[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 333]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     EXTENDING COVERAGE OF THE FMLA

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 6, 1999

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to expand 
the protections afforded by the Family and Medical Leave Act. The bill 
I am introducing is identical to legislation I introduced in the 105th 
Congress, H.R. 109.
  The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) grants employees the 
right to take unpaid leave in the event of a family or medical 
emergency without jeopardizing their jobs. As a former Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Committee on 
Education and Labor, I was privileged to work closely with the Hon. 
Marge Roukema, Senator Dodd, Senator Bond, our former colleagues the 
Hon. Pat Schroeder and the Hon. William D. Ford, and many others to 
bring about the enactment of this important law. Necessarily, however, 
many compromises were made to bring about this precedent setting 
legislation.
  Among the most important of those compromises was one that limited 
the applicability of the law to employers of 50 or more employees. My 
original intention had been to extend the law to employers of 25 or 
more employees. However, because of uncertainty regrading the impact of 
the law on employers and in order to increase support for the 
legislation, I agreed to accept the 50 employee threshold.
  The effect of this compromise was to leave tens of millions of 
employees and their families outside of the protections afforded by the 
FMLA. In fact, only 57% of the workforce is protected by the FMLA. The 
fact that an employee may work for an employer of 40 rather than 50 
people does not immunize that employee from the vicissitudes of life 
nor diminish that employee's need of the protections afforded by the 
FMLA. For my part, this was a very difficult and reluctantly entered 
compromise. However, it was my hope at that time that experience under 
the law would prove that the law does not unduly or unreasonably 
disrupt employer operations.
  The FMLA was signed into law on February 5, 1993. Experience has 
shown that the law does not unduly disrupted employer operations. Not 
only are the costs to employers of complying with the law negligible, 
but in many instances FMLA has led to improvements in employer 
operations by improving employee morale and productivity and reducing 
employee turnover. Experience has also shown that the protections 
afforded by the law are not only beneficial, but are essential in 
enabling workers to balance the demands of work and home when faced 
with a family or medical emergency. In short, we have now had 
sufficient experience under the law to justify extending the law to 
employers of 25 or more employees.
  Beyond expanding the number of workplaces that are protected by the 
FMLA, the bill I am introducing would permit employees to take parental 
leave to participate in or attend their children's educational and 
extracurricular activities. In effect, employees subject to the FMLA 
would be able to take 4 hours of leave in any 30-day period, not to 
exceed 24 hours in any 12-month period, in order to participate in 
important educational activities undertaken by their children. In this 
way, the law would more effectively enable workers to meet parental 
responsibilities without sacrificing their economic security.
  Despite the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act, too many 
workers continue to face an impossible dilemma, pitting the emotional 
and physical well-being of a family against its economic security, when 
faced with a family or medical emergency. Enactment of this legislation 
would extend coverage to 73% of the workforce. A mother should not 
unreasonably or unnecessarily be forced to choose between caring for a 
new born and maintaining her job. A husband, recovering from a heart 
attack, should not also needlessly face the loss of his job and the 
resulting financial insecurity that would mean for his family.
  Requiring employers of 25 or more to provide temporary, unpaid leave 
to workers who face a family or medical emergency will not impose an 
unreasonable burden on those employers. Such a modest expansion of the 
law, however, will significantly benefit families in crisis by 
extending the protections of the FMLA to 15 million workers and their 
families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.

                          ____________________