[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 9 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E145-E146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      ON THE 12TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JUDY BIGGERT

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 2, 2005

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, February 5, 2005, will mark 
the 12th anniversary of legislation that has made an enormous 
difference in the lives of millions of working Americans since its 
enactment in 1993. I speak of course of the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, FMLA.
  I count myself among the Family and Medical Leave Act's strongest 
supporters. Since its enactment, this law has brought peace of mind and 
job security during critical times to millions of American workers and 
their families. The FMLA allows qualified employees to take unpaid 
leave from their employer for the birth or adoption of a child, to 
attend to the serious health crisis of a family member, or attend to 
their own serious medical issue. The law makes clear that no American 
should have to choose between caring for a gravely ill family member 
and losing his or her job.
  Since its enactment in 1993, millions of Americans have used the FMLA 
to take time to care for a newborn, to attend to an adult parent or 
child's serious illness, or perhaps to

[[Page E146]]

attend to their own critical medical needs. They have done so knowing 
that their job remained safe and secure. Indeed, many employers have 
gone far beyond the requirements of the FMLA, providing their employees 
with leave benefits beyond those required under state or federal law.
  In congressional hearings on the FMLA, in town meetings, and in 
speaking with both employers and employees in our districts, we hear 
that so much of the FMLA works the way Congress intended. As all of us 
who serve in this body know, however, actions we take here in Congress 
with the best of intentions often end up going in a direction we don't 
expect.
  In particular, with respect to the FMLA, we have heard that the 
``family'' part of Family and Medical Leave has worked well, providing 
employees a much-needed benefit and the time to care for a newborn or 
adopted child, while enabling employers to manage and maintain the 
productivity of their workforce.
  It appears that implementation of ``medical'' leave has been less 
successful. It is plain that Congress intended FMLA to serve as a 
safety net for employees to meet serious and unforeseen medical needs. 
The Act was not intended to be--nor dare I say would it have been 
enacted if it were--a national ``sick leave'' policy. When medical 
leave is used for those serious health conditions for which it is 
intended, we hear from employers that morale and productivity are 
unaffected--indeed, that employees often rally to the aid of a 
colleague. In contrast, where medical leave is abused, or used beyond 
its intended purpose, morale and productivity suffer, employers are 
unable to manage their workplace, and resentment grows in co-workers 
who are forced to pick up chronic slack.
  Similarly, we have heard repeatedly that recordkeeping and notice 
requirements under the Act are not in tune with the realities of 
today's workplace, and serve as a barrier to both employers and 
employees in knowing and exercising their rights. Concerns about 
misapplying the FMLA have often discouraged employers from providing 
more generous leave policies to their workers. Research also has shown 
that confusion surrounding FMLA regulatory requirements has actually 
served to hurt those it was supposed to help--workers.
  Employers and employees alike have expressed concerns that the 
effectiveness of the law is being hampered by the way the Act has been 
implemented by regulatory agencies and interpreted by the courts. This 
is troubling and has, unfortunately, led to charges that the FMLA is a 
bad law. As a supporter of the FMLA, I would be the first to say that 
is not true: the FMLA is a good law, although with the benefit of 12 
years of experience, perhaps a law in need of fine-tuning. Without 
action to clarify the law, we will surely see an increasing number of 
lawsuits challenging FMLA regulations--litigation that costs employees, 
employers, unions and the courts valuable time, effort and money.
  On the anniversary of its enactment, I look forward to working with a 
wide array of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and in 
both chambers of Congress, to keep the best parts of the FMLA intact, 
while targeting common-sense, necessary improvements where the Act has 
failed to meet Congressional expectations.
  Many issues in Congress are polarized, but restoring the 
Congressional intent of this law needn't be. I am confident that good 
minds can and will agree so that we can work to preserve the 
protections offered to workers by the FMLA, address failings in the Act 
that serve the interests of neither employers nor employees, and ensure 
that the benefits afforded to millions of working Americans in the last 
12 years will be afforded to millions more in the years to come.

                          ____________________