.
    Dr. Jacobs, you mentioned in your testimony that many 
workers don't qualify for FMLA protections because their 
employer is too strong. As you know, workers don't qualify for 
FMLA unless they work for an employer with 50 or more employees 
in a 75-mile radius.
    How many workers would have the right to the FMLA's job-
protected family and medical leave if Congress expanded the 
FMLA to cover small businesses?
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you for the question. It is a really 
important one.
    And I am not aware of any published estimates on the number 
of workers who would be eligible for FMLA leave if we lowered 
the threshold, the firm size requirement. But I do have 
preliminary estimates from Dr. Pamela Joshi at Brandeis' Heller 
School for Public Policy and Management that, unsurprisingly, 
suggests that lowering firm size could substantially increase 
FMLA access.
    So her numbers suggest that 61 percent of the workforce 
would be covered by FMLA if firms with 10 or more workers were 
included under FMLA's threshold.
    I will say that this is a good example of a space where we 
could use more research in particular on the various elements 
of job protection and of FMLA policy design to figure out 
exactly what would happen under each tweak, because there are a 
number of ways that we could change the policy, and figuring 
out exactly who it would impact and where would be a fantastic 
advance.
    Ms. Jayapal. That sounds like a great thing to do, but I 
think that we can probably agree that it would be millions more 
workers, correct?
    Ms. Jacobs. Yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. And if we had that, what are the benefits of 
ensuring that every worker has FMLA coverage? And can you speak 
specifically to women and the disproportionate burden that 
women have by these restrictions on small employers?
    Ms. Jacobs. So I can't speak specifically to women and 
small employers, but I can say that we have lots of evidence on 
the cost of not having both job protection and paid leave for 
women and on the benefits to having it.
    It is exciting that States like Washington have actually 
put policies in place. There are other States, like California 
and New York and New Jersey and a number of others, that have 
policies on the way that have let us actually understand what 
happens over time. And we see, for example, in California that 
women's labor force attachment and employment has gone up. We 
see positive health outcomes.
    And we know that FMLA protections nationally cover a 
surprisingly limited number of women of childbearing age, and 
there are a whole bunch of reasons we could talk about as to 
why. They are typically young, they are newer in the workforce, 
we know that job turnover rates are high, we know that women 
are often concentrated in service, retail, these industries 
that, as we discussed earlier, have high turnover rates.
    These are all reasons why you have a certain segment of the 
population that may be disproportionately excluded given how we 
set up the laws now. And we have State policies that show us 
that it doesn't have to be that way, and we can have positive 
outcomes that we are looking for.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    Mr. Sandkamp, you are the owner of a small business. How 
has New Jersey's paid leave insurance program increased your 
employees' economic security? And what is the benefit to you as 
an employer? We often hear that this is too costly, and it 
hurts employers. But tell us what your experience has been in 
terms of retention and financial stability of your employees.
    Mr. Sandkamp. Thank you for the question.
    So it has been incredibly positive for me. Like my example 
in my testimony, one of my employees whose wife had twins took 
paternal leave. He was able to get 6 weeks at that time, and 
now it has been expanded this year to 12 weeks of wage 
replacement and had time to bond with his twins and help his 
wife out before her mother was able to come and help her.
    For me, as an employer, I haven't had a single employee 
leave for any reason like that since this act has been--since 
the family leave has been available in the State of New Jersey. 
And that is a huge cost savings for me as an employer just in 
the terms of maintaining productivity and the cost to train a 
new employee to replace that employee that might have left.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. My time has expired. I 
request unanimous consent to enter into the record a report, A 
Better Balance, entitled, ``Paid Family and Medical Leave and 
Nonstandard Employees.''
    Chairwoman Adams. So ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
       
 
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    Mr. Murphy, you are recognized 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Guys, thank you very much for coming today. This is 
obviously a big issue that faces us in the United States. I 
handled it personally on two different levels, one as a small 
business owner, employed, depending upon the year, anywhere 
from 40 to 50 employees. But then also just when I would take 
care of patients oftentimes when they would try to take care of 
their mothers and anybody else in their family who is operated 
on. So I am not insensitive to the issue.
    I am concerned, as you said, Ms. Greszler, about the 
unintended consequences of we start something and then it 
grows, and then it grows, and then it grows, and it cripples 
small business.
    I mean, as it is right now, it is a proposed 0.4 percent 
payroll tax. How do you envision that given the precedent that 
has been before with Social Security, et cetera, how do you 
envision that changing in the future? And how would that relate 
to small business, which is the predominant employer in the 
country?
    I see it, we want to do great things for our workers, we 
want to help them out, but it has to get paid for somehow. And 
how would that affect small business in this country?
    Ms. Greszler. Yeah. I think we can avoid talking about the 
cost even though it is something that we all want workers to 
have access to.
    And you start out small, 0.4 percent, and the other 
estimates have showed that it could be 2.9 percent. Well, how 
do we get there? We want a policy that will accommodate 
everybody, and it turns out that 66 percent of wages isn't 
enough. If you are making $15 an hour, you can't pay your bills 
on $396 a week instead of $600. So we increase the benefits to 
100 percent.
    We expand who is covered. We increase the amount of time 
that you can take off. Twelve weeks seems relatively generous 
in the U.S. today, but abroad it is 52 weeks, and so we expand 
it to that.
    And you just see the program grow and grow over time to try 
and meet everybody's needs. But as they are doing that you also 
scoop in a lot of needs that weren't necessarily a need, but 
workers will take them because it is an entitlement. And we 
don't have the room right now to have another middle class, 
unfunded entitlement program in this country.
    Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
    I follow that argument. And having dealt with entitlement 
programs just in my business all the time, most folks are very 
good stewards of them. But, unfortunately, we do have fraud, 
waste, and abuse on many sides of the stream.
    Do you see anything in this particular effort that we can 
actually work to control these issues in the future? Because 
there will be people, just as you suggest, that said, ``Hey, it 
is a free benefit. I am going to take advantage of it.'' And, 
unfortunately, those type of efforts hurt the people that they 
are meant to help.
    Ms. Greszler. Yeah. It is really unfortunate, because 
Congress passed the FMLA with the intent to try and help 
workers who have serious health conditions and for them to be 
able to help their family workers. And in some instances, it is 
not all, but there are some out there where it has become a 
get-out-of-jail-free card.
    You know, I was reading through some documentation. The 
Department of Labor had an opportunity for employers to submit 
comments, and I couldn't believe some of the cases where 
employees would get certified for FMLA for very minor 
conditions and then they just use it whenever they want to, if 
it is, ``I am 5 minutes late to work and I don't want to be 
penalized for that,'' you know.
    Some people have called it the Friday-Monday Leave Act, 
because it turns out that the most instances of family medical 
leave are taken on Fridays, on Mondays, the Monday after the 
Super Bowl, the first day of hunting season, and surrounding 
holidays.
    And so it is abuse. It is really unfortunate. And that 
weakens the program for other people who really need to use it.
    And so there are extreme concerns, if we are going to 
broaden the definitions further so that virtually anybody can 
take a leave, because we all have somebody that is a close 
friend or family member that has some type of medical situation 
going on, it creates an out for workers who don't want to do 
their duties at their job, and then that creates a more 
difficult situation for employers to provide the flexibility 
they really want to for the workers who need it.
    Mr. Murphy. I would agree completely.
    Thank you, Ms. Chairman. I will yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    I want to recognize the chair of the Committee on Education 
and Labor.
    Mr. Scott, you are recognized 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Jacobs, you mentioned--several have mentioned that 44 
percent of the public is not covered by family and medical 
leave right now, can't take it. Can you tell us what we need to 
do, what initiatives we should be looking at to increase the 
percentage of people covered?
    Ms. Jacobs. So I think there are a number of different 
elements of policy design that you all could consider.
    First, you could consider expanding the share of covered 
employees, so, for example, lowering the firm size requirements 
in order to cover a broader range of businesses.
    You could expand the number of eligible employees by 
considering lowering the job tenure requirements in order to 
include a larger share of employees, such as those with short 
job tenure, fewer hours worked.
    I will say that you could still have eligibility 
requirements that require a given level of labor force 
attachment. So this isn't just saying like you show up at work 
and it is your first time on the job, and guess what, the next 
day you get leave.
    For example, like we do with Social Security, we can track 
people's employment and earnings over time. And it is not just 
tied to one employer, so you can have policies that are tied to 
labor force attachment and aren't just kind of a giveaway.
    You could expand the definition of family, as we have 
talked about earlier, consider leave taking for a broader range 
of family relationships, so grandparents, siblings.
    For example, the State of Oregon has a new policy that is 
about to go into effect, or they are working on it, that allows 
leave taking for any individual related by blood or affinity 
whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of 
a family relationship. So getting at what Mr. Sandkamp 
discussed earlier, the kind of chosen family is incredibly 
important for certain populations.
    And then lastly, you could think about expanding the 
definition of leave, what is eligible for leave. So one example 
we haven't talked about yet, victims of sexual stalking, sexual 
violence, domestic violence. If you have a medical reason for 
leave that stems from one of those then you may be covered.
    But the idea of needing to go to court, to move your 
location, there are lots of things that stem from those 
situations that actually we could cover under FMLA.
    We could also cover grieving for the loss of a loved one 
and organ donation as well.
    So those are a number of dimensions that I think you have 
got a lot of space to move.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    And you mentioned grandparents. Is that all grandparents or 
just custodial grandparents?
    Ms. Jacobs. I think that is up to you. The numbers I 
mentioned are specifically for custodial grandparents, and half 
of them are working. But there are good reasons to think that, 
for example, a grandchild might be their closest kin to a 
grandparent who needs care right now. That working grandchild 
wouldn't be able to take care of their grandparent even if 
there was no one else available to do it.
    And likewise, if you have a child who is not necessarily 
with the custodial grandparent, but the grandparent is the 
person best suited to provide care for that child, they have no 
right to FMLA-protected leave under the current law.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Representative Batch, you were talking about who could get 
access to FMLA and also how to pay for it. Why is it important 
to deal with these policies both at the same time?
    Mrs. Batch. I think it is because most people aren't able 
to do one without the other. A lot of the families--I was a 
family law attorney for the past 15 years. I see people at the 
worst time in their lives. And many of them are, frankly, at 
this point in time dividing a lot of debt. They are worried 
about how they are going to still stay in their homes and take 
care of their children.
    And many workers just can't afford to take the time off 
even if it is guaranteed unless they have some wage 
replacement. So I think it is essential that we do both at the 
same time, because I had the luxury, as a small business owner, 
of taking that time off and knowing that my job was going to be 
protected, but I believe that every single worker in America 
deserves that same right.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Ms. Greszler, you mentioned the Friday-Monday Leave Act. Do 
you have studies that show the days? Could you provide us with 
the studies that show the days people actually take off, or is 
that anecdotal?
    Ms. Greszler. I would refer you to some citations in my 
written testimony. I believe one was the Department of Labor 
statistics for employees were submitting things, and I can find 
it in there. But it was--some of it is anecdotal, but some of 
it can actually track--at least each individual employer can 
track how long and when that leave is taking place.
    And one of those was a Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority study that I cited, and I believe the rates of leave 
were at least 20 percent higher in the weeks when workers were 
scheduled, a holiday shift--or a weekend shift--and closer to 
50 percent higher in the weeks that they were scheduled a 
holiday shift.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    Dr. Foxx, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    I thank our witnesses for being here today.
    Ms. Greszler, the bills we are discussing today 
substantially expand the categories of covered leave under the 
Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, distorting this carefully 
balanced law. This committee must carefully consider the 
additional burdens and practical compliance issues that these 
proposals place on employers and ultimately workers.
    Ms. Greszler, can you expand upon the potential compliance 
and regulatory burdens that expanding the FMLA would place on 
employers?
    Ms. Greszler. Yes. One of the examples I think of is my 
children's own daycare. And so this is a small business, they 
have about 10 teachers, 25 families there. If they have two 
workers that call out on 1 day for an FMLA reason and they 
didn't expect that, they have no way to replace them.
    Even when they do know in advance, it is really hard 
because those positions are skilled. They have to have 
appropriate hours of training. They have to have licensing. 
They have to have background checks. They can't get anyone in 
the door.
    And actually we had a situation once where two people 
couldn't come in on a Friday. We were told the daycare was 
closed for the entire next week because they didn't have those 
two people there. So you had 25 families that were scrambling 
to find childcare.
    The more regulations we place, the more burdensome it is. 
And there is also the fact that if workers qualify under FMLA 
as opposed to just working a policy out with their employer, 
the employer is prohibited essentially from asking them to do 
any work.
    My own personal experience is that I have benefitted from 
being able to do some work while I am on leave, at my own 
option, only what I want to do, but that has let me keep my 
foot in the door and it has helped my employer for things not 
to be as disruptive. And that is something that FMLA prohibits.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, you note in your testimony that well-
intentioned policies, like expanding the FMLA or implementing 
paid leave mandates, can have unintended consequences, as you 
are describing, especially for working women. So how have 
State-based leave mandates affected employment in those States? 
Should Congress expect different results in a one-size-fits-all 
Federal program?
    Ms. Greszler. Yeah. I think we are all trying to help 
workers and especially women here because we understand that 
they tend to be the primary caregivers. And the unfortunate 
consequence of some of these policies has been in States like 
California and New Jersey, younger women who are of 
childbearing age end up having lower rates of employment, 
higher durations of unemployment.
    And in a more recent study in California that used better 
IRS administrative data found that they had lower earnings and 
employment after using this.
    And so I think that we actually can expect to have higher 
unintended consequences with a Federal policy because that 
would be a bigger policy and it would cover more people. It 
would be better known.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
    Ms. Greszler, a 2018 poll conducted by the Cato Institute 
asked workers to rank policies that best help balance work and 
family. Results indicate that workers value flexible work 
schedules and ability to work remotely or by telework, as you 
have indicated.
    Though the FAMILY Act's prescriptive mandate provides 
workers with the workplace flexibility they value, what 
policies options should this committee consider that would 
better meet these preferences?
    Ms. Greszler. I think the FAMILY Act would limit 
flexibility. As I mentioned before, it doesn't provide that 
option for workers to do some work while they are on leave. And 
there are better policies out there. There is the Working 
Families Flexibility Act that allows those lower-wage workers 
to accumulate paid time off.
    An important thing also would be to clarify the definition 
of who is an employee. Contract workers, gig economy workers, 
independent workers, they have more flexibility and autonomy, 
and they are the people that are choosing these type of 
options. And yet, instead of taking those options away, we 
could clarify it so that they know that they can choose that, 
and they can schedule ahead their hours.
    There are also some things that would just let people have 
more control over their options and freeing up resources as 
well. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that ended up with more 
companies coming out with paid family leave policies.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, you indicated a little while ago that FMLA 
could create problems where if you expand this tremendously, 
that there could be unintended consequences. Would you like to 
say a little more about what the consequences of leaving ill-
defined legislative text open to interpretation?
    Ms. Greszler. Yeah. I think the unintended consequences are 
that we don't help the people that we really want to, and we 
don't let employers have the discretion to be able to say, ``I 
want to help you with this need.''
    Instead we have these one-size-fits-all policies, and the 
broader you make them the more people they encompass. And it 
won't happen everywhere, but it does happen at workplaces where 
you have 45 percent of workers who have an FMLA certification, 
and they have the option to take leave whenever they want it.
    That is really unworkable for employers, and that is under 
the current definition. The more we expand it, the more workers 
out there who will have these certifications, is kind of a hall 
pass to just check in and out when they want to. That is not 
what policymakers intend for this to be.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I have to say as a general statement to everybody here that 
flexible work schedules, telework, generous leave policies are 
wonderful. But what of the workers who don't happen to have 
those benevolent employers? That is where my real concern lies, 
and that is where I think most of our concerns should lie. In a 
country that touts the importance of family values, I am 
consistently amazed at how unfamily friendly our laws are.
    I agree, Ms. Greszler, that it would be lovely if all 
employers were willing to work with their employees and afford 
them leave as needed, but we haven't seen that actually happen 
in the workplace for most workers. And we know that countries 
that have better family leave policies have lower infant and 
maternal mortality rates, better educational outcomes, and 
their citizens overall report higher levels of happiness.
    I think there is a direct correlation when we really do act 
in a way that is family friendly, and it affords people the 
ability to take care of their family members, all of their 
family members, in addition to working.
    You seem to have, Ms. Greszler, a very negative view of 
employees who use FMLA. You referred to a get-out-of-jail-free 
card, the Friday-Monday Leave Act.
    I reject the notion that most employees who avail 
themselves of FMLA are acting in bad faith. Is it your opinion 
that most people who use FMLA are acting in bad faith?
    Ms. Greszler. Absolutely not. And I tried to highlight the 
fact that this is not every instance. This is a narrow subset. 
But I think that you tend to get certain workplace environments 
where it becomes an entitlement, and people learn what they can 
do, and they use it in ways that were never intended.
    Ms. Wild. So an easy way of putting it is that the few bad 
apples will ruin it for all, right?
    Ms. Greszler. I think the few bad apples will make things 
difficult for employers, and they will prevent more flexible 
policies for the workers who otherwise want and need them.
    Ms. Wild. Before I go any further, I want to ask unanimous 
consent to include the written testimony of Barry Kluger and 
Kelly Farley in support of the Parental Bereavement Act into 
the record, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT[
    
      

    Ms. Wild. Thank you. I just didn't want to forget to do 
that.
    Ms. Greszler, your written testimony says, and I quote, ``I 
also believe that flexibility should be an earned privilege, 
not a universal right.''
    My question to you is, is the message to a really good 
worker that has been with a company of, say, only 15 employees 
for a decade, who finds himself or herself in desperate need of 
accommodation to take care of a family member who is ill or of 
his or her own health needs, that they haven't earned the 
coverage or flexibility that FMLA affords to other workers who 
might happen to work for an employer with 50 or more employees?
    Ms. Greszler. By saying that I think that workers should be 
able to earn that flexibility, what I mean is that it should be 
at the discretion of the employer. There are some positions and 
there are also some workers who are more conducive to being 
able to work remotely or to have more flexible hours, and it 
needs to be at the discretion of that employer to be able to 
determine that.
    When you have small family businesses, it is difficult to 
have a one-size-fits-all policy because that doesn't actually 
meet everybody's needs. When you can have more flexible and 
accommodative policies is when you can meet all those needs.
    Ms. Wild. But we know that not every employer will act in 
good faith. Isn't that true?
    Ms. Greszler. Yes.
    Ms. Wild. And we know that not every employer will act in 
the best interests of their employees. And sometimes it is 
necessary to impose broader rules, broader regulations to make 
sure that employees are treated fairly. Fair enough?
    Ms. Greszler. I agree. But I think it is a really hard 
thing to legislate intentions and to legislate employers to 
have good hearts.
    The alternative is for us to encourage them to do the right 
thing. But you can't force people to do something. The best 
thing is for workers to have options and opportunities so that 
if they are in that bad situation, they have another job to go 
to and they have a higher ladder that they can climb up.
    Ms. Wild. Let me just stop you there because my time is 
running out. Let me just suggest to you that a really hard 
thing is when somebody has just suffered the loss of a child, 
or somebody has a very sick child and isn't able to take time 
off from work because they work perhaps for an employer who has 
15 employees or not 50 or more.
    That, I would submit to you, is a really difficult thing, 
much more difficult than the employer who might have to 
accommodate an employee who is in need of FMLA.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Takano, you are recognized 5 minutes, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, for this very 
important hearing on the need to enhance protections under the 
Family and Medical Leave Act, otherwise known as FMLA.
    We need to ensure that the conversation about paid family 
leave includes robust wage replacement, expanded protections to 
allow more workers to qualify, and more importantly, an 
assurance of job protection without penalty if someone decides 
to take leave.
    According to a December 2019 report by Pew that looked at 
41 countries, the United States was the only country that did 
not have a Federal paid family leave program. Countries like 
Japan, Norway, and Austria all offer over 1 year of paid family 
leave for their workers.
    Why has the United States, a global leader, been so slow to 
follow in their footsteps?
    Dr. Jacobs, I understand that there are different 
variations on paid family proposals across the United States at 
the State level and in underdeveloped countries. What are the 
components of the European models that allows those countries 
to have thriving economies and guaranteed job security for 
their workers?
    Ms. Jacobs. So I should start by saying that I am not an 
expert on the international policies, but I can say a little 
bit about the components of the policies that I know of that 
have been borrowed by the States and that we see working here 
in the U.S. and that in turn kind of add up to the backbone of 
what the FAMILY Act is, the act here.
    Mr. Takano. Sure.
    Ms. Jacobs. So why don't I start by just describing the 
FAMILY Act, which is very similar in some ways to what we have 
in the States. It is an earned benefit. It would provide 66 
percent wage replacement to individuals who would be able to 
earn that over time.
    It would provide up to 12 weeks of 66 percent wage 
replacement for their own serious health condition, including 
pregnancy and childbirth recovery, so maternity leave, as well 
as paternity leave, as well as leave for the serious health 
condition of a child, a parent, a spouse, a domestic partner, 
the birth or adoption of a child, and for particular military 
caregiving and leave purposes.
    It would cover workers in all companies. This is similar to 
what many European countries have done as well, by having a 
social insurance program, that means that it is funded by a 
very small payroll contribution from employees and employers. 
It means that it travels with the worker, so it doesn't 
actually matter what company you are with.
    You, as an individual, who has been working, earns this 
benefit. And when you need leave, if it is for the happy event 
of the birth of a child or for the very sad event of having to 
take care of a dying parent and everything in between, that 
earned benefit is there for you.
    And then finally, like many European countries that have 
done this in the past, much like our Social Security system, it 
would be administered by a new Office of Paid Family and 
Medical Leave. And so we would take advantage of some existing 
Federal systems and not have to reinvent the wheel, which is 
something that States are having to do as they try and borrow 
pieces of this model and have really shown us that it works.
    We have seven States-plus who are trying to do that on 
their own rather than replicating it over and over and over 
again in each State and creating this patchwork that workers 
and employers have to navigate. We have the potential to do it 
at the Federal level and really simplify things and add some 
more dynamism to the workforce that we risk kind of squashing 
if we keep on doing it the way we have been going.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you very much for that very 
thorough answer.
    Mr. Sandkamp, there has been a bit of discussion about the 
loss of flexibility for employees and employers if we adopt a 
Federal paid leave program. As a small business owner, have 
your employees experienced any loss in flexibility?
    Mr. Sandkamp. Thank you for the question. Meaning a loss in 
flexibility on my employees' behalf?
    Mr. Takano. Yes.
    Mr. Sandkamp. I am not seeing that, no. In New Jersey we 
have had a Family Leave Act in place for about 10 years, and it 
has been all positive. My employees love it.
    Last year the deduction was about $34. So while some people 
claim it to be something that is going to blow up and become 
something really unsustainable or be a Social Security type 
deduction, $34 is not that for the year. It is less than a cup 
of coffee every 2 weeks.
    Mr. Takano. Well, did you experience high turnover rates 
when the law went into effect and you started offering paid 
leave?
    Mr. Sandkamp. I am sorry?
    Mr. Takano. Did you experience high turnover rates when the 
law went into effect and you started offering paid leave?
    Mr. Sandkamp. Right. I had more turnover prior when the law 
went into effect. Now I retain employees, and it has been net 
positive. I am able to have a benefit that an employee can feel 
less anxiety about what is going to happen when they have a 
problem in their family, and they can feel like that benefit is 
there for them. And being a small employer of less than 10 
employees, I don't get cherry picked by a large company that 
might come in and offer those benefits that I don't have the 
money to afford.
    Mr. Takano. So I have run out of time. If you could just 
tell the committee for the record if the New Jersey law has had 
any impact on your ability to remain competitive in your 
industry.
    But my time has run out. I have to yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Jacobs. Would it be possible for me to add a few 
things? I have a couple points that are directly relevant.
    Ms. Wild. [Presiding.] We need to move on to the next 
question.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Schneider from Illinois.
    Mr. Schneider. First, let me say thank you, and then I am 
going to come back to you, Dr. Jacobs.
    But I want to thank the chairwoman for having this 
committee. I want to thank the witnesses for being here and 
sharing your perspectives. And importantly, I want to thank the 
subcommittee for allowing me to join you. This is not my 
traditional committee.
    Dr. Jacobs, you had a couple points you wanted to make real 
quickly.
    Ms. Jacobs. I just thought I would add, because we have 
heard some anecdotes and we have very compelling information 
from Mr. Sandkamp about the consequences for a business, but we 
also do have some representative surveys and published research 
on the consequences of the paid leave programs in Rhode Island 
and in California on business. So I just thought it would be 
useful to have some of those statistics.
    Mr. Schneider. Do you want to share those? I will submit 
them for the record.
    Ms. Jacobs. Okay. Yeah, they are in my written testimony as 
well.
    Mr. Schneider. And, Mr. Sandkamp, again, real briefly, I am 
going to follow up on what my colleague, Mr. Takano, was 
talking about.
    How has your culture changed since the new law has been in 
place? You talked about your turnover is down, which would be a 
reflection. How has it changed?
    Mr. Sandkamp. Well, I find that if an employee thinks that 
I have their--I am doing something for them that is helping 
them, they are going to also want to have that same kind of 
feeling about my business.
    Mr. Schneider. And you haven't had a sense of, ``oh, boy, 
they now can take advantage of you''? I am going to guess it is 
a culture of we are in this together and we are going to make 
sure we back each other up but help each other succeed.
    Mr. Sandkamp. Yeah, and especially in a small business, 
less than 10 employees, you get to know each other very well. 
And I think that my employees tend to have more care for my 
business because they feel that same thing coming from me.
    Mr. Schneider. And my experience was similar, that is why I 
asked that.
    But I want to expand on that because the emphasis is that 
offering paid leave is a smart business decision. It reduces 
employee turnover and increases employee retention. I think it 
can change the culture of a company, as has been laid out.
    Now, I introduced legislation that would provide this much 
needed protected leave to workers following every parent's 
worst nightmare, the death of a child. My colleague, Ms. Wild, 
had introduced that. The Sarah Grace-Farley-Kluger Act is named 
after the brave families who lost children and have been 
tireless advocates for this cause, and their experience 
illustrates how critically important it is for parents to have 
protected leave after losing a child.
    Barry Kluger, who lost his daughter Erica in 2001, says in 
his testimony submitted for the record: New parents are given 
12 weeks of unpaid leave under FMLA, but most employers only 
give their workers 3 or 5 days, up to 5 days to grieve. Imagine 
receiving the most Earth-shattering news, having to bury your 
child, and then returning to work only a few days later, and 
that is for those lucky enough to work for employers who 
provide even that minimal leave.
    According to the National Academy of Sciences, the death of 
a child is one of the greatest and often most enduring stresses 
a parent can experience. No parent should see their child be 
lowered into the ground.
    Kelly Farley's experience speaks to how vitally important 
this protected time is for grieving families. He and his wife 
lost both his daughter and their son in the course of 2 years. 
When his daughter Katie died, he dove right back into his work. 
He said, and I quote, ``I thought that was expected of me as a 
dad, but on the inside, I was screaming in pain.''
    To this day, Kelly describes the decision to go right back 
to work as one of the biggest mistakes of his life. Eighteen 
months later, Kelly lost his son Noah. This time he and his 
wife took off 3 months to start the grieving process. Having 
time allowed them to begin to heal and to get the support they 
needed. Kelly says it literally saved the couple from a 
complete emotional breakdown.
    Kelly and his wife were fortunate enough to have employers 
who were understanding, but it is not the case for every one of 
the estimated 20 million parents who have lost a child. By age 
60, nearly 10 percent of parents have experienced the death of 
a child.
    Illinois, my State, is one of two States that has passed 
protected work leave for grieving parents. My bill would allow 
workers nationally to take up to 12 weeks of protected leave.
    I appreciate our witnesses for highlighting the incredibly 
important reasons why we need national paid leave. Research 
shows--and stories like Barry and Kelly's demonstrate--how 
important it is to include bereavement within FMLA.
    Dr. Jacobs, in your testimony, you also touched on the big 
impact leave has on the health and well-being of new mothers 
and fathers. With the few seconds we have left, could you 
expand on how Federal leave laws provide leave circumstances, 
like bereavement in the case we have talked about, how the 
Federal laws don't have that for critical health and well-being 
of working families?
    Ms. Jacobs. So I can't speak specifically to the impact of 
bereavement leave on health outcomes for families. I can say, 
as a mother of two children, the idea of having to go back to 
work immediately after losing a child is breathtaking, and so I 
can only imagine.
    A few things that I can say based on the data, first of 
all, we know there are demographic differences in terms of 
child mortality, so minority families are much more likely to 
experience the loss of a child. So I will say that, that there 
is a demographic dimension to this as well.
    And the second thing I will say is that we know that the 
opioid crisis has expanded the range of the kinds of families 
who are losing children. This isn't just about young children. 
It is also about parents losing older adult children. And so I 
think when we think about bereavement and who this impacts and 
the ripple effects it is having on the labor market, that it is 
important to actually take a step back and think bigger, and I 
am very happy to have mentioned that.
    Mr. Schneider. I am going to steal 2 more seconds. I spoke 
to a constituent yesterday about other issues, which she 
shared, that she is raising her 9-year-old grandson because her 
28-year-old son died of opioid overdose and the child's mother 
died a year after that. So this is something we are seeing 
across the country and it does not discriminate.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. [Presiding.] Thank you very much.
    Ms. Porter from California, 5 minutes, ma'am.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much to the committee for 
allowing me to join here today. This is also not my usual 
committee. But I am the first single mother of young children 
to ever serve in the United States Congress and paid family 
leave and paid medical leave made it possible for me to stay in 
my career, and so this is something I care a great deal about.
    Dr. Jacobs, the FMLA has a provision often referred to as 
the marriage penalty. Could you explain this provision and how 
it works?
    Ms. Jacobs. Yes. So the marriage penalty is a stipulation 
in the FMLA that if you have two partners, spouses who work for 
the same employer, they can't both take their 12 weeks of FMLA-
protected leave assuming they work for a covered employer and 
they are eligible. They have to decide that either one parent 
will take that or one of the workers will take it or that they 
will split it.
    So compared to another working family where you have a 
couple where one works for one employer, one works for another 
employer, if they are both covered and eligible, they would 
have a total of 24 weeks of leave, which if you can imagine for 
the birth of a child, for taking care of an aging parent or an 
in-law, it is really useful to have that time. Many of these 
conditions really do require more than 12 weeks. But if you 
happen to be with a partner who works for your same employer, 
that marriage penalty means that protection isn't available to 
you.
    Ms. Porter. And is it also correct that if an unmarried 
couple were to be expecting a baby, they could each claim 12 
weeks, but if they were a married couple, they would be unable 
to do so, hence, this is a penalty for couples that give birth 
while married?
    Ms. Jacobs. That is correct.
    Ms. Porter. Okay. And is there any research on when you 
have this situation where the couple must split, divide the 12 
weeks between the two of them? Let's say it is a man and a 
woman couple. Is there any evidence on how that divides along 
gender lines if it is a heterosexual man-woman couple?
    Ms. Jacobs. The evidence suggests that because women are 
typically paid less than men, not always, obviously, but on 
average that is what happens in a couple, and if a household is 
making an economic calculation based on a household budget and 
you have to choose who is going to take the leave, it often 
ends up being the economically rational--and putting that in 
scare quotes because we all know that rational varies a lot 
depending on your situation--but from a household budget 
perspective, it ends up making the most sense for the woman to 
be the one who takes the leave.
    Which in turn perpetuates exactly the gender wage gap, 
because you have a woman who, in many cases, is out of the 
labor force. If it is not a paid leave, if it is not a job-
protected leave, she may stay out of the labor force. And in 
turn, when she is ready to come back, she may actually earn 
less.
    Ms. Porter. Yeah. And then that is on top of the physical 
effects of giving birth, as well as the responsibilities of 
breast-feeding and nursing in the workplace, which is a 
challenge for many women that men don't face after they give 
birth.
    In November, I introduced the bipartisan FAIR Leave Act. It 
is H.R. 5075. It would eliminate this marriage penalty so that 
married couples would not have to split their leave and choose, 
which often means that the woman is the one taking the leave, 
rather than a balanced approach. With the FAIR Act each parent 
would get 12 weeks of FMLA leave, regardless of whether they 
work for the same employer or a different employer.
    So, Representative Batch, I know you took time off. Would 
the ability to have had to choose affected your ability--if you 
had to share your unpaid leave, how would that have affected 
your ability to recover from cancer treatment?
    Mrs. Batch. Absolutely. Actually, so my husband is my law 
partner, and so this actually does affect us directly. And so 
he went back to work after the births of both of my sons and 
then also right after both of my surgeries and through my 
radiation treatment because he didn't have the ability to just 
be able to take off when I was home. And so that actually 
directly affects me.
    If we had paid leave, and especially being a small business 
owner, then we would have been able to actually balance our 
budget better and he would have been able to bond with our 
children instead of returning to work immediately.
    And so I think it is absolutely essential. And I think that 
your bill is definitely one that everyone should support 
because you shouldn't be penalized for simply being married.
    Ms. Porter. With my remaining time, I just wanted to ask 
Ms. Greszler, I am struggling to understand your testimony on 
page 5 that you have made reference to. You are making claims 
of data that you are saying shows the misuse of FMLA leave, and 
you are citing the study particularly of the MBTA.
    But all that study really shows is that women took more 
FMLA leave than men and therefore there is a gender pay gap. 
But wouldn't we expect, given the nature and the historical 
structural barriers, that we would expect women to take more 
leave than men? How is that evidence of misuse?
    Ms. Greszler. Yeah. The fact that women took more leave is 
what contributed to the wage gap.
    The evidence of the misuse happened when you looked at--
well, first of all, they hired a company to come in and to try 
and more appropriately regulate the FMLA and make sure it was 
properly certified and properly used, and you saw their 
certifications drop from 45 percent of workers to 27 percent of 
workers.
    And then you also saw the period, amount of leave that was 
taken, drop by 27 and 28 percent for men and women. And there 
were also statistics there looking at just the differences in 
leave taken if it is a holiday week or a weekend week, and you 
see spikes, both men and women, if it is a Monday/Friday 
surrounding a weekend and if it is a week that they were 
assigned a holiday shift.
    Ms. Porter. My time is expired, but that seems utterly 
consistent to me with needing to cover medical care and child 
care when I am assigned to an unusual shift.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of 
the witnesses.
    I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee 
practice materials for submission to the hearing record must be 
submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days following the 
last day of the hearing, preferably in Microsoft Word format. 
The materials submitted must address the subject matter of the 
hearing. Only a Member of the committee or an invited witness 
may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing record.
    Documents are limited to 50 pages. Documents longer than 50 
pages will be incorporated into the record via an internet link 
that you must provide to the Committee Clerk within the 
required timeframe. But please recognize that years from now 
that link may no longer work.
    Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for their 
participation today. What we have heard is very valuable. 
Members of the committee may have some additional questions for 
you, and we ask the witnesses to please respond to those 
questions in writing. The hearing record will be held open for 
14 days in order to receive those responses.
    I remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice, 
witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted to 
the Majority Committee Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days. 
The questions submitted must address the subject matter of the 
hearing.
    I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his 
closing statement.
    Mr. Cline. Madam Chair, I just want to echo your comments 
and thank the witnesses for being here. And I agree with you 
that it was a very interesting hearing on an important issue.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
    I am going to recognize myself for the purpose of making my 
closing statement.
    Thank you again to the witnesses for sharing your 
experiences and expertise with us. We heard compelling 
testimony on the need for Congress to build upon the successes 
of the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure that workers have 
the right to take job-protected time off to care for themselves 
and their families.
    We also heard compelling testimony on the imperative for a 
national comprehensive job-protected paid family and medical 
leave program. And we must update the Family and Medical Leave 
Act to not only provide FMLA eligibility for all workers, but 
also to expand the permissible reasons for which workers can 
take job-protected leave.
    At the same time, Congress must pass the FAMILY Act so that 
workers do not have to risk their financial security in order 
to care for themselves and their families. If we work together 
to achieve these combined efforts, we can improve the health of 
families and children, we can improve employee retention for 
our Nation's businesses, and we can put millions of dollars of 
income back into the economy, into workers' pockets.
    More importantly, though, we can ensure that all Americans 
have the right to sustain their livelihoods while giving 
themselves and their loved ones the care that they need to 
thrive.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter 
from the National Partnership for Women and Families, whose 
advocacy was critical in passing the FMLA. And without 
objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    

    Chairwoman Adams. If there is no further business before 
the committee, without objection, the subcommittee stands 
adjourned.
    [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    [Questions submitted for the record and their responses 
follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    [Mrs. Batch response to questions submitted for the record 
follows:]




    [Ms. Jacobs response to questions submitted for the record 
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    [Mr. Sandkamp response to questions submitted for the 
record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    [Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]