[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1701-E1702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCING WORK AND FAMILY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 22, 2010

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, balancing work and family is not solely 
a women's issue. This seems obvious, but all too often both the media 
and the political debate seem to forget this reality.
  There is no doubt that the huge influx of women into the workforce 
over the last 50 years has put them at ground zero for balancing the 
competing demands of family and work. But that same trend has also 
created challenges and changes for men.
  Today, over 70 percent of mothers work outside the home, more and 
more men are taking on care-taking and household duties. Of course, 
that's only more household responsibilities relative to what men have 
done in the past--so in congressional lingo, we are starting from a 
very favorable baseline.
  But there is no doubt that men are feeling more anxious about 
balancing work and home responsibilities, and 95 percent of American 
fathers report conflicts between work and family demands. This means 
men have a clear stake in a debate they have been largely missing from, 
and their absence undercuts a political drive to make long overdue 
progress.

[[Page E1702]]

  As Americans, we often pride ourselves in leading the world forward. 
But on work/family issues, we are badly trailing most of our 
competitors. We remain the only major industrial nation with no form of 
paid family leave, and many of our public policies fail to adequately 
meet the needs of parents.
  Some of these policies, such as child care and unemployment 
insurance, fall within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Income 
Security and Family Support, which I Chair.
  Recently, we've made modest progress in this area by temporarily 
boosting funding for child care by $2 billion in the Recovery Act.
  Perhaps more substantially, we've begun to prod States to remove 
barriers to parents receiving unemployment benefits. Four years ago, I 
introduced legislation called the UI Modernization Act to improve 
coverage for low-wage workers and to help parents leaving work for 
compelling family reasons.
  This bill, which was included in the Recovery Act, provides a total 
of $7 billion for States that enact reforms from a menu of options. One 
of these reforms is to stop denying benefits to workers who become 
eligible for unemployment benefits based on part-time work simply 
because they are seeking reemployment in another part-time job, rather 
than in a full time job. Some Americans work part-time because they 
cannot find full-time employment, but others work part-time to 
accommodate family issues.
  I can see no reason to discriminate against parents who choose to 
work a schedule that best fits the needs of their family, so I am glad 
we are beginning to make some progress on this issue. As a result of 
the UI Modernization payments, the number of States providing 
unemployment benefits to those seeking part-time work doubled, up from 
14 to 27.
  Another reform included in the UI Modernization Act was providing 
benefits to so-called trailing spouses. These are wives and husbands 
who quit their jobs when their partners' jobs are relocated to another 
part of the country. Many States had disqualified these spouses from 
receiving UI benefits on the basis that they voluntarily left 
employment. The Modernization Act cites such employment departures as a 
compelling family reason, and thus maintains eligibility for UI. The 
number of States now providing benefits to trailing spouses has gone up 
from 14 to 24.
  Finally, the Modernization Act also permits taking care of a disabled 
or ill child or fleeing domestic violence as a compelling family reason 
for leaving employment. All of these reforms are squarely aimed at 
acknowledging that certain family situations can have a significant, 
and often unavoidable, impact on a person's job.
  I know that two of the biggest goals for those working on work family 
issues are paid family leave and paid sick leave. I still cannot 
believe the considerable opposition to the Family and Medical Leave Act 
before its passage in 1993. That anyone would be opposed to three 
months unpaid leave for employees at companies with more than 50 
employees is absurd.
  But we have always heard doomsday predictions when it comes to 
enacting workplace protections--whether it be overtime pay, the minimum 
wage, or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And the same is true now 
when it comes to paid leave.
  But once again, we haven't seen any evidence that it causes an undue 
burden to business or to taxpayers after some States and cities have 
enacted their own paid leave and sick leave standards. In response to 
paid sick leave requirements in San Francisco, I saw one restaurant 
executive quoted as saying that paid sick leave--``is the best public 
policy for the least cost. Do you want your server coughing over your 
food?''
  Moving forward, we need to see progress on work/family issues as part 
of the continuum of workplace protections that have made America a 
better place to work, live and raise a family. Helping both mothers and 
fathers balance work and family responsibilities is something that will 
have both an immediate and lasting impact on the well being of our 
Nation.

                          ____________________