[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 29, 2000

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member highly commends and submits 
for the Record this February 15, 2000, editorial from the Omaha World 
Herald regarding attempts by the Clinton Administration to require 
businesses to provide paid family and medical leave for employees.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 15, 2000]

                          No One There to Pay

       Government-mandated family leave policies cause a 
     particular difficulty for people who want government to do a 
     great deal more to make life comfortable: No readily tappable 
     reservoir of money exists to conveniently cover the costs.
       Currently people must go without pay if they exercise their 
     rights under the 1993 federal law entitling them to 12 weeks 
     away from work each year for family reasons. The time off can 
     be used to care for a sick family member or bond with a newly 
     adopted or newborn child.
       The original promoters of family leave in the 1980s said 
     ``No, never'' when they were accused of planning to slip in a 
     paid-leave requirement later. Now, predictably, ``No, 
     never,'' has turned into ``Unfair--some people can't afford 
     to take time off without pay.''
       However, a majority of Congress has never bought into the 
     idea that government should force employers to keep the 
     paychecks coming for extended family leave. Moreover, the 
     thought of taxing the general public has also been a non-
     starter--it raises such questions as why a family that 
     sacrificed to have a stay-at-home caregiver should pay higher 
     taxes to subsidize the paid leave of a two-earner family.
       Thus when President Clinton came around to paid family 
     leave on the list of social programs he wants to leave as a 
     legacy, he used an indirect approach. He said he would ask 
     Congress for $20 million in grant money to encourage state 
     governments to find a way to pay people who took time off. He 
     had previously suggested raiding accounts currently used to 
     compensate the jobless and temporarily disabled workers--
     accounts that in many states are flush because of economic 
     growth and low unemployment in recent years. But other 
     creative ideas are encouraged, he said.
       It's always easy to be generous with someone else's money, 
     but in our opinion Congress shouldn't even start down that 
     road. Unemployment and disability funds aren't a windfall and 
     shouldn't be treated as one. Much of the money in the fund 
     resulted from a special tax collected only from businesses. 
     Industries with a history of more layoffs paid 
     proportionately more.
       In theory, the special tax rates are lowered when a healthy 
     balance exists in the jobless accounts. Businesses would have 
     a legitimate complaint if they were forced to continue to pay 
     because the fund was drawn upon for reasons other than those 
     for which it was established. And what happens if a recession 
     sends unemployment soaring and the fund is drawn down to pay 
     for family leave? How healthy would it be to raise business 
     taxes still higher at the very time the vitality of the job-
     producing sector is under stress?
       The president showed a glimmer of understanding when he 
     noted that his widowed mother was able to get job training 
     because his grandparents cared for him while she attended 
     school. No federal mandates were involved. But Clinton 
     quickly dismissed the significance of that saying that his 
     family had been lucky. He contends that a federal mandate is 
     needed because not everyone has that kind of luck.
       As past editorials in this space have noted, Clinton's lack 
     of firsthand experience with the private sector undermines 
     his credibility on workplace issues. He said no American 
     worker should have to choose between job and family. But such 
     choices are made all the time. Balancing the various parts of 
     one's life is a normal part of adulthood.
       And it's by no means a one-sided choice. Long before family 
     leave was invented as a liberal political cause, fathers and 
     mothers were dealing with such issues with the help of 
     extended families, carefully scheduled vacations, generous 
     workplace friends and kind neighbors.
       Sympathetic employers--the kind whose existence is seldom 
     acknowledged by the left--also played a role in helping 
     people manage. Competitiveness was also a factor. In a 1987 
     survey, 77 percent of 1,000 companies indicated that they 
     already had formal or informal family leave policies. In some 
     cases, employees were compensated while taking time off.
       So, long before Congress passed the original family leave 
     law, the private sector was already moving forward. It would 
     be interesting to know if this initiative has accelerated--or 
     slowed--in the years since the government served notice that 
     it was taking over the field.

     

                          ____________________