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

                     THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT (H.R. 1784):
                      EXAMINING A PLAN TO SECURE PAID SICK
                             LEAVE FOR U.S. WORKERS

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

                                    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, MARCH 11, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-56

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    41-103 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 March 11, 2020...................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
          Protections................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
         Byrne, Hon. Bradley, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
          Workforce Protections......................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Glynn, Dr. Sarah Jane, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for
          American Progress..........................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Goldman, Ms. Tanya, J.D., Senior Policy Analyst Center for
          Law and Social Policy (CLASP)..............................    40
            Prepared statement of....................................    43
        Johnson, Ms. Renee J., Senior Government Affairs Manager,
          Main Street Alliance.......................................    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Milito, Ms. Elizabeth, Esquire, Senior Executive Counsel,
          NFIB Small Business Legal Center...........................    28
            Prepared statement of....................................    31

    Additional Submissions:
        Chairwoman Adams:
            Prepared statement from National Partnership for Women
              and Families...........................................    82
            Remarks of Hon. Rosa DeLauro.............................    86
            Letter dated March 18, 2019..............................    91
            Letter from Ms. Laura Melton.............................    97
        McBath, Hon. Lucy, Congressman from the State of Georgia:
            Paid Family and Medical Leave Would Benefit 27.5 Million
              Latino Workers.........................................    98
            Prepared statement from the YWCA.........................   100
        Scott, Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Congressman from the State of
          Virginia:
            Prepared statement form Asian Pacific Labor Alliance AFL-
              CIO (APALA)............................................   105
            Prepared statement from The Leadership Conference on
              Civil and Human Rights.................................   107
            Prepared statement from MomsRising.......................   111
            Prepared statement from UNITEHERE........................   115
            Prepared statement from Government Affairs...............   116
            Prepared statement from National Council of Jewish Women.   118
            Prepared statement from TIME'S UP Now....................   120
            Prepared statement from National Women's Law Center......   122

                     THE HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT (H.R. 1784):
                      EXAMINING A PLAN TO SECURE PAID SICK
                             LEAVE FOR U.S. WORKERS

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, March 11, 2020

                           House of Representatives,

                     Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,

                        Committee on Education and Labor

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Alma S. Adams
    (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Adams, DeSaulnier, Takano, Wild,
    McBath, Omar, Stevens, Byrne, Cline, and Wright.
        Also Present: Representatives Scott, Foxx, Davis, Bonamici,
    and Schrier.
        Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Ilana Brunner,
    General Counsel; David Dailey, Senior Counsel; Carrie Hughes,
    Director of Health and Human Services; Eli Hovland, Staff
    Assistant; Eunice Ikene, Labor Policy Advisor; Jaria Martin,
    Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff Director; Max Moore, Staff
    Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar,
    Deputy Director of Information Technology; Joshua Weisz,
    Communications Director; Rachel West, Senior Economic Policy
    Advisor; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; 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;
    Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Carlton
    Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; and Ben Ridder, Minority
    Professional Staff Member.
        Chairwoman Adams. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
    Workforce Protections will come to order. Welcome, everyone. I
    note that a quorum is present. I note for the subcommittee that
    Ms. Susan Davis of California, Ms. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon,
    and Dr. Kim Schrier of Washington are permitted to participate
    in today's hearing with the understanding that their questions
    will come only after all Members of the Workforce Protections
    Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are present have
    had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
        The subcommittee is meeting today in a legislative hearing
    to hear testimony on the Healthy Families Act, H.R. 1784,
    examining a plan to provide paid sick leave to U.S. workers.
    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, provides all members with adequate
    time to ask questions.
        I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
    statement.
        Today we will discuss H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act,
    a proposal to establish paid sick leave as an essential
    workplace protection for our Nation's workers. This hearing
    could not come at a more appropriate time. As we speak, the
    rapid spread of the coronavirus is highlighting the severe
    consequences of our failure to secure paid sick leave for
    millions of workers and their families.
        Across the county, public health officials are rightfully
    asking or requiring potentially infected Americans to stay home
    from work and avoid travel. But for many workers, particularly
    low-wage workers, taking time off when they are sick means
    losing the wages they need to cover basic expenses, including
    food and housing. Many have no choice but to work even though
    they are ill.
        We are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the
    coronavirus epidemic, and we are continuing to explore
    different options for providing workers access to paid sick
    leave on an emergency basis. Our Nation's workers are
    particularly vulnerable to this emerging public health crisis
    because the United States is the only industrialized nation
    that does not require access to paid sick leave.
        For the more than 32 million American workers who cannot
    earn paid sick days, getting sick, whether it is a rare
    infectious disease or the common cold, often means having to
    choose between prioritizing their health and sacrificing their
    paycheck. Unfortunately, access to paid sick days is
    particularly limited for the low-income workers who need it
    most.
        Of the bottom 10 percent of private sector wage earners,
    just 3 in 10 have access to paid sick days. Making matters
    worse, inadequate access to paid sick leave is particularly
    concentrated in service industry occupations that have frequent
    contact with the public. A 2016 survey found that 86 percent of
    women in the fast food industry lacked access to paid sick
    days.
        For many workers, taking even a couple of unpaid days from
    work to recover from an illness could cost them a month's worth
    of utilities. As a result, workers often report to work even
    when they are ill, risking their health and the health of their
    coworkers. In 2009, researchers estimated the 20 million
    workers went to work sick.
        When so many people are unable to forgo a paycheck and stay
    home when they are sick, an increased risk of infectious
    disease is inevitable. As a Nation, we should have already
    learned this lesson. During the 2009 H1N1 flu epidemic, which
    killed more than 10,000 Americans, about one-third of infected
    workers went to work despite showing symptoms. This caused the
    disease to spread to as many as 7 million additional people.
        Even without a global health crisis, paid sick days are
    critical for public health. A recent 2020 working paper found
    that one year after enacting state laws allowing all workers to
    earn paid sick leave, those states saw an 11 percent reduction
    in influenza infections.
        Paid sick days also mean more productive employees and more
    profitable businesses. Our economy currently loses an estimated
    $234 billion each year due to reduced productivity from
    illness. Businesses are understandably hesitant to take on the
    additional expense of paid sick leave benefits. But even
    accounting for the cost of paid sick leave, studies show that
    businesses still come out ahead because of higher productivity
    and lower turnover.
        In Austin, Texas, for example, an analysis showed that a
    citywide paid sick days requirement would provide city
    businesses a net savings of more than $4 billion annually. The
    evidence is clear: access to paid sick days is critical for the
    health of our families, our communities, and our economy.
    Accordingly, 12 states, including Washington, D.C., and 22
    localities, have enacted laws that require employers to provide
    workers with paid sick days. But it is ultimately up to
    Congress to establish a national floor for the right to earn
    paid sick days.
        The Healthy Families Act will help achieve that goal
    through three key provisions. First, the bill guarantees
    employees in workplaces with 15 or more employees the right to
    earn 1 hour of paid sick or safe leave for every 30 hours
    worked up to 56 hours, or 7 days. In addition, the bill covers
    public sector employees without regard to size of the employing
    entity.
        Second, the bill permits employees to take leave for
    themselves or a family member for physical or mental illness,
    injury, preventative care, and for survivors of sexual assault,
    stalking, or domestic violence.
        And finally, the bill prohibits employers from firing or
    discriminating against employees for taking sick leave.
        Today's discussion is long overdue. It is simply
    inexcusable that millions of workers in the world's wealthiest
    national have no way to earn the paid sick days the need to
    care for themselves and their families.
        The committee also recognizes that we need to provide
    workers immediate relief in response to the coronavirus
    epidemic. And as we speak, the committee is considering a range
    of options for a Federal response that protects the health and
    economic security of workers and their families.
        Before I yield to the ranking member, I would like to
    submit a statement into the record from a champion for paid
    sick days and the lead sponsor of the Healthy Families Act,
    Representative Rosa DeLauro. I would also like to submit a
    statement into the record from the National Partnership for
    Women and Families, a leader in advocating for paid sick days.
    Without objection.
        I now recognize the distinguished ranking member for the
    purpose of making an opening statement.
        [The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]

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

        Today, we will discuss H.R. 1784, the Healthy Families Act, a
    proposal to establish paid sick leave as an essential workplace
    protection for our nation's workers.This hearing could not come at a
    more appropriate time. As we speak, the rapid spread of the coronavirus
    is highlighting the severe consequences of our failure to secure paid
    sick leave for millions of workers and their families.
        Across the country, public health officials are rightfully asking
    or requiring potentially infected Americans to stay home from work and
    avoid travel. But for many workers - particularly low-wage workers -
    taking time off when they are sick means losing the wages they need to
    cover basic expenses, including food and housing. Many have no choice
    but to work even though they are ill.
        We are deeply concerned about the potential impact of the
    coronavirus epidemic, and we are continuing to explore different
    options for providing workers access to paid sick leave on an emergency
    basis. Our nation's workers are particularly vulnerable to this
    emerging public health crisis because the United States is the only
    industrialized nation that does not require access to paid sick leave.
        For the more than 32 million American workers who cannot earn paid
    sick days, getting sick - whether it's a rare, infectious disease or
    the common cold - often means having to choose between prioritizing
    their health and sacrificing their paycheck. Unfortunately, access to
    paid sick days is particularly limited for the low-income workers who
    need it most.
        Of the bottom 10 percent of private-sector wage earners, just 3 in
    10 have access to paid sick days. Making matters worse, inadequate
    access to paid sick leave is particularly concentrated in service-
    industry occupations that have frequent contact with the public. A 2016
    survey found that 86 percent of women in the fast food industry lacked
    access to paid sick days.
        For many workers, taking even a couple of unpaid days from work to
    recover from an illness could cost them a month's worth of utilities.
    As a result, workers often report to work even when they're ill,
    risking their health and the health of their coworkers. In 2009,
    researchers estimated that 20 million workers went to work sick.
        When so many people are unable to forgo a paycheck and stay home
    when they are sick, an increased risk of infectious disease is
    inevitable. As a nation, we should have already learned this lesson.
    During the 2009 H1N1 flu epidemic, which killed more than ten thousand
    Americans, about one-third of infected workers went to work despite
    showing symptoms. This caused the disease to spread to as many as 7
    million additional people.
        Even without a global health crisis, paid sick days are critical
    for public health. A recent 2020 working paper found that, one year
    after enacting state laws allowing all workers to earn paid sick leave,
    those states saw an 11 percent reduction in influenza infections.
        Paid sick days also mean more productive employees and more
    profitable businesses. Our economy currently loses an estimated $234
    billion each year due to reduced productivity from illness. Businesses
    are understandably hesitant to take on the additional expense of paid
    sick leave benefits. But, even accounting for the cost of paid sick
    leave, studies show that businesses still come out ahead because of
    higher productivity and lower turnover.
        In Austin, Texas, for example, an analysis showed that a citywide
    paid sick days requirement would provide city businesses a net savings
    of more than $4 billion annually. The evidence is clear: access to paid
    sick days is critical for the health of our families, our communities,
    and our economy. Accordingly, 12 states, including Washington,
        D.C. and twenty-two localities, have enacted laws that require
    employers to provide workers with paid sick days.
        But it is ultimately up to Congress to establish a national floor
    for the right to earn paid sick days. The Healthy Families Act will
    help achieve that goal through three key provisions:

       First, the bill guarantees employees in workplaces with 15
            or more employees the right to earn one hour of paid sick or
            safe leave for every 30 hours worked up to 56 hours, or 7 days.
            Inaddition, the bill covers public sector employees without
            regard to size of the employing entity.

       Second, the bill permits employees to take leave for
            themselves or a family member for physical or mental illness,
            injury, preventative care, and for survivors of sexual assault,
            stalking, or domestic violence.

       Finally, the bill prohibits employers from firing or
            discriminating against employees for taking sick leave.

        Today's discussion is long overdue. It is simply inexcusable that
    millions of workers in world's wealthiest nation have no way to earn
    the paid sick days they need to care for themselves and their families.
        The Committee also recognizes that we need to provide workers
    immediate relief in response to the coronavirus epidemic. As we speak,
    the Committee is considering a range of options for a federal response
    that protects the health and economic security of workers and their
    families.
        Before I yield to the Ranking Member, I would like to submit a
    statement into the record from a champion for paid sick days and the
    lead sponsor of the Healthy Families Act, Representative Rosa DeLauro.
                                     ______

        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The global spread
    of COVID-19, known more commonly as the novel coronavirus or
    just the coronavirus, has sparked conversations in recent weeks
    about health and safety in the workplace and paid sick leave
    policies. Committee Republicans have long supported legislative
    solutions that allow businesses of all sizes to develop
    innovative, personalized, and workable paid leave policies.
    Allowing business owners the flexibility to develop and offer
    tailored solutions that work best for their businesses and
    their employees can help ensure a positive and productive work
    environment and help small businesses remain competitive in a
    tight labor market.
        Take the Republican-led Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into
    law by President Trump, for example. This legislation included
    a tax credit for employers who voluntarily offer at least two
    weeks of paid family and medical leave to their employees.
        Another Republican-led initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working
    Families Flexibility Act, would allow private sector employers
    to offer their employees the choice of paid or comp time in
    lieu of cash wages for working overtime, a benefit currently
    available to public sector workers. An employee can decide when
    to use this comp time just as public sector employees can do.
        Just yesterday, President Trump made clear that he is
    interested in negotiations with Congress regarding additional
    paid sick leave proposals to help us get through the COVID-19
    outbreak. And I was told just as I was coming in here that
    those discussions have indeed begun. If you want to solve a
    problem like this, you do it on a bipartisan basis, not a
    partisan basis.
        This bill, the one that we are here to talk about, is not
    the answer. It is a partisan bill. I hope my colleagues on the
    other side are not using the coronavirus as an opportunity to
    prioritize partisan interest in H.R. 1784. Even if it passed
    the House, this bill has no chance of passage in the other body
    or becoming law. It is a distraction to the serious bipartisan
    work Congress needs to be doing with respect to the
    coronavirus.
        The costly Federal mandate contained in H.R. 1784 would do
    more harm than good and will have unintended consequences. As
    Ms. Milito notes in her testimony, a National Federation of
    Independent Businesses study of the economic impact of this
    bill showed that it would result in 430,000 jobs lost over a
    10-year period and loss of $652 billion--billion with a B--in
    cumulative real economic output.
        More troubling, small firms would account for 58 percent of
    all jobs lost and small farms would bear 50 percent of the lost
    output. Unfortunately, this sentiment seems to lost in the
    supporters of this bill, who seem determined to create
    additional hardships for small businesses by imposing a one-
    size-fits-all government mandate.
        Employers are attentive and responsive to current and
    prospective employees' workplace concerns and preferences with
    for flexible leave policies. Instead of considering H.R. 1784,
    Congress should empower our Nation's business owners to develop
    and offer flexible and personalized solutions.
        In fact, the vast majority of employers are already
    responding to their employees' needs. According to the Bureau
    of Labor Statistics, 73 percent of all private industry workers
    and 83 percent of all full-time workers have access to paid
    sick leave.
        Small businesses are pulling their weight, as well.
    According to NFIB, 73 percent of small employers offer paid
    time off to the majority of their full-time employees.
        The bottom line is paid sick leave benefits are important,
    but a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate is not the answer. In
    times of economic growth, as well as in times of crisis, job
    creators do not need additional Washington-knows-best Federal
    mandates weighing them down that will ultimately harm job
    creation.
        In the near term, Congress should be working with the Trump
    administration regarding policies that help employees rather
    than considering legislation which micromanages every
    employer's ability to operate their business.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
    how the Federal Government can continue encouraging the private
    sector to develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and
    their families.
        And with that, I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bradley Byrne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
                            on Workforce Protections

        The global spread of COVID-19, known more commonly as the
    coronavirus, has sparked conversations in recent weeks about health and
    safety in the workplace and paid sick leave policies.
        Committee Republicans have long supported legislative solutions
    that allow businesses of all sizes to develop innovative, personalized,
    and workable paid leave policies. Allowing business owners the
    flexibility to develop and offer tailored solutions that work best for
    their business and their employees can help ensure a positive and
    productive work environment and help small businesses remain
    competitive in a tight labor market.
        Take the Republican-led Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by
    President Trump, for example. This legislation included a tax credit
    for employers who voluntarily offer at least two weeks of paid family
    and medical leave to their employees. Another Republican led
    initiative, H.R. 5656, the Working Families Flexibility Act, would
    allow private-sector employers to offer their employees the choice of
    paid or comp time in lieu of cash wages for working overtime--a benefit
    currently available to public-sector workers. And the employee can
    decide when to use this comp time, just as public sector employees can
    do.
        Just yesterday, President Trump made clear that he is interested in
    negotiations with Congress regarding additional paid sick leave
    proposals to help us get through the COVID-19 outbreak. However, this
    bill is not the answer, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle are not using the coronavirus as an opportunity to prioritize
    partisan interest in H.R. 1784. Even if it passes the House, this bill
    has no chance of passage in the other body or becoming law. It is a
    distraction to the serious, bipartisan work Congress needs to be doing
    with respect to the coronavirus.
        The costly federal mandate contained in H.R. 1784 would do more
    harm than good and will have unintended consequences. As Ms. Milito
    notes in her testimony, a National Federation of Independent Business
    study of the economic impact of this bill showed that it could result
    in 430,000 jobs lost over a ten-year period and a loss of $652 billion
    in cumulative real economic output. More troubling, small firms would
    account for 58 percent of all jobs lost and small firms would bear 50
    percent of lost output. Unfortunately, this sentiment seems to be lost
    upon my Democratic colleagues who seem determined to create additional
    hardships for small businesses by imposing a one-size-fits-all
    government mandate.
        Employers are attentive and responsive to current and prospective
    employees' workplace concerns and preferences for flexible leave
    policies. Instead of considering H.R. 1784, Congress should empower our
    nation's business owners to develop and offer flexible and personalized
    solutions.
        In fact, the vast majority of employers are already responding to
    their employees' needs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 73
    percent of all private industry workers and 83 percent of full-time
    workers have access to paid sick leave. Small businesses are pulling
    their weight as well. According to the NFIB, 73 percent of small
    employers offer paid time off to the majority of their fulltime
    employees.
        The bottom line is paid sick leave benefits are important, but a
    one-size-fits-all federal mandate is not the answer. In times of
    economic growth as well as in times of crisis, job creators do not need
    additional Washington-knows-best, federal mandates weighing them down
    that will ultimately harm job creation. In the near term, Congress
    should be working with the Trump Administration regarding policies that
    help employees rather than considering legislation which micromanages
    every employer's ability to operate their business.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the
    federal government can continue encouraging the private sector to
    develop solutions that meet the needs of workers and their families.
                                     ______

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Without objection.
        All of the 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
    March 24, 2020.
        I would now like to introduce our witnesses. Dr. Sarah Jane
    Glynn is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
    She is a nationally recognized expert on family economic
    security with an emphasis on work-family supportive policies,
    such as paid sick days and paid family and medical leave.
        Ms. Renee J. Johnson is the senior government affairs
    manager to Main Street Alliance, a 501(c)(3) advocacy
    organization, with a national network of more than 30,000 small
    business owners throughout the United States.
        Ms. Elizabeth Milito serves as senior executive counsel
    with the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a
    position she has held since March 2004. Ms. Milito is
    responsible for managing litigation and amicus work for NFIB.
        Ms. Tanya L. Goldman is a senior analyst and attorney with
    the Job Quality Team at the Center for Law and Social Policy,
    CLASP. Prior to joining CLASP, Ms. Goldman worked at the U.S.
    Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission, EEOC.
        Thank you all for being here. We appreciate all the
    witnesses for being here today, look forward to your testimony.
    Let me remind you that we 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 also
    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, written 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. And 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 your statement.
        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 will first recognize Dr. Glynn.

    TESTIMONY OF SARAH JANE GLYNN, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR
                           AMERICAN PROGRESS

        Dr. Glynn. Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member Byrne, and
    members of the committee, thank you very much for having the
    opportunity to speak to you today about the importance of paid
    sick days. My name is Sarah Jane Glynn and I am a senior fellow
    with the Center for American Progress and an expert on
    workplace policies, including paid sick days.
        Paid sick days are intended to address short-term
    illnesses, like colds or the flu or to care for a family member
    who is experiencing a similar short-term illness. It can also
    be used to access routine or preventative medical care. And
    there is also often the inclusion of safe days that can be used
    to address the aftermath of sexual or domestic violence. Paid
    family and medical leave is a separate policy that is intended
    to address more serious long-term issues, like cancer or
    recovering from surgery. So these are two related, but separate
    policies. They are not substitutes for one another. And so
    today I want to make sure that we are focusing on the shorter
    term leaves covered under paid sick.
        Currently, the United States is one of only a handful of
    countries across the globe that does not guarantee workers the
    right to any form of paid sick leave. And we are one of--we are
    the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee the
    right to any form of paid time off for any reason at all.
        As of March 2019, 27 percent of private industry workers,
    which translates to 32.5 million individuals, do not have
    access to a single paid sick day. Eleven states, the District
    of Columbia, and 22 localities have passed paid sick days laws
    on their books that have made a tremendous difference, but they
    have also resulted in really significant geographic
    disparities.
        In the Pacific states, for example, 91 percent of private
    industry workers have access to paid sick days. But in the East
    South Central region, which is where I live, only 62 percent of
    workers have access. And we know that low-wage workers are
    among those who are the least likely to have paid sick days; 70
    percent of workers who earn less than $10.49 per hour have
    access to a single paid sick day. Rural workers, workers of
    color, and Latinx workers in particular are all less likely to
    have access to paid sick leave.
        Women are disproportionately impacted by a lack of paid
    sick time, in part because they are the parents who are most
    likely to have to take time off to care for a sick child. In
    one survey of working parents, a third reported that they
    feared losing pay or losing their job if they needed to stay
    home to take care of their child, and their fears are not
    wrong. Access to paid sick days decreases the likelihood of job
    separation by up to 25 percent and those impacts are even
    stronger for working mothers.
        Understandably, we are all very focused on public health in
    this moment, but we also know that workers in public-facing
    roles are at an increased risk of contagion through these
    interactions with the public and they can pose an infection
    risk to the clients and customers that they serve. But service
    workers have one of the worst rates of access to paid sick
    leave; 42 percent or 11.7 million individuals working in the
    private sector lack access to paid sick time. Food service
    workers are especially unlikely to have access to paid sick
    days. And as a result, we know that they are very likely to go
    to work when they are sick.
        And it is easy to try to blame individuals for this, but
    given the extremely low wages across their industry, they can
    be placed in an impossible situation. Most report that when the
    go to work sick it is because their either can't afford to lose
    pay or because they fear being fired or penalized as a result
    of calling out. And this is a particularly salient issue in
    this moment given the current global spread of COVID-19.
        Research has consistently shown across space and time that
    access to paid sick days increases the ability of workers to
    stay home when they are ill. So it is not difficult to
    understand why a policy like this has enormous potential to
    mitigate the effects of the coronavirus.
        The current patchwork of state and local policies that is
    in place right now is not sufficient to protect workers and it
    is vital that Congress works to create a Federal floor on paid
    sick days. I understand why folks are very focused on this
    current pandemic, but we also need to be forward thinking.
    People will continue to get sick even after we have moved past
    this moment in time. So establishing a Federal standard on paid
    sick days is going to be incredibly important, both in this
    moment and in the future, to help ensure that all workers are
    able to access medical care to prevent the spread of contagion
    and to make sure that they can care for their loved ones
    regardless of where they work, regardless of whom they work
    for, and to ensure that we can protect the health of our
    families, individuals, and our communities.
        Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Glynn follows:]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.

       TESTIMONY OF RENEE J. JOHNSON, SENIOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
                     MANAGER, MAIN STREET ALLIANCE

        Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking
    Member Byrne, and members of the Education and Labor
    Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. Thank you for this
    opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 1784, the Healthy
    Families Act.
        My name is Renee Johnson and I am the senior government
    affairs manager at Main Street Alliance, a national network of
    over 30,000 small business owners, who advocate for public
    issues that impact their businesses, employees, and
    communities. Our members across the country support a standard
    baseline of paid sick days that covers all workers. The need
    for this policy is more urgent than ever.
        At the national level, we support the Healthy Families Act,
    which guarantees 7 paid sick days. At the state level our
    members have played an essential role and winning many of these
    laws in 11 states, the District of Columbia, and 22 localities
    across the country.
        Increasing access to paid sick days strengthens small
    businesses and boosts economic productivity. When employees go
    to work sick they fail to perform to their full potential and
    also risk infecting coworkers. The loss in productivity to the
    U.S. economy due to illness in the workforce has been
    established $234 billion with a major portion of this coming
    from workers going to their jobs sick.
        Productive workers make for stronger businesses. As Main
    Street Alliance member Janet Jones of Source Booksellers in
    Detroit stated, ``When employees are healthy, they are happier,
    make good recommendations, and take better care of customers.''
    Policies such as earned paid sick time are a win-win situation
    for the businesses, the employees, and the community.
        A baseline standard for paid sick days also boosts small
    businesses' bottom lines by helping to increase employee
    retention and reduce costs associated with turnover, which can
    cost thousands of dollars per position. Workers who earn paid
    sick time are less likely to leave their employer. Retaining
    well-trained and valued employees helps businesses of all
    sizes, but can be especially important for small businesses
    where the loss of a single employee can have a significant
    impact on operational and labor costs.
        The value of offering paid sick days to employees can be
    seen by our member Tony Sandkamp of Sandkamp Woodworks in New
    Jersey. He stated that, ``Since I started providing paid sick
    days at my businesses, employees have been happier and more
    productive. Far from abusing it, my employees stave their paid
    sick days for when they really needed it. Since introducing the
    policy we have not lost a single employee. In fact, we've added
    two.''
        Providing all workers access to paid sick days will also
    help lower system-wide healthcare costs, saving taxpayer
    dollars for individuals and businesses. Ensuring access to paid
    sick time for workers who currently do not have any could
    prevent over 1 million emergency room visits a year, saving 1
    billion in annual healthcare costs.
        Improving the health of our communities while lowering
    healthcare costs is important to a small business owner. As
    Main Street Alliance member Peter Frigeri of Gaia Flowers in
    Las Vegas, Nevada, put it, ``My business is only as healthy as
    our community, and giving people a chance to stay home and
    recover from an illness is crucial for public health. When
    people work sick, it stresses our healthcare system, hurting
    all of us, including small businesses that face higher and
    higher healthcare costs.''
        It is for these reasons that we see small business owners
    support paid sick days. A national survey of small business
    owners found that 64 percent supported a paid sick days minimum
    standard, like the Healthy Families Act.
        Where paid sick days has been adopted, support from small
    businesses continues to be strong. In 2007, San Francisco
    became the first city to adopt a paid sick time policy. Three
    years after passage of the law, two-thirds of employers
    supported it. Even business groups who did not initially
    support the policy came to see the benefits of the law. The
    director of Golden Gate Restaurant Association said, ``Paid
    sick days is the best policy for least cost.''
        Fear that a paid sick days policy would have a negative
    impact on job growth, business formation, and relocation have
    not occurred. In Connecticut, business formation increased
    following the adoption of paid sick days. And in Seattle, one
    year after the policy's adoption, the city showed stronger
    growth and business formation.
        Implementation of new laws is also relatively smooth. An
    evaluation of Seattle's paid sick time law found that over two-
    thirds of employers did not have difficulty implementing the
    law and those that did cite challenges found them to be
    temporary.
        On behalf of our small business members, I strongly
    encourage the committee to help ensure a stronger, more
    equitable economy by securing paid sick days for all workers.
    As the impact of expanding coronavirus unfolds, a stronger
    safety net, including paid sick days, is more urgent than ever.
        I want to thank the chairwoman and ranking member for
    hosting this hearing and look forward to answering any
    questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Milito, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.

       TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH MILITO, ESQUIRE, SENIOR EXECUTIVE
               COUNSEL, NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER

        Ms. Milito. Thank you to Chairwoman Adams and Ranking
    Member Byrne for inviting me to speak today. I also want to
    thank the additional committee members who are in attendance
    and the staff, too, who is here today.
        My name is Elizabeth Milito and I am an attorney in the
    National Federation of Independent Businesses' Small Business
    Legal Center. NFIB is a member-driven organization that
    represents about 300,000 small and independent businesses
    across the country.
        Consider the very types of businesses you frequent: pizza
    parlor, auto shop, dry cleaner, hair salon. Some have employees
    that are strictly full-time, others strictly part-time or
    hourly, some have both. These are the typical NFIB members who
    employ around 5 to 15 employees. Only about 12 percent have a
    human resources professional and the business owner or spouse
    is often the H.R. point person. Over 50 percent still do
    payroll in-house.
        I describe our membership to illustrate one of the key
    points of my testimony. There is no thing as a one-size-fits-
    all policy that works for every business or every industry.
    Employer mandates come with a cost and not all businesses can
    afford that cost.
        We appreciate the reasons the bill has been proposed, but
    NFIB has long imposed inflexible or mandated leave requirements
    for a variety of reasons. And today I just want to touch on
    three concerns that we have with the Healthy Families Act.
        First, small businesses are an employer of choice in our
    communities because of the flexibility they offer their
    employees. In fact, most small businesses already provide their
    employees with paid time off. They provide flexible, mutually
    beneficial arrangements that allow employees time off when
    necessary in a fiscally responsible way.
        The bill's one-size-fits-all mandate would handicap
    businesses' ability to attract workers at a very critical time.
    Finding qualified workers is NFIB members' number one cited
    problem. And one of the ways that small businesses compete with
    larger companies is to provide flexible leave policies.
        Small employers aren't as regimented in their leave
    policies as larger firms. So while the vast majority of small
    businesses offer paid time leave, most do not divide it up
    between vacation days, sick days, and family leave. The Healthy
    Families Act would add unnecessarily costs and hurdles to the
    process that small business owners have developed for their
    businesses. It will require more recordkeeping and place
    restrictions on time off that don't currently exist. If you can
    only afford to give your workers 10 days of paid time off and
    the government mandates 5 days of paid sick leave, then your
    employees only have 5 days of vacation leave.
        A second concern relates to the unintended and hidden costs
    the bill would impose. Mandated leave is not a free benefit for
    employees. In a small business with a finite amount of
    resources, this means less money is available for wage
    increases and hiring additional employees.
        As I mentioned, small business owners typically have few
    administrative staff and little human resources experience.
    This act would impose substantial recordkeeping requirements,
    including new leave tracking, notification, documentation, and
    reporting requirements.
        Finally, the bill, my third concern relates to what I call
    ``death by a thousand mandates.'' Another Federal-mandated
    leave program will further complicate the patchwork quilt of
    ever-changing labor laws. When Oregon considered its paid leave
    proposal a few years ago, the legislative record was replete
    with opposition from small business owners.
        And I just want to quote from a submission from one small
    business owner, ``We compete in a world market and everything
    the state or the Federal Government does burdens us with more
    and more unfunded mandates that make us less competitive in
    world markets. So now I have fewer employees. And since there
    is not enough income after all my employment costs are met, I
    end up not getting paid anything for my family for all the work
    that I do. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that we
    farmers don't make enough to subsidize all the wonderful
    benefits that you would like to see employees entitled to. I
    have workers asking for work and there is plenty for them to
    do, but at the high cost that Oregon requires me to pay, I have
    to limit the number that I can hire.''
        It may seem great to mandate more benefits to employees,
    but the hidden costs are fewer jobs. During times of
    emergencies like now, flexibility is even more important than
    ever before. NFIB is monitoring the current situation and
    working to support our members. We have been providing them
    with the CDC's guidance to prevent workplace exposure and it
    includes the recommendation that employers ``maintain flexible
    policies to allow employees to stay home and care for
    themselves or a sick family member.''
        Employers must be prepared for emergencies, but they can't
    be saddle with more mandates or costs. On behalf of the small
    business owners of NFIB, thank you for focusing on this
    important issue and for allowing NFIB to be represented here
    today.
        [The statement of Ms. Milito follows:]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Goldman, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.

    TESTIMONY OF TANYA GOLDMAN, J.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST CENTER
                   FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP)

        Ms. Goldman. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member
    Byrne, and members of the committee. My name is Tanya Goldman.
    I am a senior policy attorney at the Center for Law and Social
    Policy, or CLASP, an anti-poverty organization that promotes
    effective Federal and state policies for low-income people. I
    am truly honored to be here at this moment to speak to the
    central importance of paid sick days, especially as a critical
    need for low-income workers and their families to stay employed
    without jeopardizing their health or economic security.
        I testify based on my experience on paid sick and safe days
    at the Federal, state, and local levels. Previously I was
    deputy chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage
    and Hour Division, when the Department issued the final rule
    implementing President Obama's executive order establishing
    paid sick leave for Federal contractors.
        And since 2016, at CLASP we have been convening and
    providing technical assistance to state and local labor
    enforcement agencies, advocates, and worker organizations to
    share successes, lessons, and innovations in implementing and
    enforcing paid sick days policies. This convening has grown
    because of tremendous momentum in the enactment of local and
    state paid sick days laws. There are now 12 states, including
    D.C., and 22 cities with paid sick days laws. I want to
    highlight three key points.
        First, the coronavirus underscores the urgent need for a
    national paid sick days law. Over 32 million workers do not
    have any paid sick days. When these workers need to get a flu
    shot, recover, care for their sick child, or take time because
    of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, they face
    impossible trade-offs between their own and their family's
    health versus its economic stability. And during this public
    health pandemic they can't stay home if they are sick.
        Low-wage and part-time workers who often work in public-
    facing professions, like food service and child care, are least
    likely to have access to this basic right. For these workers,
    taking unpaid sick time can lead to foregone wages and even a
    lost job. Our failure to enact a national law has devastating
    consequences for individuals and families on a daily basis and
    is contributing to a national public health crisis.
        Second, there is an overwhelming support for paid sick days
    laws. In a national poll, people across party lines agreed that
    paid sick days should be a basic worker's right. Eighty-six
    percent favor a law providing 7 paid sick days annually for
    full-time employees. We see that support reflected in states
    and localities.
        Third, with over a decade of experience in implementing
    these laws, paid sick days are a no-brainer. Paid sick days
    help decrease the spread of illness, like the flu, they allow
    working people to care for themselves and for their family's
    health, and businesses are able to implement them. As detailed
    in my written testimony, studies show existing paid sick days
    laws don't harm jobs or growth. To the contrary, the Institute
    for Women's Policy Research estimates employers actually save
    money in additional to large public health savings.
        We know that there are critical elements to successful paid
    sick days laws. These include targeted education and outreach
    strategies that ensure employers are aware of their
    responsibilities and all employees know their rights,
    partnerships between community-based groups and government
    agencies, and measures to address workers' legitimate fears of
    retaliation should they exercise their rights.
        We see many of these elements in the Healthy Families Act.
    Most of all, the state and local progress also demonstrates
    that paid sick days are practical, successful, and broadly
    supported. A law like the Healthy Families Act will
    significantly improve working people's lives.
        Moms Rising member McKendree Rogers, a mother of two who
    lives in Washington state, is a testament to this. McKendree,
    like many employees who lack paid sick days, worked in the
    restaurant industry. Raising young children without paid sick
    days was understandably a constant source of stress. Missing
    just one day of pay threatened her ability to make ends meet.
    But Washington state passed a paid sick days law in 2016.
        McKendree now works in early childhood education and
    finally has access to this critical right. Just last week, she
    was able to take time off to go to the doctor. She says it is
    incredibly important to her to take care of her health and her
    children's health as well as stay at home when she or her
    children are sick without risking her paycheck.
        In conclusion, providing adequate paid sick days to all
    workers, including low-wage and part-time workers and people of
    color, demands national action. While state and local paid sick
    days laws have been enormously important in increasing access
    and modeling successful approaches, a jurisdiction-by-
    jurisdiction strategy leaves out far too many people. And
    leaving it to businesses alone is not the solution.
        We cannot achieve the health, economic, and poverty
    reduction benefits without a national standard that sets a
    critical floor for all, regardless of where they live or for
    whom they work.
        Thank you for the chance to testify and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Goldman follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Under Committee Rule
    8(a) we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I
    now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Seven cases of the coronavirus have been diagnosed in my
    home state of North Carolina and more are expected. We know
    that communities across the country are bracing for impacts to
    public health and local economies, and workers across the
    country are struggling with the prospect of working while sick
    or the financial difficulty of no pay during a required self-
    quarantine.
        Ms. Goldman, how is the lack of a national standard on paid
    sick days putting our communities at risk?
        Ms. Goldman. The U.S. is one of the only industrialized
    nations without universal access to paid sick leave. As I
    noted, 32 million workers and 70 percent of low-wage workers,
    those in the bottom decile of wage earners, lack access to paid
    sick days and they are particularly likely to work in public-
    facing professions. This means that if they are sick and can't
    afford to stay home, they are more likely to impact their own
    health and that of their coworkers, the public, as well as
    their children's classmates and caregivers and teachers if they
    send their children to school sick.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Dr. Glynn, if the Healthy
    Families Act had been enacted into law years ago, would workers
    be less vulnerable to the current public health crisis around
    coronavirus?
        Dr. Glynn. Yes. I mean, I think it is important to note
    that there would still be public health concerns. Access to
    paid sick days is not the only tool that we need to address
    these types of pandemics. But we know from research that has
    been done under previous public health emergencies that paid
    sick days are one very important piece of the puzzle.
        There is an estimated 1,500 people who died with the H1N1
    epidemic as a result of contagions that were caused by a lack
    of paid sick days. And the CDC has noted during previous health
    outbreaks that paid sick days are one important piece of making
    sure that people are able to self-quarantine. So without that
    policy we would expect to see far greater spread of the
    disease.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Ms. Goldman, could you add to
    that?
        Ms. Goldman. Sure. We know from state and local evidence
    that paid sick days help prevent illness and help prevent the
    spread of illness. Workers who don't have paid sick days are
    less likely to get preventative and routine medical care, like
    their flu shots. They are also more likely to go to work sick.
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay. What, Ms. Goldman, what are the
    unique concerns for access to paid sick days in a public health
    crisis, such as the current outbreak that we have now? What can
    Congress do to ensure that working people can afford to heed
    the recommendation of public health officials, such as self-
    quarantine?
        Ms. Goldman. The coronavirus is really exposing the reality
    that low-wage workers face every day. How can I stay home if I
    am sick or need to care for a family member if I can't afford
    to lose those wages? When the CDC and public health experts are
    recommending that people who are exposed to the coronavirus
    stay home for 14 days, low-wage workers cannot afford to do
    that.
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay. Ms. Johnson, how would ensuring
    that workers have sustained income through access to paid sick
    days now during the public health emergency promote the
    longevity for small businesses?
        Ms. Johnson. We see earned sick leave as an essential
    policy that ensures that workers can take time away from work
    if they are ill or need to take care of a sick family member
    without fear of loss of income. And passing a national paid
    sick days policy would go a long way in helping employers and
    employee cope with the virus and prevent its spread.
        Paid leave policies work best in a functioning economy with
    time to ramp up earned sick day benefits. And we are seeing
    many advocates and elected officials begin to consider
    emergency paid sick day policies to handle this crisis. To make
    these laws work and rapidly increased the availability of paid
    sick days, impacted small businesses will need immediate cash
    flow for their support, as well.
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay. Ms. Goldman and Dr. Glynn, why is
    it important that Congress take action to respond to both our
    present emergency and guarantee workers paid sick days under
    the Healthy Families Act? Dr. Glynn?
        Dr. Glynn. So I think it is important to note that these
    are two overlapping but separate issues. So certainly, what is
    happening right now requires an immediate response. Paid leave
    that is accrued over time, like the paid leave that would be
    available through the Healthy Families Act, is not necessarily
    appropriate when you are talking about an immediate emergency
    like we are facing with COVID-19.
        But I also think it is important for us to keep in mind
    that this is one moment that we are dealing with right now.
    People will continue to be sick, there will be future
    pandemics, and people will need to access routine and
    preventative care in the future. So taking a multipronged
    approach is absolutely appropriate in this moment.
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay. I have got one second, but I am out
    of time now, so I am going to now recognize the ranking member
    for the purpose of questioning the witnesses.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Milito,
    businesses of all sizes are being affected by COVID-19. Why is
    it important that businesses have flexibility when they are
    dealing with issues like sick leave for their employees?
        Ms. Milito. Thank you. So the small business owners who I
    have been in contact with--and we are doing a major outreach,
    we are doing a webinar for our members; we are pushing that, as
    I said in my statement, the CDC information--they are honest
    and fair employers. They want to do right by their employees
    all the time, but particularly now. And it is clear that this
    presents an extreme business challenge.
        My members are focused right now on keeping, first and
    foremost, their employees healthy, their customers healthy, and
    their communities healthy, too, and, you know, as much as
    possible keeping their businesses running at this time. This is
    a really challenging time until this coronavirus runs its
    course.
        But we caution Congress against rushing to impose any new
    mandates that will do more harm than good in the long term.
    Paid leave programs were not designed for the entire workforce
    to be out at once. And this bill is certainly not the solution
    for the current problem.
        Again, the CDC is offering employers to offer flexible
    policies, and that goes with what our members tell us all the
    time. They need flexibility more so now than ever before.
        Mr. Byrne. So looking at H.R. 1784, do you think it will
    restrict the flexibility the businesses need to deal with this
    issue?
        Ms. Milito. Yeah, absolutely it would. I mean, Dr. Glynn
    talked about, you know, different policies and, again, that is
    going back to kind of a siloed leave approach, and we are
    seeing that our members have moved away from that. The paid
    time off policy is what works for their businesses; less
    recordkeeping, not, you know, tracking every day off and
    requiring doctors' notes and requiring notices and requiring an
    updated employee handbook. That is not what they need right
    now.
        They want sick employees to stay home. That is what I am
    hearing from our members.
        Mr. Byrne. Your testimony highlights how small employers
    use benefits such as paid sick leave to compete for workers.
    How would H.R. 1784's restrictive mandate inhibit a small
    employer's ability to attract and retain workers?
        Ms. Milito. Well, it may not be the intention of the bill,
    but the Healthy Families Act would disrupt current employer-
    paid leave offerings. And as I have said time and time again,
    the majority of small businesses, the majority of employers do
    offer paid leave, and this would really upset what they have
    right now.
        For example, if an employer's existing paid leave policy
    fails to meet all of the requirements of the act, the
    employer's plan would need to be amended to comply with the
    Healthy Families Act. In addition, it is unclear how the paid
    sick requirements in the bill would impact PTO plans. Would
    those still be permitted? Because, again, they are not the
    siloed different compartment things. And more and more
    employers each year are offering PTO plans in lieu of other
    employer-paid leave programs. It would just really hinder the
    flexibility.
        Congress should build on progress that is being made by
    offering incentives to employers to do more, not risk the
    unintended consequence of this bill, which loads on more
    mandates, recordkeeping, and costs.
        Mr. Byrne. Ms. Milito, supporters of H.R. 1784 claim it
    excludes employers who are currently offering paid sick leave
    to their employees from the paid sick leave mandate, so that if
    an employer has a paid sick leave policy in place, this bill
    will have no impact on the business owner. Do you believe that
    to be the case?
        Ms. Milito. Not at all. First of all, the act does not
    supersede any of the state or local laws that provide for
    greater paid sick time or leave rights. So it is going to still
    force employers to comply with this patchwork quilt that is
    existing with the 22, you know, municipalities that we have
    heard about from the other witnesses here today.
        I say in essence it would require an employer to start from
    scratch, to take the onion apart. Here is what we have, here is
    what, you know, our municipality is doing, here is what our
    state is doing, here is what our employers tell us--our
    employees tell us they want. So peeling the onion apart and
    then putting the layers back together, it really stinks.
        Mr. Byrne. Yeah, I agree with that. You know, I remember
    back when the Congress passed the Family Medical Leave Act, it
    was as if they had completely forgotten that they had
    previously passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. And when
    they passed that, they completely forgot that there are state
    worker's compensation laws out there. So onions are all over
    the place.
        We have a specific crisis right now. And it seems to me,
    and I think what I hear you saying is your members, the
    businesses in America, want to be a part of the solution. These
    are their employees, their customers. They can't operate if
    they can't get control on this. And by putting this mandate on
    them, we have actually taken a serious crisis and made it
    worse. And I don't think that is what Congress should be doing.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    California, Mr. Takano, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams, for this very
    critical hearing on the need for a universal paid sick leave
    program.
        The United States is lagging behind the majority of
    industrialized nations that have some form of paid sick leave.
    As has been noted, about 32 million people lack access to paid
    sick days. In the wake of the spread of COVID-19, it is
    extremely important that people stay home to reduce the spread
    of the virus.
        Unfortunately, workers and their families cannot afford to
    stay home. There has been extensive reporting that low-wage
    workers and those with frequent contact with the public are
    more likely to go to work while sick because they are less
    likely to have access to any form of paid sick leave. Missing a
    few days of work without pay is the equivalent of a family
    losing their monthly budget for food and healthcare.
        In the absence of a Federal law, several cities and states
    have enacted different laws requiring paid sick days.
        Ms. Goldman, my first question is for you. What impact have
    these laws at the state and local level had on overall public
    health and the local economies?
        Ms. Goldman. The impact--thank you, Congressman Takano. The
    impact has been very helpful. Where we have state and local
    laws that have passed--states and localities that have passed
    paid sick days, one study has shown significant reductions in
    flu-like infection rates. In a study of San Francisco, after
    their ordinance was passed, a quarter of employees reported
    that paid sick days improved their ability to care for their
    and their family's health, with particular benefits for Black,
    Latinx, and low-wage workers. In addition, the San Francisco
    study reflected that parent with paid sick days were less
    likely to send their sick children to school, improving those
    children's health, as well as the health of their classmates
    and teachers.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you for that answer. How has job growth
    and employment been impacted in the various cities and states
    that have instituted paid sick day laws?
        Ms. Goldman. The studies of economic impact have showed
    that the existing sick days laws benefit employers and
    employees, and have not harmed jobs or growth. The Institute
    for Women's Policy Research estimates that employers will
    actually save money in addition to public health savings. For
    example, in Massachusetts, they expect the law there to save
    employers close to $50 million annually.
        After San Francisco's law was passed, their study of San
    Francisco showed that the percentage growth in civilian
    employment was strong and exceeded the average growth of
    surrounding counties. And I will just note that Seattle and
    D.C. auditors have also done studies that showed that the laws
    did not discourage businesses from locating in those
    jurisdictions.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Ms. Goldman. Today the World Health
    Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Dr. Glynn, in
    your written testimony you stated that, ``Research on the 2009
    H1N1 pandemic estimated that an additional 5 million people
    contracted the virus due the lack of workplace policies like
    paid sick days.'' What impact, Dr. Glynn, would a Federal
    policy requiring paid sick days have on public health and the
    spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19?
        Dr. Glynn. So while it's obviously too early to have
    figures like we have looking in hindsight to the H1N1 epidemic,
    there is a tremendous amount of evidence that indicates this
    would be a really vital public policy intervention to help
    spread--to help halt the spread of the disease.
        You know, the CDC is calling for people to practice self-
    quarantine, to practice social distancing, and that is very
    difficult to do when you still have to report to work. So by
    covering the millions of workers who currently do not have
    access to paid sick days, we can ensure that they are able to
    stay home when they need to recover themselves and to reduce
    the spread of contagion.
        Again, we don't have exact figures that we can put on to
    that right now, but we are talking about literally millions of
    people right now who are having to make that trade-off between
    paying their bills and being able to stay safe.
        Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. As Congress continues to
    develop its response to COVID-19, why is it important to ensure
    that workers have access to sick days now and also have access
    to paid sick days under the Healthy Families Act?
        Dr. Glynn. So I think an emergency response is important to
    ensure that people can start staying home immediately if that
    is what their medical providers are recommending to them. So an
    earned sick time proposal like the Healthy Families Act is not
    going to help someone who needs to stay home tomorrow if it is
    not already in place. But like I said earlier, we need to be
    thinking towards the future, as well. We can't always be trying
    to play catch-up. And so by passing something like the Healthy
    Families Act today we can help to stave off future epidemics
    and pandemics that may be coming.
        Mr. Takano. Wow. Thank you, Dr. Glynn.
        The Healthy Families Act is commonsense policy. While paid
    sick days are especially critical to workers as we respond to
    COVID-19, it will be necessary for workers across this country
    to still have access to paid sick leave once the pandemic is
    over.
        Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time, Madam
    Chair.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I will yield 5
    minutes to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Wright, you are
    recognized.
        Mr. Wright. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, to hear the
    other side you would think that small businesses are ignoring
    the needs of the workers, and we know that is not true. Because
    they know that without healthy workers, they don't have a
    business.
        But what is really entertaining to me is to hear over and
    over again people on the other side saying that the United
    States is lagging behind. The United States is lagging behind
    other countries. we are lagging behind the rest of the world,
    when just the opposite is true. Because the rest of the world
    is lagging behind the United States. They are lagging behind
    the United States in economic growth and job growth. There is a
    reason for that.
        Do we really want to be like Europe? Do we want to really
    be like South America? Because every time we go down this road
    with more government mandates, it always sounds great, it
    always sounds wonderful, and there is always a downside. And
    quite often that downside is an economic downside of fewer jobs
    or a loss of jobs.
        Ms. Milito, if this were enacted what type of business,
    specifically, would be hurt by it most?
        Ms. Milito. In talking to our members and in surveying our
    members in jurisdictions where paid leave mandates have passed
    and been imposed, it is clearly restaurants, retail, those with
    turnover, seasonal, are hardest hit with this. And it is the
    administrative costs and the headaches that come with this.
        Ranking Member Byrne mentioned the Family Medical Leave
    Act. Laudable goal. Started as, I think, a 12-page document
    there. And then, the next thing you know, we have 200-plus
    pages of regulations now of FMLA.
        Mr. Wright. Right.
        Ms. Milito. I talk to businesses all the time that look at
    50 as kind of mark they don't want to reach because of the
    headaches, the recordkeeping, the cost associated with the
    FMLA. So the administrative costs are real. I hear about them.
    We see them in our survey data.
        Mr. Wright. So the regulation data itself is preventing
    growth in those businesses because they don't want to encounter
    that administrative burden?
        Ms. Milito. Exactly.
        Mr. Wright. Thank you and 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 Chairwoman. Let me just start by
    saying that I have the utmost respect for small and independent
    business owners. I truly do believe that they are the backbone
    of our communities. And I always weigh decisions on things like
    this in terms of how it will affect those smaller businesses.
        But, at the same time, I am deeply concerned that we are
    the only highly developed country without a paid sick leave
    policy. I think there are significant public health
    considerations and we are right in middle of one now, as
    several people here have observed.
        And I just want to start, Ms. Milito, with, you know, your
    testimony, your written testimony, talks about how a one-size-
    fits-all policy doesn't work and that it is not fair to smaller
    businesses. But my concern is that if we don't have a one-size-
    fits-all employers standard for paid sick leave in this
    country, how do we reassure the public in times like these?
        Let me just give you an example. If the public doesn't have
    confidence that the small business deli down the street has a
    paid sick leave policy, I would suggest to you that what is
    going to happen, especially in times like this where we are in
    a period of people having fear of going out in public and
    patronizing businesses, what you are going to have is that
    people are going to stay away from that small deli because they
    are going to think, well, I don't know if their employees are
    going to work sick or not. They might just stay away
    altogether.
        You identified the industries that would be hardest hit as
    restaurants and retail, among others. And I would suggest to
    you that those are exactly the businesses that people will not
    patronize because of fear of encountering sick workers who are
    there on the job. Whereas if we had some sort of national paid
    leave policy, people could be reassured that the people they
    are encountering in their local deli, in their restaurant, in
    their store are healthy because they wouldn't be at work
    otherwise.
        I want to just talk for a moment, and I know you place
    great reliance on honest and fair employers, I wrote a couple
    quotes down, who encourage--we need to be encouraging
    employers, we need flexibility. You said we need to offer
    incentives to employers to do more. But, you know, that doesn't
    seem to always work.
        One of the examples I would give you is that in 2017, when
    the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, which gave corporations
    large tax cuts, as we know, with the idea being that those tax
    cuts would be put back into the workers' pockets, what happened
    instead is that we have ended up funding dividends to
    shareholders and increased executive pay and we haven't seen
    that money going back into the workers' pockets. So I don't
    know that incentives to employers are enough.
        One of the things I would just like to address in your
    written testimony, you state that most small employers, and you
    say 73 percent of them, ``offer paid time off to the majority
    of their full-time employees and 67 percent of them offer 2
    weeks or more of leave.'' Well, first of all, I just want to--
    your only citation in your written testimony is to a poll
    conducted by your organization of small--of independent
    business owners. It is a self-reporting poll, correct? So it
    relies on the employer to give truthful answers, right?
        Ms. Milito. It is an NFIB Research Foundation poll.
        Ms. Wild. And NFIB is the organization that you work for,
    correct?
        Ms. Milito. That is correct.
        Ms. Wild. So those statistics, assuming that they are
    correct and that they were properly self-reported, don't
    account for any part-time employees, true?
        Ms. Milito. No, that is not true. I think you read that
    there--the majority of employers offered leave. I am sorry, I
    missed your quote there.
        Ms. Wild. Well, your--
        Ms. Milito. But I think it might--
        Ms. Wild. Your quote--
        Ms. Milito. I think our--yeah.
        Ms. Wild. The quote from your report was, ``Most small
    employers, 73 percent, offer PTO to the majority of their full-
    time employees.'' Okay? So can we agree that part-time workers
    are becoming more and more prevalent in our economy today?
        Ms. Milito. I can't speak to the numbers of part-time
    versus full-time workers there.
        Ms. Wild. But you--
        Ms. Milito. But what I can tell you is that the majority of
    NFIB members and small businesses as a whole offer paid time
    off. And Ms. Johnson I think used about the same number.
        Ms. Wild. Well, when you say ``the majority--''
        Ms. Milito. The 73 percent to match there.
        Ms. Wild.--you say 73 percent, to full-time employees. But
    those statistics don't account for part-time employees. And we
    know from your own numbers that 27 percent of small employers,
    27 percent, a quarter, more than a quarter, do not offer paid
    sick leave to the majority of their full-time employees. Right?
        Ms. Milito. What I can say is--
        Ms. Wild. Using your statistics.
        Ms. Milito.--if a business can afford to offer paid leave,
    it is a great benefit and my members tell me that. They would
    like to offer paid leave and those that do not, I said in my
    opening statement, mandates come with a cost and not all small
    businesses can afford this mandate, the mandate of paid leave.
    And that is the fact of the matter. I mean, it is Economics
    101. I wish they all could, but they cannot.
        Chairwoman Adams. The gentlelady is out of time.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you. My time is up. I yield.
        Chairwoman Adams. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline,
    you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Milito, I appreciate
    you recognizing in your testimony there is no one-size-fits-all
    policy that works for every business or industry. It is that
    very reason that we should be cautious as lawmakers of creating
    reactionary policies that result in stifling business.
        You hear about the businesses that would be happy or are
    happy to provide that leave. They have that option. You don't
    hear about the businesses that are unhappy when they are
    required to provide that leave because they are not in
    existence. They have closed up shop because they can't shoulder
    the burdens that come with being mandated to provide that
    leave.
        Many small businesses exist because the owners were tired
    of the bureaucracy they faced with rigid workplace policies.
    These entrepreneurs wanted to take matters into their own hands
    and create an opportunity in which they can allow employees to
    customize benefit packages that work for them. Lawmakers should
    not take that away from them.
        In my home state of Virginia, we have 1.5 million people
    who are employed by small businesses with small businesses
    having an average size of 10 employees. In fact, 99.5 percent
    of Virginia businesses are small businesses. They have a
    significant impact on the economy with an average of $500,000
    in gross sales per year and are a large part of what makes
    local communities so vibrant. And I am continuing to look for
    ways to empower businesses to give more choices to their
    employees.
        Unfortunately, what we have seen over the last General
    Assembly session in Virginia is a step backward from those
    policies that have made Virginia the best state in the country
    in which to do business or to open a small business or to run a
    small business. The number one state as ranked by CNBC in the
    entire country. But the policies that we have adopted, make no
    mistake, this is a point of inflection in Virginia's rankings.
    And I worry that the policies that have been adopted over the
    past 2 months in Virginia are going to result in our rankings
    being driven down, businesses locating in Virginia less, few
    businesses opening in Virginia, and more businesses closing.
        I had frantic small business owners messaging me directly
    as these policies were being debated, assuring me that they
    would have to close if the bills passed. Now, not all of them
    did pass. We retained our right to work law, thankfully. But a
    number of others did and we can't make those same mistakes at
    the Federal level.
        Ms. Milito, does the inflexibility of H.R. 1784's
    proscriptive mandate limit a small employer's ability to offer
    other benefits that their employees may prefer, such as a pay
    increase or flexible paid time off banks?
        Ms. Milito. It does. I mean, I think when we poll our
    members they oppose mandates because of the assumption that
    every business of any type can afford to offer the same sort of
    benefits as larger companies, and that is just not so. And in
    the long run, as you are hearing from your friends who own
    businesses in Virginia, in the long run if a company can't
    sustain a benefits plan, especially a mandated benefits plan,
    it is ultimately going to hurt the workers because what is
    going to happen, the business is going to end up shutting its
    door.
        And that is what, unfortunately, we are seeing now in
    Seattle. It was in the Seattle Times yesterday, I mean, a list
    of restaurants that have now closed. And one of the business
    owners said, you know, it was already a difficult climate in
    Seattle to operate a small business, and that is what I fear
    will happen, especially in some of the municipalities that have
    already mandated leave benefits.
        Mr. Cline. Paid sick leave is obviously not a free benefit
    for employees. Can you discuss how paid leave benefits in
    general figure into the cost of an employee's compensation?
        Ms. Milito. In talking with members, you know, when they
    get hit with a mandate, decisions are made. You know, are we
    going to continue to offer, you know, our bucket of PTO? Does
    that comply? No, maybe not.
        If they are--you know, if they hit the threshold and they
    are offering paid leave, then, you know, things--real decisions
    are made. Are we going to cut bonuses? Are we going to hire
    fewer employees so we don't meet the threshold if there is a
    threshold? Are we going to stop sponsoring the Little League?
    This is coming from a real business owner. If we are a
    restaurant, are we no longer going to offer staff meals? Things
    like that. Some of them are perks, but some of them are very
    real. The Christmas bonuses, cutting out overtime, hard
    decisions that a business is going to have to make in order to
    determine, you know, how can we comply and pay for this
    mandate?
        Mr. Cline. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I recognize the
    gentleman from Virginia, chair of the Education and Labor
    Committee. Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Glynn, what would happen if we
    don't consider this as an emergency and figure out how to get
    everybody access to paid sick leave?
        Dr. Glynn. Well, I think there are a couple of things that
    will happen if we continue to see high levels of workers
    without access to paid sick days. One is that we should
    anticipate seeing higher levels of contagion because people
    will, out of economic necessity, continue to go to work when
    they are sick. That is likely to be especially true among the
    low-wage workforce and the service sector. And those are folks
    who are likely to be in direct contact with the public as part
    of their work. So we should absolutely anticipate more people
    will get sick as a result of a lack of paid sick days.
        The other thing that we should be thinking about in the
    context of a public health emergency are the macroeconomic
    effects. So right now we are seeing already a combination of
    reduced labor supply because people are out sick. Even if they
    don't have sick time, they may just have to stay home because
    they are simply too ill to leave or because they are
    quarantining themselves in concurrence with the CDC
    recommendations. We are also seeing reduced demand for goods
    and services, particularly as people are practicing social
    distancing.
        So we are starting to see macroeconomic effects as a result
    of this. Having people forced to take unpaid sick time and
    seeing a dramatic drop in their income is only going to
    exacerbate those effects.
        So there are sort of two pieces that we should be thinking
    about here and both are equally important. One is about the
    physical health of our communities and making sure that we are
    addressing the pandemic and addressing people's public health.
    But the other is thinking about the health of our local
    economies and making sure that folks have money to put in their
    pockets. Because the fact that you have gotten COVID-19 does
    not mean that your bills stop needing to be paid, so we should
    be thinking about these two pieces in tandem as we address this
    current pandemic.
        Mr. Scott. If we provide legislation for coronavirus-
    specific problems, what elements should be in that kind of
    bill?
        Dr. Glynn. So I think it is incredibly important when we
    are thinking about public health in the context of a global
    pandemic to make sure you are covering all workers. Any type of
    carve-out from a public health perspective simply does not make
    sense.
        You are also going to want to be thinking about the level
    of wage replacement. So paid sick days traditionally pay the
    same amount that you would earn if you were working. And I
    think that, in contrast, is something like unemployment
    insurance, which has a much lower level of wage replacement
    because they are incentivizing people to return to work as
    quickly as possible. You don't want to incentivize people to
    return to work too soon under these circumstances.
        So universal coverage is very important. A high level of
    wage replacement is incredibly important and making sure the
    benefit is easy to access for folks. You don't want it to be
    overly administratively burdensome either for leave-takers or
    for their employers. So trying to figure out the most
    efficient, cost-effective, and timely way to get these benefits
    out I think is going to some of the most important thins to
    keep in mind.
        Mr. Scott. What are some of the ways that the benefits can
    be done with less logistical problems?
        Dr. Glynn. You know, I would need to spend a little bit
    more time thinking about that before I gave an on-the-record
    recommendation. I know things are moving very quickly and I
    know there are a lot of people who are thinking about this, but
    we should be trying to figure out--
        Mr. Scott. Well, one of the things we are talking about are
    tax credits to businesses that are for which we impose the
    mandate. Would that be something that could be quickly
    accessed?
        Dr. Glynn. I think it would just depend exactly on how that
    was structured. Certainly, there do need to be supports,
    particularly for small businesses. This is--it is right to note
    that this is different than traditional paid sick days where
    you are talking about an extended length of leave and
    potentially your entire workforce being out at the same time.
    So having that economic support for businesses is going to be
    very important.
        You know, my concern would be, with a tax credit, when is
    that money actually going to hit your account? When are you
    going to see that? To what extent would that be refundable? I
    think there is a lot of detailed questions that would need to
    be answered to figure out if a tax credit for employers as
    reimbursement is the most efficient way to get that money back
    to them.
        Mr. Scott. Can you think of any more efficient way?
        Dr. Glynn. I mean, I think direct transfers to the extent
    that is possible. But, again, I feel uncomfortable talking off
    the cuff right now. I would need to spend a little bit more
    time. But I am happy to follow up with you or anyone else from
    the committee to think through some of those details.
        Mr. Scott. As quick as you can. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. The gentlelady from North
    Carolina--
        Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, can I ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record a letter from Moms Rising dated today in
    support of family medical leave?
        Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Adams. The gentlelady from North Carolina,
    Ranking Member of Education and Labor Dr. Foxx, you are
    recognized.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank the
    witnesses for being here today.
        Ms. Milito, H.R. 1784 allows employers with fewer than 15
    employees to opt out of the paid sick leave mandate, but still
    requires them to provide an equal amount of unpaid leave. Why
    is H.R. 1784's opt-out provision misleading and how would it
    impact small employers? Would these employers also be subject
    to onerous compliance requirements?
        Ms. Milito. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. So while the bill does
    exempt businesses with fewer than 15 employees from offering
    paid leave, it would require all employers to offer unpaid
    leave and it would require all businesses to make, keep, and
    preserve records pertaining to compliance with the act and to
    potentially make submissions on an annual basis.
        Moreover, employers of all sizes would be subject to the
    same enforcement penalty and liability provisions, which are
    pretty significant.
        And no Main Street enterprise alone or collectively can
    match the resources, I would argue, of the U.S. Department of
    Labor, whose charge is to conduct audits and ensure compliance.
    So that is a real concern for small businesses is, you know,
    DOL knocking at their door and asking for records related to
    this act when they don't have an H.R. person.
        Ms. Foxx. Well, you mentioned that earlier in your
    testimony what--and as a former small business owner, I am very
    well aware, and my daughter runs our business now, she does
    H.R., she does everything because it is such a small business.
    And I am certainly well aware of what these kinds of things
    would do to her, especially a business that is seasonal. When
    you are in the nursery and landscaping business, it is
    seasonal. And you have to do everything you can to try to get
    the work in when the weather is good. It is a major challenge
    to be able to work only when the weather will allow you to do
    that. And you mentioned farmers earlier, and I can see that
    happening.
        Ms. Milito, as Congress considers additional steps to
    address COVID-19 in the workplace, supporters of H.R. 1784 and
    similar proscriptive employer mandates argue the Federal
    Government should force all employers to provide dictated
    benefits. Why should Congress think twice about imposing a one-
    size-fits-all mandate on small businesses, especially under
    current circumstances?
        And I even wonder why in the world we need to ask that
    question because anybody with any common sense would know we
    shouldn't be doing that. But, please, give us your response.
        Ms. Milito. Right. So February was another historically
    strong month for the small business economy. This was under our
    Small Business Economic Trends Survey, so we don't have any
    data from the current, you know, the current period right now.
        So it is worth noting, again, that the responses were
    collected prior to the escalation of the coronavirus outbreak.
    So business, you know, was good, but the outbreak remains a big
    unknown and we are collecting data. And until we know, we are
    actually going to be releasing a survey, that we took over the
    last couple of days, tomorrow. And until we know how this is
    impacting our membership, we aren't in a position to talk about
    remedies or what will work or what our members need right now
    because we just don't know. And it is so dependent on where
    they are, what industry they are in. Are they in travel? Are
    they in restaurants? Boy, we are hearing from those members.
    But in other industries, you know, we just haven't heard from
    them yet.
        So, again, it is not the time to make a rash decision. I
    think we all need to come together. This is kind of an all
    hands on deck, come together. And we are eager to see any
    bipartisan proposals that might be introduced to support small
    business and employees.
        Ms. Foxx. Well, you have spoken to the issue of fines,
    penalties, potential litigation, the many hats that a small
    business owner has to wear. Is there anything we haven't asked
    you related to penalties, fines, recordkeeping that should be
    additionally highlighted as it comes not just to small
    businesses, but particularly to small businesses since you are
    from NFIB, but for other businesses, too?
        Ms. Milito. Yeah. I mean, the list of the legal and
    enforcement provisions contained in the Healthy Families Act is
    daunting, particularly if you are a small business owner. So
    for your daughter it would be very daunting, who doesn't have
    the time or expertise to make heads or tails of a statute and
    presumably the regulation that would be forthcoming from DOL,
    which is going to be, you know, long, you know.
        You know, small business owners don't have time to read
    regulations, 50, 100-page, 200-page FMLA regulations. And it
    gives the Department of Labor, the Secretary, a tremendous
    amount of enforcement authority there. So it is concerning from
    the perspective of a representative of the small business
    community. They need to be concerned.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I will recognize now the
    gentlelady from Georgia. Ms. McBath, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I seek
    unanimous consent to submit two letters into the record: one
    from UnidosUS and the other from the YWCA, which outline why
    paid sick leave is necessary for our country.
        Chairwoman Adams. Without objection.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
    you to all the witnesses that are here today. This is really a
    very, very timely hearing today.
        And I just want to say that, you know, we understand that
    paid sick leave is just absolutely necessary for a thriving and
    modern economy. Creating a framework for paid sick leave is
    essential for building a fair and equitable society. It is
    important that we are gathered here today to find some
    effective solutions and a pathway forward.
        I just spent a few moments today earlier talking with the
    members of the airline community, which I worked for 30 years,
    and then also small businesses. And I can assure you they are
    very, very concerned about making sure that people have access
    to paid sick leave.
        And we are seeing that the spread of COVID-19, the virus no
    one is immune to, caring for themselves or a loved one during
    this medical crisis, when unprotected workers come down with an
    illness it is vital that all of us are able to be able to take
    the time that we need should we succumb to this virus. Under
    current law over 30 million workers are not eligible for paid
    sick leave, forcing many of these individuals to choose between
    their health or their economic security. And no one should ever
    have to lose their job, forced to lose their job, or sacrifice
    their health simply because they or a loved one are sick. And
    this is a protection that we would all want if we were faced
    with being in this similar situation.
        We should all have a vested support--vested interest in
    supporting our workers and allowing them to take the time they
    need to care for themselves or for one another. We know that
    paid sick leave can have a cascade of positive effects on our
    health and economic wellbeing for the Nation.
        Dr. Glynn and Ms. Goldman, I would like to ask you how does
    the lack of paid sick days impact children's health? I want to
    talk about specifically how there is an impact on our
    children's health.
        Ms. Goldman. So we know that almost a third of parents lack
    access to paid sick days, which clearly has implications for
    the children's health. In focus groups parents will actually
    report making the difficult decision to send children to child
    care or school sick and give them Motrin and hope they make it
    through the day. But we know that with paid sick days parents
    are much more likely, understandably, to stay home when their
    child is sick.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you.
        Dr. Glynn. And I would also note on top of that, that we
    know that when people lack access to paid sick days they are
    both more likely to forego medical care for themselves, but
    also for their family members. So children whose parents don't
    have access to paid sick days are less likely to receive
    routine medical appointments, like they are supposed to. And we
    also know they are less likely to receive vaccinations,
    including flu vaccinations, when their parents can't take that
    paid time off to take them to the doctor.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you for your answers. And protecting the
    health of our children should always be our top priority.
        When I came to Washington, I knew that I wanted to pursue
    policies that actually have positive effects for all of my
    constituents and for Americans at large. And I believe that
    paid sick leave is one of those policies that helps both
    employees and our employers.
        And we also know that there is a significant cost
    associated with employees when they are working while sick.
    Some estimates show that a national economy spends over $200
    billion annually in lost productivity and has an outsized
    impact on our small businesses.
        Ms. Johnson, how would the Healthy Families Act support our
    small businesses?
        Ms. Johnson. The Healthy Families Act will support our
    small businesses in numerous ways. One, we would help our lower
    wage workers have some sort of floor or safe net. Right? They
    will be able to then take their children to the doctor when
    they need to. They will be able to go to the doctor themselves
    when they need to. It would be able to help the small business
    be more productive because when they are going to work and they
    are not feeling well, they are not going to be able to produce.
    So the productivity of the organization is going to fail be
    they are going to be more engaged in I am not feeling well. I
    am not feeling well, and telling their coworkers and
    potentially passing on their illness to other coworkers.
        So ensuring that we have some sort of safety net where
    people are able to take care of themselves means that we will
    have happier employees and happier employees, you are able to
    have happier employment situations.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much. And I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. We will yield to Ms. Stevens,
    the gentlelady from Michigan. You have 5 minutes.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our
    witnesses.
        We are having this hearing on paid family sick leave under
    the pretense of a pandemic. And it was just reported that in
    Italy they have seen a 30 percent increase since yesterday in
    fatalities. And this is most certainly a somber time and a time
    that begets the conversation that we are having and that each
    of your bring forward with your testimonies as we seek the best
    set of economic solutions not only for the health of our own
    country, but for the future health of our country.
        And, Ms. Johnson, I am incredibly struck by your
    organization and your work in particular, representing the
    businesses that you represent and the work that Main Street
    Alliance has done. I am deeply appreciative of the work of the
    National Partnership for Women and Families, as well, that has
    always helped us here in Congress with these topics and
    particularly with paid family leave.
        And I was wondering, given that I helped launch the Women
    in STEM Caucus and there has been such a big conversation
    around diversity inclusion and minority ownership of
    businesses. If you wouldn't mind speaking about those
    perspectives, as well, and how paid family leave help women of
    color. I have spent a lot of time in Michigan, partnering with
    a group called Mothering Justice. They are another one of our
    advocates for this topic. And it is certainly so important to
    talk about women of color and how they are affected by lack of
    paid sick leave.
        Ms. Johnson. Yeah, definitely. And I will definitely open
    this up to my national partnership organizations that we work
    with.
        Ms. Stevens. Everyone is welcome to try, ma'am.
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, yes, yes. Because it is not just one
    organization, it is all of us. And diversity and inclusion
    means that we are all included in it.
        And our small business owners, we see that they definitely
    know that it is a burden sometimes for those who are low-
    income, low-wage workers to not have these benefits. Right?
    Because they are not able to just take off when they need to
    and take care of themselves. Because, again, like I mentioned
    earlier healthier families, you know, means healthier work
    environments, as well. Especially with those communities of
    color, we see that there is a larger amount of those that have
    not received those benefits.
        And so it stays in a system, in a cycle where if you're low
    wage and you aren't able to take off, you are more likely to
    quite your job. Right? Then that employer has to find a new
    employee, retention, training, and hiring that new employee
    then, it costs more money. So on both sides of the coin having
    the support of legislation would be great because it would help
    those low-wage, low-income communities of color more
    efficiently.
        Ms. Stevens. Dr. Glynn, I know CAP has done a lot of great
    work on this, as well.
        Dr. Glynn. Yeah. So I did a research project a few years
    back using a nationally representative dataset and one of the
    most striking findings that came out of that was that even when
    you controlled for a whole host of factors--age, gender,
    marital status, presence of children, health, the types of job
    that one had, their income--Latinx workers were statistically
    significantly less likely to have access to paid sick days. So
    compared to their colleagues that they were identical in all
    other factors with, the fact of being Latinx made you less
    likely to having access to paid sick leave.
        And so I think that points to why we do need to have
    interventions to help level the playing field because clearly
    the market is not taking care of this issue on its own when you
    can see those kinds of disparities.
        Ms. Stevens. And also very similar to raising the minimum
    wage, which is a conversation that we are having at all times
    here in this Congress and certainly legislation that we have
    passed. But you see a lot of those similarities, as well.
        With the remaining, Ms. Goldman, you want to chime in?
        Ms. Goldman. Yeah. I just wanted to add, also, that I know
    right now we are talking about passing the law, but the
    implementation and enforcement is critical, also. What they
    found in San Francisco after they passed their paid sick leave
    ordinance is that most employers were in compliance. But for
    those that were not, it was most affecting Black workers, low-
    wage workers, and Latinx workers. So part of it is the
    implementation and enforcement and ensuring the technical
    assistance so all businesses can comply with the law.
        Ms. Stevens. For equality. Well, thank you so much. And
    Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
    the gentlelady from Oregon. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes, ma'am.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Adams and Ranking
    Member Byrne. And thank you to all of our witnesses today.
        I represent Northwest Oregon, and I hear from restaurant
    workers and retail clerks, social service providers, child care
    workers, they struggle. They struggle to address their own
    medical needs or the medical needs of their family members,
    their children, without fear of losing their jobs and wages.
    And it is, of course, only exacerbated by the coronavirus
    epidemic which we are facing. And very timely to have this
    hearing now.
        Healthcare workers like Destiny in Oregon, she works in a
    long-term care facility. She said, ``I would be hesitant to
    tell anyone I was feeling sick. I can't afford to miss paying
    my bills.'' And she added, ``People will continue to work while
    sick and risk exposing residents, as well as other healthcare
    workers, to the coronavirus.''
        Fortunately, in Oregon, most workers have access to
    protected sick leave. And for the majority of workers that sick
    time is paid. I want to note that I have heard from small
    businesses, businesses, but also small businesses, in Oregon
    that the sick leave law is good for their business and it is
    good for the economy. And, Ms. Johnson, I know you mentioned
    Jim Houser in your testimony.
        And my mother was a small business owner. My first job was
    in a small business. I understand the importance of small
    businesses, but truly, across the country far too many workers
    do not have access to paid sick days. So as we continue here in
    Congress to coordinate our response to the coronavirus and as
    communities continue to face more common short-term illnesses,
    like the cold or the flu, we absolutely need to do all we can
    to make access to paid sick and safe days a priority.
        So I am pleased to support the Healthy Families Act and the
    Paid Sick Days for Public Health Emergencies and Personal
    Family Care Act to help make sure that all workers have access
    to protected sick leave without losing wages or their job.
        And I have to say, as a mother and a policymaker I know no
    parent should have to make that decision between losing their
    job and taking care of a child.
        Dr. Glynn and Ms. Goldman, what are the individual and
    public health consequences when workers do not have paid sick
    leave and they go to work when they or their family member is
    sick? What are the public health consequences, Dr. Glynn?
        Dr. Glynn. Yeah. I mean, I think the example you just gave
    about someone who is working in a long-term care facility
    really highlights how important these policies are because that
    is someone who is directly interacting with the most medically
    vulnerable folks, particularly given the context we are in
    right now, but always. Right.
        Ms. Bonamici. Right, always.
        Dr. Glynn. And I am not being hyperbolic when I say people
    have died because of the lack of paid sick days. Right? I mean,
    some of this we can document. So like I mentioned before, the
    American Public Health Association has said that 1,500 deaths
    during the H1N1 epidemic can be traced back to people going to
    work when they were sick and contagious.
        But it goes beyond that, as well, because we also know that
    people who lack access to paid sick days are much less likely
    to go to the doctor and they are much less likely to access
    preventative care, so things like colonoscopies and mammograms.
    Right?
        Ms. Bonamici. Right.
        Dr. Glynn. And so what we often see if this uptick in
    emergency room usage among people who lack access to paid sick
    days. Some of that is a scheduling conflict--
        Ms. Bonamici. Right, right.
        Dr. Glynn.--because the emergency room's open, but some of
    that is also because, and we have documentation of this,
    although it is hard to study at a large scale, that folks will
    let their medical condition go until it is too late or until it
    is much more serious than it might have been otherwise. So that
    has negative impacts on the individual's health and their
    family's health.
        Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. I want to hear real quickly from
    Ms. Goldman, too.
        Ms. Goldman. I agree with everything Dr. Glynn said.
        Ms. Bonamici. Perfect.
        Ms. Goldman. But I would just note, I mean, it starts very
    early in life. So women are less likely to--to delay the
    prenatal care they need if they don't have access to paid sick
    days. They are less likely to be able to take their new babies
    to the eight recommended well baby visits, not to mention
    babies and toddlers get sick until their appointments after
    that. So very early in life we are seeing these multiplier
    effects of not having a paid sick days policy.
        Ms. Bonamici. And in my remaining time, Ms. Johnson, we
    know that workers without access to paid sick leave are
    disproportionately low-wage workers and workers of color. Why
    should there be a Federal standard for paid sick days separate
    from like vacation time or flex time? Why should that Federal
    standard be a floor rather than preempt stronger state laws?
        Ms. Johnson. Yeah. We believe that there should be a floor
    because if a state is already doing it and implementing it,
    great, but just make sure it is the floor. It will be the
    standard so that there is a baseline that people can then look
    up to and say, all right, this state is doing this, and maybe
    that will be competition for the small businesses to have more
    people coming to work for them.
        There are other opportunities for us to see growth here,
    right, when we have this baseline. And we want to make sure
    that our small business owners are able to be successful. And
    having this benefit makes them more competitive with larger
    businesses in their community, as well.
        Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you so much. And my time is
    about to expire. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. We will yield 5
    minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwoman. I am so glad we are here
    discussing this topic today. And I very much appreciate the
    testimony of our witnesses and all that you have all shared,
    though I have to admit I have long been convinced by the case
    for universal access to paid sick leave and feel like it is
    finally time to stop debating the policy and just pass this
    life-changing law already.
        So instead of asking questions to our witnesses to
    elaborate on their testimony, instead I would like to use this
    time to share some of the stories that have me so convinced
    that we need to implement a national sick leave program.
    Stories from Minnesotans like Donna. Donna works two part-time
    jobs, neither of which offer her paid sick days. Like many
    Americans, Donna has ongoing healthcare struggles. Over the
    last 2 years alone, she has had to leave three--she had to have
    three different surgeries. And without access to sick days
    Donna has had no choice but to miss work while she was in the
    hospital and in recovery. That means that she has lost out on
    over 3 months of pay. Meanwhile, her medical bills are piling
    up.
        I would also like to tell the story of another constituent
    of mine, Katherine. As a working mother, Katherine finds
    herself choosing between the only three options she has when
    her kids get sick: lose a day's pay to stay home, send her
    children to school no matter how sick they might be, or forcing
    one of her older children to stay at home from school to look
    after their siblings. If Katherine had paid sick days, she
    wouldn't have to choose between those three absurd options next
    time one of her kids is under the weather. No mother should be
    able--no mother should be forced to sacrifice a paycheck to
    care for an ill child.
        I would also like to share one last story from Marion.
    Marion works full time as a registered nurse in a Minnesota
    hospital while raising a young family of four. Marion is only
    allowed 3 paid sick days per year. Working in an emergency room
    she has had high exposure to illnesses and, given her role as a
    caretaker, it is critical that she is not only ill while
    looking after already vulnerable patients. But how can she
    afford to do that with only 3 paid sick days? Any parent in
    this room could attest to the fact that when you are raising a
    family of four, 3 days is not going to cut it.
        So, yes, although I am glad we have had this hearing today,
    I hope we can make this the last conversation we have about
    this. We need to get this done for Donna, for Katherine, for
    Marian, and for countless others.
        I would also like to mention a topic many of my colleagues
    have brought up today: the response to the coronavirus
    concerns. Although I am pleased that the House has swiftly
    passed emergency appropriation last week to help fight the
    epidemic, I am disappointed that Congress has not done more as
    a governing body for workers.
        If you walk up and down the halls of this building you will
    see numerous signs on office doors indicating that some
    congressional offices have decided to close, are allowing their
    employees to telework, or have decided to not stop--have
    decided to not take meetings in the public. Although I respect
    the instinct to protect one's staff, we have to stop and ask
    ourselves does the average American have this option or is this
    a privilege that only some, including the members of Congress
    and employees of this body, are lucky to have?
        We can't sequester ourselves while ignoring the countless
    Americans who work in consumer or food service or those in
    healthcare fields actually fighting this epidemic. Those
    workers don't have the option to telework nor can they afford
    to go without pay.
        More than 30 percent of workers in Minnesota are employed
    by the healthcare, retail, or hospitality industry. That is
    nearly 1 million workers just in my state and many of whom have
    no choice but to go to work regardless of the risk.
        We need to fix this problem long term and make sure that
    everyone has access to leave. I can't understand how anyone
    could continue to argue that paid sick is unnecessary or a
    luxury that this country can't afford. Frankly, we cannot
    afford not to act. I think it is time to consider this case
    closed.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I would now yield to
    the gentlelady from Washington. Dr. Schrier, you have 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank
    you for all coming here to talk about this important issue. I
    think it is--and in particular it is important for women, and I
    will get to that in a moment.
        But I have to first just touch on the issue of the
    coronavirus pandemic that we are facing right now because this
    is so big it almost doesn't even belong in this particular
    discussion where we are talking about 7 days of sick leave;
    that this poses tremendous threats to workers, to sick people,
    and also, Ms. Milito, to small businesses.
        And, in fact, I looked up the article from the Seattle
    Times and, in fact, the business that you referred to that was
    talking about closing, it was because of slowing business from
    the coronavirus epidemic, not from paid sick leave. I just want
    to be very clear that this was related to what is going on
    right now and I think we can expect to see that ripple effect
    across. It is not related to paid sick leave. It is related to
    people not going to businesses and people holding onto money
    because there isn't enough money because they are working or
    they can't work.
        I think that is our job in Congress and would agree with my
    colleague, Ms. Omar, who just talked about our responsibility
    to workers. And I am happy that this week we will be passing
    something to do just that, to make it so people can take off a
    month, if needed, to quarantine and to take care of family
    members if affected, and that we will help with unemployment,
    as well.
        There has been a lot of talk about small businesses and a
    particular toll on small businesses with this. And so the first
    thing I just want to say is that I don't think that 7 days of
    paid sick leave is at all generous. I think that is a bare
    minimum. And, frankly, I think that is the least we can do for
    our workers, whether we are a large corporation or a small
    business, that this really should be the floor.
        And before we get too wrapped up into talking about how
    this is hard for small businesses, I wanted to maybe highlight
    some of the ways this is really good for small businesses who
    only have a few employees. And if one comes to work sick and
    gets two others sick, what that would mean.
        So I wonder, Ms. Goldman, could you talk first about some
    of the benefits to a small business?
        Ms. Goldman. Sure. I mean, the lack of paid sick days laws
    encourages presenteeism, or going to work sick. If workers
    can't afford to stay home because then they don't have
    groceries and rent payment, they are going to come to work sick
    and, as you know, could potentially make their colleagues sick
    or make the public sick and spread it, which is going to, as I
    believe Ms. Johnson noted, have economic impacts on the
    business, as well.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you. And we have seen some of that in
    Washington State, in King County. This is sort of the epicenter
    of the coronavirus epidemic right now that workers in a nursing
    home came to work probably because they did not--I don't know
    about their situations, but feeling pressure to work because
    without work they don't get paid. And one of those workers also
    moonlights at another nursing care facility, and so we are now
    seeing it pop up in that one, which I think highlights the
    public health interest and also the personal interest in having
    those paid sick days.
        I also wanted to just answer our ranking member talked
    about why in the world would there be a requirement for small
    businesses with fewer than 15 people to have mandatory unpaid
    sick days off? And I just wanted to clarify that the reason it
    is there is that people otherwise would get fired if they took
    sick days. And so I just want to be clear that there is a very
    good reason even if they are not paid.
        Next, I wanted to talk a little bit about kind of the
    social implications. Who is most affected in a population by
    not having paid sick leave? Is it women? Is it low-income
    people, minorities? Highlight who that would be and whether
    they have children for me, please.
        Dr. Glynn. Sure. So we know it is the most vulnerable
    workers are the ones who are the least likely to have access to
    paid sick days, so that is folks who are learning--earning low
    wages. That overlaps a lot with people who are working in the
    service sector. And we know, if you look at who those workers
    are, they are disproportionately likely to be women and women
    of color, many of whom are raising families.
        I think it is also important to note that people without
    access to paid sick days are more likely to fall into poverty.
    They are more likely to experience food insecurity. And they
    are more likely to need to apply for and receive public
    benefits as a result of their economic instability and
    insecurity in their lives.
        So having paid sick days, I think we often talk about the
    cost of these policies, but there is also a cost to not having
    these policies. And I think we are seeing that very much in the
    public health sphere right now, but there are economic and
    interpersonal certainly, as well, and costs that are being paid
    right now. But it is usually the workers who are paying those
    costs of not having a benefit like paid sick days.
        Dr. Schrier. And I am out of time, but it is also society
    because when you can't go to the doctor during the workday and
    you go to the emergency room at night, and it is charity care
    we all pay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I
    remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice,
    materials for submission for 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 subcommittee or an invited
    witness may submit materials for inclusion in the record.
        Documents are limited to 50 pages each, no longer. A longer
    than 50-page documents will be incorporated into the record via
    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 the witnesses for their
    participation today. What we have heard is valuable. Members of
    the subcommittee may have additional questions for you and we
    ask that the witnesses to 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 our distinguished ranking member for his
    closing statement.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have just read a
    political article that has come out in the last few hours that
    says that Speaker Pelosi and Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin are
    working together on an expanded response to the COVID-19 crisis
    and it would include this topic. That is the way you do this,
    in a bipartisan fashion. That is how we passed an $8 billion
    appropriations bill last week to address this. You do it by
    working together. You don't do it by having a completely
    partisan bill. So I am hopeful that conversation between the
    two of them will yield something that we can all get behind
    because that is the way we solve this.
        But I am mindful of something Rahm Emanuel said when he was
    chief of staff to President Obama in 2009. He said you never
    let a serious crisis go to waste. I am afraid some of us are
    doing that here. We are trying to use this crisis to get
    something that is really not directly related to it.
        Look, paid leave is a good thing. It is a good thing. That
    is why 75 percent of small businesses offer and 80 percent of
    all businesses offer it, because it is a good thing for their
    employees, it is a good thing for the business. But it is not
    possible for every business. And maybe there are ways we can
    help them get there, which we thought we were doing and I think
    we did achieve to some extent with the tax reform bill. And I
    want to do that, I want to help businesses get to the point
    where it is a good thing for all of them in all circumstances.
        Unfortunately, some of our small businesses, when they have
    to make decisions, their margins are razor thin. And they make
    a bad decision and it means they shut down their business and
    everybody in that business loses their job. So we are highly
    dependent in this country on literally hundreds of thousands of
    small businesses to make the right decision so that they don't
    close down and we don't lose the jobs that they have got.
        I was there advising small businesses during the passage of
    the Americans With Disabilities Act and the passage of the
    Family Medical Leave Act. The enormous burdens that we put on a
    lot of those businesses, I don't think any of us in Congress or
    people in Congress at that time had a clue what it was doing to
    those small businesses. We have to keep them in mind in what we
    are doing here and one size does not fit all.
        Now, don't just ask me that. Go back and read the words of
    the people that founded this country and put together our
    Constitution. They understood that this was going to be a very
    diverse continental nation and they set a government in place
    to allow for that diversity, to allow for that flexibility. It
    has worked pretty well for almost 250 years. I think we can
    continue to let it go.
        And so let me just say this about implementation and
    enforcement. I have been there for implementation and
    enforcement. That is where you run people out of business. I
    have seen it happen over and over and over again.
    Implementation and enforcement can be a good thing where
    government is working with businesses to help them get to a
    desired result or it can be a dagger in the heart. And too
    often, we are the dagger in the heart.
        And I tell people all the time if you are a hammer,
    everything looks like a nail. If you are a regulator,
    everything looks like it needs to be regulated to death. We
    have got to find a happy medium here and we are not doing a
    very good job of it.
        So I am looking forward to seeing, Madam Chairman, whatever
    comes out of the work between Speaker Pelosi and Secretary
    Mnuchin.
        And while I am on that topic I totally agree with the
    speaker saying we should be here doing our work. I am glad we
    are here doing our work. We should be modeling for the rest of
    the country what we should be doing in a cautious, but totally
    realistic fashion. And I hope that her work with Secretary
    Mnuchin can produce a piece of legislation that you and I and
    everybody in Congress can get behind.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. I certainly agree with
    you. And if we weren't here doing our work, we would probably
    still be getting paid, but, you know, we have got to think
    about everybody else, as well. So I am glad that discussion is
    going on.
        I recognize myself now for the purpose of my closing
    statement. Today's hearing confirmed that we have long known
    the lack of access to paid sick leave in this country poses a
    significant threat to our economy, our businesses, our workers,
    and our public health. To tackle the paid--the rapid spread of
    infectious diseases, such as the coronavirus, we must learn
    from the lessons of past health crises and ensure that workers
    have access to paid sick days now to protect themselves, their
    families, and our Nation. The committee will pursue legislation
    to immediately protect workers' health and economic security.
        But as our witnesses reminded us today, this issue is not
    just about combatting global health crises when they arise.
    Allowing more workers to earn and take paid sick days means
    that workers will not have to decide between their paychecks
    and their family's health. And that is life-changing for so
    many of our constituents, including the people of my district.
        Katherine Austin, a working mom in my district, said this,
    and I quote, ``I have never once had a job that offered even
    unpaid sick days. It is rough knowing that if I call out of
    work for being sick or for needing to take care of my sick
    child, I can lose my job. I've had to wait tables while
    vomiting and running a fever because my employer told me I had
    to come in or I would be fired. I've passed out while working
    because of dehydration from vomiting. I've had to keep my sick
    child at home with me because his daycare sent him home with a
    fever, but my boss said they would fire me if I stayed home
    with him. Why should we have to choose between our health and
    keeping our jobs.''
        Katherine Austin represents millions of workers across the
    country who need Congress to act. We must pass the Healthy
    Families Act and finally establish workers' rights to earn the
    paid sick days they need to care for themselves, their
    families, and their communities.
        And before we adjourn, I ask unanimous consent to submit
    into the record a letter led by the National Partnership for
    Women and Families and signed by over 130 organizations urging
    Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act. I would also like to
    submit the story of Lauren Melton, who needed time off to care
    for her sick mother and lost her job as a result. Without
    objection.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]