Hearing: Leading by Example: Comprehensive Paid Leave for the Federal Workforce and Beyond (House Oversight, 2021)
Summary
A hearing titled Leading by Example: The Need for Comprehensive Paid Leave for the Federal Workforce and Beyond, before the Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives, on June 24, 2021. The listed witnesses include Everett Kelley, National President, American Federation of Government Employees; Vicki Shabo, Senior Fellow, Paid Leave Policy and Strategy, Better Life Lab, New America; Eric Sorkin, Co-Owner and Chief Executive Officer, Runamok Maple; and Hadley Heath Manning, Director of Policy, Independent Women's Forum. The index of documents lists an article submitted by Rep. Pressley and statements in support of H.R. 564 submitted by Rep. Maloney. The transcript closes with the hearing adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Congressional Hearing
- Case
- Chrg Chrg 117Hhrg44985 Chrg 117Hhrg44985
Cite this document
“Hearing: Leading by Example: Comprehensive Paid Leave for the Federal Workforce and Beyond (House Oversight, 2021).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/chrg-chrg-117hhrg44985-chrg-117hhrg44985/
, SHA-256 eea0bea462f1f97c324918ba17f806487c5d09017ebed41e241abdb4e26e298e.Full text
LEADING BY EXAMPLE: THE NEED
FOR COMPREHENSIVE PAID LEAVE FOR
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND BEYOND
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JUNE 24, 2021
Serial No. 117–32
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
(
Available at: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44–985 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JIM JORDAN, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois JODY B. HICE, Georgia
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland BOB GIBBS, Ohio
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
KATIE PORTER, California PETE SESSIONS, Texas
CORI BUSH, Missouri FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida ANDREW CLYDE, Georgia
PETER WELCH, Vermont NANCY MACE, South Carolina
HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland JAKE LATURNER, Kansas
JACKIE SPEIER, California PAT FALLON, Texas
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois YVETTE HERRELL, New Mexico
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan BYRON DONALDS, Florida
MARK DESAULNIER, California
JIMMY GOMEZ, California
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RUSS ANELLO, Staff Director
CHRISTINA PARISI, Senior Policy Advisor
ELISA LANIER, Chief Clerk
CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051
MARK MARIN, Minority Staff Director
(II)
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held on June 24, 2021 ............................................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Everett Kelley, National President, American Federation of Government Em-
ployees
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10
Vicki Shabo, Senior Fellow, Paid Leave Policy and Strategy, Better Life
Lab, New America
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12
Eric Sorkin, Co-Owner and Chief Executive Officer, Runamok Maple
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14
Hadley Heath Manning, Director of Policy, Independent Women’s Forum
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16
Lelaine Bigelow, Interim Vice President for Economic Justice and Congres-
sional Relations, National Partnership for Women & Families
Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses are avail-
able in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Article, ‘‘Paid Leave is Essential for Healthy Moms and Babies,’’ National
Birth Equity Collaborative; submitted by Rep. Pressley.
* Statement in Support of H.R. 564 from Tony Reardon, President of the
National Treasury Workers Union; submitted by Rep. Maloney.
* Statement in Support of H.R. 564 from Karen Rainey, President of Feder-
ally Employed Women; submitted by Rep. Maloney.
* Statement in Support of H.R. 564 from Jenna Johnson, Head of Pata-
gonia, Inc.; submitted by Rep. Maloney.
* Statement in Support of H.R. 564 from the National Air Traffic Control-
lers Association; submitted by Rep. Maloney.
* Statement in Support of H.R. 564 from the Government Managers Asso-
ciation; submitted by Rep. Maloney.
The documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
(III)
LEADING BY EXAMPLE: THE NEED
FOR COMPREHENSIVE PAID LEAVE FOR
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND BEYOND
Thursday, June 24, 2021
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., via Zoom,
Hon. Carolyn Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Raskin, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Porter, Bush, Davis, Welch,
Johnson, Sarbanes, Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier, Gomez,
Pressley, Comer, Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Higgins, Norman,
Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde, Franklin, Fallon, Herrell, and
Donalds.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of
the committee at any time. I now recognize myself for an opening
statement.
Today, we will discuss the dire need for comprehensive paid
leave in the United States, and the steps Congress can take to
meet that need.
In 2019, Congress passed my landmark legislation guaranteeing
paid parental leave for the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child
for more than 2 million Federal employees.
This was a huge step forward. There were only two countries in
the world, the United States and Papua New Guinea, that did not
provide at that time paid leave for the birth of a child.
With the passage of this bill, it put the government in a strong
position to recruit and retain a talented, diverse work force. But we
cannot rest now because there is much more work to be done.
We need to build on this historic achievement by bringing the
Federal Government’s employment policies in line with leading
companies in the private sector and, indeed, the rest of the world.
That is why in January, I introduced H.R. 564, the Comprehen-
sive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act. This bill would finally
provide Federal employees with comprehensive paid family and
medical leave. That means employees would have access to paid
leave if they get sick, need to care for an ill family member, or need
to miss work due to family members’ military deployment.
The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees unpaid leave for
these reasons, but unpaid leave is untenable for too many Federal
(1)
2
workers. This is a policy that is long overdue for the Federal work
force and for our Nation.
The Federal Government has the opportunity to lead the way on
paid leave and fostering a family friendly workplace. While pro-
viding access to paid parental leave was critically important and
long overdue, it is just as important to provide access to paid fam-
ily and medical leave, too.
Illnesses and military deployments are not events that can be
planned for. As we have all learned in the past year, illness can
strike any of us at any time. It is fair—is it fair? Let me ask you,
is it fair to ask workers to make an agonizing choice between car-
ing for a family member or continuing to receive a paycheck?
The answer, clearly and unequivocally, is no. These are choices
that no one should have to make. The coronavirus pandemic has
demonstrated dramatically and undeniably the need for paid family
leave. Too many Americans lacked access to paid family leave dur-
ing the pandemic with devastating consequences. Expanding access
to paid leave is a large part of a strong and equitable recovery.
Just as importantly, after a year of global pandemic that has
killed 600,000 Americans, why do we tolerate policies that actually
create an incentive for workers to come to work sick because they
cannot afford to take unpaid time off?
Does anyone seriously believe that this is good public policy? Our
committee has been working hard to fix these problems.
We championed a provision of the American Rescue Plan that es-
tablished a $570 million fund in the U.S. Treasury to provide up
to 15 weeks of paid coronavirus-related leave for all Federal em-
ployees, including postal workers and others that are on the front
line of providing services to Americans.
This was an essential component of our Nation’s response to the
pandemic. But paid leave is just as important for workers facing
any kind of family health crisis.
That is why we are proposing to take the necessary next steps
by providing paid family and medical leave for all Federal employ-
ees.
Let us be clear, paid leave would benefit both workers and em-
ployers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Today we will hear
from a small business employer on why this policy is, in fact, good
for business.
Employers in states that have adopted a paid leave program,
largely report that it is more convenient to administer and im-
proves competitiveness. In fact, support for national paid leave pol-
icy among both large and small businesses is quickly growing.
The Federal Government, as the largest employer in the Nation,
can and must serve as an example in creating a family friendly
workplace. According to a 2018 survey by the National Partnership
for Women and Families, 84 percent of Americans support paid
family and medical leave, including large majorities of Democrats,
Independents, and Republicans.
I have introduced versions of this bill since 2000, often with Re-
publican support. This should be an issue that has the kind of bi-
partisan support in Washington that it has throughout the entire
country.
3
H.R. 564 is an investment in the people who keep the govern-
ment running. We all have an interest in strengthening the Fed-
eral work force and making sure that the Federal Government is
an employer that attracts and retains top talent.
I am encouraged that President Biden and Vice President Harris
have made universal paid leave a cornerstone of their ambitious
American Families Plan. In addition to establishing a national paid
leave program, the American Families Plan would make childcare
more affordable, invest in early and post-secondary education, and
make permanent tax credits that help working families, like the
child tax credit. These provisions would build the infrastructure
needed to bolster economic recovery and help American families.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on
both sides of the aisle to advance the administration’s plan to help
families emerge from the pandemic stronger and more financially
secure for the future.
The Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act is one
piece of the vision the administration has laid out. It will strength-
en the Federal work force over the long term, and it is a roadmap
for the Federal Government to lead by example in creating a fair
and safe workplace for American families.
With that, I recognize the distinguished ranking member from
the great state of Kentucky, Mr. Comer, for his opening state-
ments.
Mr. COMER. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
Today’s hearing, ironically, is titled ‘‘Leading by Example.’’ But
this committee is holding the hearing remotely when we could walk
down the hallway and meet in person to conduct committee busi-
ness just like Judiciary did last night, which is next door to the
House Oversight Committee.
Americans across the country are going back to work. D.C. res-
taurants are open at full capacity now. Cases have dramatically
dropped across the Nation and Members of Congress can all gather
on the House floor at the same time.
But this committee, under Democrat leadership, refuses to meet
in person to do its work and, instead, hides behind computer
screens. This goes against science, it goes against common sense,
and this is not leading by example.
Madam Chair, it is past time for the committee to work in person
like just about every other committee in Washington. We do better
work in person. We must lead by example and get back to normal
operations, just like most Americans are expected to do.
Moving on to today’s committee hearing, Oversight Democrats
have called a hearing on enhanced work perks for Federal bureau-
crats. That’s right.
More benefits for Federal employees who already enjoy job secu-
rity and a lavish set of benefits not afforded to most American
workers.
This follows the Biden administration’s recent announcement de-
laying the Federal work force’s return to the workplace, despite
most Americans being expected to show up for work.
Meanwhile, hard-working Americans across the country are still
recovering from the economic impacts of Democrat lockdowns and
4
our Nation is facing many crises due to President Biden’s disas-
trous policies.
The Oversight Committee’s time would be better spent focused
on our committee’s mission of identifying and preventing govern-
ment waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and ensuring the
government is transparent and accountable to the American peo-
ple.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans have been focused on fulfilling
our committee’s mission. On February 11, 133 days ago, Repub-
licans called for a hearing on massive unemployment fraud in Cali-
fornia, where benefits were sent to murderers on death row, de-
ceased individuals, and organized crime members in China and
Russia.
Chairwoman Maloney refused to hold a hearing on this gross
mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, and now, it is reported that
400 billion dollars in pandemic assistance unemployment benefits
were stolen, with as much as half the funds going to international
crime organizations.
Last week, Republicans called for a hearing on the heist of the
century, but the chairwoman has not responded, unfortunately, to
our hearing request.
On February 24, 124 days ago, Republicans called on Chair-
woman Maloney to compel New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to
testify under oath regarding his deadly order sending COVID-posi-
tive patients to nursing homes, and his subsequent cover-up.
This is a gross abuse of power and Governor Cuomo must be held
accountable for his actions that resulted in the death of thousands
of senior citizens. But have Democrats subpoenaed Governor
Cuomo, let alone called a hearing on this issue? No.
On February 25, 123 days ago, Republicans called for a hearing
on reopening America’s schools. Ongoing virtual school has harmed
students’ well-being. Failing grades, mental health issues, and sui-
cides are up across the board.
Since we called for a hearing, we have learned that President
Biden’s CDC allowed a radical teachers union to interfere in its sci-
entific guidance, effectively recommending 90 percent of schools re-
main shuttered.
Now that the school year has ended, only about half of public
schools finished up the school year fully in person. Have Democrats
held a hearing on this pressing issue which threatens to set back
a generation of kids? No.
On March 4, 112 days ago, Republicans called on Democrats to
hold a hearing on President Biden’s border crisis. We renewed our
request two additional times since then.
Since President Biden assumed office, masses of children have
been held in overcrowded facilities during a pandemic and past the
legal timeframe. Apprehensions at the Southwest border are at a
21-year high. The human smuggling industry is booming and dead-
ly drugs like fentanyl are pouring across our border.
This is the very definition of government mismanagement and is
ripe for congressional oversight. The Democrats held multiple hear-
ings on conditions at the border and conducted several site visits
to border facilities during the Trump administration. But now that
a Democrat occupies the White House, crickets. Nothing.
5
On April 26, 59 days ago, Republicans called for a hearing on
Mayor Bowser’s solitary confinement of D.C. inmates. Under the
excuse of pandemic precautions, inmates, essentially, have been
held in universal solitary confinement as they are confined to their
cells for 23 hours a day.
This has resulted in severe effects on the inmates including
many sleeping at odd hours of the day, talking to themselves, oth-
ers growing extensive beards and hair because the barber shop is
closed.
This government abuse should be investigated, especially since it
is happening in the district which is under this committee’s juris-
diction. The Democrats have failed to address this issue.
On May 24, Republicans called for an investigation into the
Wuhan lab leak. There is evidence Communist China started the
pandemic, covered it up, and is responsible for the deaths of almost
600,000 Americans and millions more worldwide.
These questions are not a diversion, as Speaker Pelosi has stat-
ed. They get to the truth and accountability. And what is the
Democrat’s response? They are too busy investigating the Trump
administration to have time to determine the origination of the
COVID pandemic.
And last week, Republicans called for a hearing on the massive
leak of sensitive taxpayer information from the IRS. This com-
mittee has a history of conducting strong oversight over govern-
ment officials at the IRS who abuse their position for political gain
while thwarting congressional accountability and oversight.
This committee must convene a hearing with Biden administra-
tion officials to understand who is responsible for these leaks of
sensitive tax information.
We must also determine what effects, if any, the administration
has taken to prevent this from ever happening again. We are
awaiting a response from the distinguished chairwoman.
Madam Chair, it is past time for this committee to get back to
its primary mission. We have already dramatically expanded paid
leave for the Federal work force.
Today’s hearing to consider expanding paid leave even further for
Federal workers shows Democrats’ priorities are incredibly dis-
torted.
The American people are concerned about the ongoing border cri-
sis, abuses of power in government, getting their kids back to
school, and the rising cost of goods and services, better known as
inflation.
We need to put the American people first, not the special interest
of Federal bureaucrats.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The chair recognizes herself to respond
to my dear friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle.
I doubt that the women in the great state of Kentucky think that
having a child is a, quote, ‘‘perk.’’ It is not a perk, and too many
of us have been fired, fired, thrown out of the room, told not to
come back because you dared to have a child.
Many women have sick children, and when they are sick, they
need their mother. If your child is traumatized, if your child is sick,
6
what’s wrong with giving them paid leave to be there to be with
them?
We both know that most women have to work. Most women have
to work. Most families depend on two incomes. They can’t make it
on one income.
I have—I have Federal employees call me asking, when is the
bill going to pass so I can have a child? I can’t even afford to have
a child, because they are going to be fired. They are not going to
be paid when they are out with their child, and they need to be
with their child in those critical first weeks of life. This is not a
perk we are talking about.
My brother was in Vietnam. When he was deployed, it was trau-
matic to his family. They would have liked to have been with him.
They would have liked the time to adjust with three small children.
But he was sent into the war zone.
So, I mean, deployment of our military is serious business. It is
not a perk. It’s a—it’s a crisis in most families, and what we are
talking about is balanced policies that I will say that most coun-
tries in the world already have, even Third World countries. We
are the greatest country in the world. Can’t we respect our work-
ers?
And I would like to respond to my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle that are always very protective of the private sector,
and I am too. They are very important. They pay all the taxes for
this country.
But the private sector is far ahead of the public sector in how
they treat their employees. They have in-building daycare centers.
They have a birthing—they have milking centers.
They have support. They have paid leave. They have, you know,
working from your home leave. They have all of these things that
the Federal Government does not have.
And let me tell you, when I had my first child and went to Per-
sonnel to talk about leave, they said leave. We just want you to
leave. I said, I don’t want to leave. They said, you will be the first
person in the history of this establishment that has had a baby and
come back.
I said I am coming back. They said, well, you can apply for dis-
ability. I said, having a child is not a disability. It is a joy. It is
a family value. It is something we should celebrate, not punish
women for. We should celebrate them. Give them the support that
they so justly deserve in our society.
We talk about family values. Where are they? My whole life I
have fought for a balance between work and family because I suf-
fered it in my own family. Only recently are people seriously talk-
ing about it.
When President Biden announced it, I felt like I had died and
gone to heaven, that all of these issues that I had cared about,
work/family balance, were being talked about, seriously, by the
President of the United States.
It is our job to try to implement them and that is what we are
doing today. And if you do a study comparing the private sector to
the public sector, the private sector is doing a much better job in
adjusting and really doing work/family balance within their compa-
nies. Most of them have paid leave. Most of them have on-campus
7
daycare. Most of them have all kinds of services for their employees
and the Federal Government needs to keep pace.
We know that we can’t pay the same salary as the private sector.
We know that. We have to find people that are committed to public
service. But we also have to help them balance their families with
the work that they have.
I now recognize the——
Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, with all due respect—with all due re-
spect——
Chairwoman MALONEY. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. COMER. No, Madam Chair. You went way over your time.
You went way, way over your time. No.
Madam Chair, what the Democrats don’t understand
[inaudible] are employees, too, and if employers can’t get people
to come to work because——
Mr. RASKIN. Regular order. Regular order.
Chairwoman MALONEY.—paid family leave.
Mr. COMER. You don’t understand. There is a disconnect. You are
living in——
Mr. HIGGINS. Someone put the chair in order, please. Will the—
will the chair restore order?
Mr. COMER. The taxpayers are sick and tired of giving more ben-
efits and more perks to Federal employees because they have to
pay for those benefits and perks.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairwoman?
Mr. COMER. And you want to raise their taxes even more.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairwoman.
Am I recognized?
Chairwoman MALONEY. Mr. Connolly—Mr. Connolly, you are
now recognized for two minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chairwoman, and I thank the chair-
woman for holding this important hearing. And I add my voice to
hers how saddened I am at the diminution of this critical issue by
the ranking member and all too many of his colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, and the desire to distract us from the disas-
trous policies of the four Trump years, including, I might add, their
management of the pandemic, which is nothing short of cata-
strophic and tragic and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
I guess the ranking member doesn’t want us to remember that
the president, President Trump, actually advised people to consider
the ingestion of Clorox and other disinfectant.
Mr. HIGGINS. Lie. Lie. That is a lie and you know it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairwoman—Madam Chairwoman, I
have the floor.
And, you know, you can shout lie on it. That doesn’t make it
true. In fact, he did say that. It was publicly seen. So, I am sad-
dened by the attempt to somehow distract us from the subject of
this hearing.
In fact, I was proud to hold the first hearing on this issue on
your behalf, Madam Chairwoman, and proud to serve as an ally
with you in the effort to renew our commitment to helping families
meet the increasing demands of parenthood and family caregiving
responsibilities.
8
The Comprehensive Paid Leave and Federal Employees Act, H.R.
564, continues our committee’s effort to support civil servants and
their families.
Paid family leave would ensure the Federal Government is the
model instead of the, you know, laggard in protecting families and
our employees who work so hard, especially during this pandemic,
on behalf of the American people. They are not bureaucrats. They
are dedicated public servants.
In September 2019, our subcommittee held——
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, that time—that time has ex-
pired.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s——
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairwoman, I would ask a little indul-
gence because I had to seek recognition over the unrecognized——
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman may finish. The gen-
tleman may finish.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chairwoman. And we were successful.
But we made the victory lap short because there was more work
to do. Today, we continue to fight for paid family care giving leave
and leave to care for one’s own medical needs.
The Comprehensive Paid Leave and Federal Employees Act
would provide paid leave to Federal employees for reasons that,
largely, mirror the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, care for fam-
ily, self, or other qualifying reasons that often surround active mili-
tary duty.
Data show that paid family leave——
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, the gentleman is not finishing
his—finishing his sentence. He is continuing on, and the gentle-
woman knows we are attempting to have regular order, not go
through each and every person. And I would ask for two minutes
when the gentleman does finish. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman makes a good point. Mr.
Connolly, may we now move to Mr. Hice, and I will give you as
much time at the end of the hearing to complete every statement
plus the other time during the——
Mr. CONNOLLY. Of course, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman MALONEY. I now recognize—OK. I now recognize
Mr. Hice for two minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. HICE. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I would just say, too, it is time for us to meet in person. You
cannot lead by fear, and other committees are meeting in person.
We had Natural Resources in person yesterday. It is time that
Oversight leads by example itself.
Republicans believe the Federal employees should get the job
done for the American people and that they should be held account-
able for doing so.
Under President Trump’s executive orders, Federal employees
could be held accountable. That is what the American people de-
serve and that is even what Federal employees themselves want.
Through his executive order on official time, he sought to ensure
that Federal employees actually did the job they were hired to do—
how novel—instead of doing what a union wants them to do.
Democrats, on the other hand, seem to care less about these
things. A key component of the Democrat return-to-work plan is to
9
make sure as many Federal employees as possible don’t actually
have to come back to work.
What kind of a great idea is that? They are pushing permanent
expanding—expanded telework, without understand what the im-
pact has been, nor what it will be.
I, personally, have asked IGs across Federal agencies to conduct
an assessment so that we could at least have some data on this.
And now today, we are looking at ways to give Federal employees
even more time off on the backs of the American taxpayer.
So,Democrats’ agenda for the Federal work force issues could be
summarized as this.
Here is the summary of the Democrats’ plan. Come to work as
little as possible, and when you do come don’t worry about doing
your job. That is where we are headed with this thing.
Congress just provided paid parental leave for Federal workers,
and now the majority is trying to expand paid leave for all cat-
egories in the Family Medical Leave Act. Combined with Federal
holidays and annual leave, Federal employees now only have to
work about eight months out of the year. Eight months out a year.
Are you kidding me? This is absolute insanity, and this is what
we are told is leading by example, getting where employees don’t
have to come to work for four months out of the year?
The majority doesn’t even know how much this program is going
to cost. Oh, but I can tell you who is going to pay the cost. It will
be the American taxpayer. The majority doesn’t even know the con-
sequences of this.
The Biden administration has released a tidal wave of wasteful
and unnecessary pandemic aid that now threatens to swallow our
country up in inflation and out of control spending.
Meanwhile, here in this committee, it appears as though we are
trying to create some sort of Gilligan’s Island so that we can insu-
late Federal workers from the issues that the rest of the world is
facing.
Madam Chair, I would agree that it is time to lead by example
both in having our meetings held in person, but also to have com-
mon sense to some of the issues that we bring as a topic of discus-
sion for this committee.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back. We now will
move to witnesses and introductions.
Before I introduce our panelists, I want to recognize Mr. Welch
from the great state of Vermont to introduce Mr. Sorkin, who is a
constituent of his.
Mr. WELCH. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Very briefly, we are quite proud of our small businesses in
Vermont, and I know that is true for Mr. Comer and my friend,
Pete Sessions.
They are family affairs, and the folks who are going to testify,
Eric Sorkin and his wife, Laura, have Runamok Maple. They have
75 employees, and they are taking maple syrup—and I would like
to share some with some of my colleagues. Theirs is fantastic. It
is really helping the Vermont economy.
They have 75 employees and one of them had cancer. His wife
had cancer. He couldn’t leave work because he was—he couldn’t af-
10
ford to lose the paycheck and he was absolutely fearful about not
having income. The Sorkins decided this doesn’t work. This is like
a family member.
And you know what? I know in Georgia, in Texas, all around, we
have got these small businesses where it is like a family. They
started a family leave policy, and they were able to support, at
great expense to them, this family leave to let that partner take
care of his partner.
So, they are going to testify about this, and we need to help our
small businesses where it is enormous financial pressure to deal
with their commitment to their own employees, who they regard as
family.
So, I look forward to introducing Mr. Sorkin and working with
the committee to see if we can make progress on family leave.
Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you so much, Mr. Welch.
Our next with witnesses Everett Kelley, who is the national
president of the American Federation of Government Employees.
Then we will hear from Vicki Shabo, who is a senior fellow for
paid leave policy and strategy in the Better Life Lab at New Amer-
ica.
We also have Hadley Heath Manning, who is the director of pol-
icy at the Independent Women’s Forum.
Finally, we will hear from Lelaine Bigelow, who is the interim
vice president for economic justice and congressional relations at
the National Partnership for Women and Families.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in, please.
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
[Witnesses are sworn.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be part of the
record.
With that, Mr. Kelley, you are now recognized for your testi-
mony.
Mr. Kelley?
STATEMENT OF EVERETT KELLEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. KELLEY. OK, I think I am ready now.
Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and
the members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to
testify on the importance of comprehensive paid family leave.
Today, I want to talk about the critical need for this benefit for
Federal workers and how it will improve recruitment, retention,
and employee morale.
I believe that caring for others is the very foundation of a Fed-
eral employee’s decision to serve the American public.
AFGE represents Federal employees who inspect the food we eat
and places we work. They protect citizens from the illicit flow of
drugs, maintain the safety of our Nation’s borders, care for our Na-
11
tion’s veterans, serve as a vital link to Social Security recipients,
you know, and keep the national defense system prepared for any
danger, protecting the flying public, and respond to natural and
manmade emergencies.
We greatly appreciate Chairwoman Maloney for introducing the
Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act to provide
Federal employees with 12 weeks of family leave for all instances
covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA.
No Federal employee should ever have to choose between caring
for a loved one and keeping his or her job. I have heard countless
stories from AFGE members who have had to make the choice be-
tween being able to support their families financially or supporting
a loved one, or taking care of themselves before they are ready to
return to work.
I have heard stories from VA nurses, civilian defense employees,
correctional officers, Social Security claims adjustors, EPA attor-
neys, and meat inspectors that is caring for their elderly grand-
parents, their parents, children, and spouses.
These hard-working civil servants provide care for loved ones suf-
fering from Agent Orange exposure, cancer, traumatic brain inju-
ries, and the consequences of accidents that no one saw coming.
Opponents have raised objections to the cost of providing paid
leave to Federal employees. CBO last estimated the cost of the
2010 to 2014 period.
So, we don’t know exactly how much it will cost today, but we
estimate that it will be minimal compared to the cost of hiring and
training new employees due to turnovers due to lack of comprehen-
sive benefits.
Opponents also assert that Federal employees already have
enough paid leave, and that they save it for emergencies or were
more prudent in its use. It wouldn’t be necessary to have paid fam-
ily leave for their compensation.
Now, these arguments miss the point entirely, you know, of paid
family leave. It is, you know, unpredictability of the circumstances
when paid family leave might become necessary. That is the reason
for the benefit.
Now, telling a Federal employee not to use sick or annual leave
because of the possibility of medical disaster striking a family
member ignores the very serious and the reasons of paid annual
and sick leave existence in the first place.
If anyone doubted the value of paid sick leave prior to the pan-
demic, the risk to fellow workers of coming into work with a con-
tagious disease should have changed their mind. COVID–19 is not
the only virus that can spread at a workplace.
It is, clearly, in the interest of any employers, especially an em-
ployer who works or interacts with the public to allow workers to
stay home when they are ill.
Thus, using annual leave for rest and use of sick leave for recu-
peration from illness would never be discouraged.
Emergencies don’t happen to only those with decades of employ-
ment and the opportunity to accumulate stores of paid leave. They
happen to any and everybody.
12
Federal employees are only able to accumulate a maximum of 30
days of annual leave, not enough time for other potential instances
covered under FMLA.
By most conservative estimates, it would take a Federal worker
who takes two weeks of annual leave and three weeks of sick leave
per year close to five years to accrue enough sick and annual leave
to receive pay during the 12 weeks of family leave allowed on
FMLA.
Even if a Federal worker never got sick and never went on vaca-
tion, it would take over two years to accumulate enough leave to
pay for 12 weeks of family leave. Paid family leave would undoubt-
edly improve recruitment and retention of talented workers who
might leave for other jobs that provide such leave.
The Federal Government currently reimburses contractors and
guarantees the cost of providing, you know, paid leave to their
workers. Taxpayers are paying for this. If it is OK for contractors
and those who get Federal grants, it should be OK for Federal em-
ployees.
The COVID pandemic showed the critical need for paid leave for
Federal employees to be able to perform the mission of the agency
and to have time for dependent care needs.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
question that you might have, and, again, thank you for the time
that you have given me today on this most important issue.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Shabo, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF VICKI SHABO, SENIOR FELLOW, PAID LEAVE
POLICY AND STRATEGY, BETTER LIFE LAB, ON BEHALF OF
NEW AMERICA
Ms. SHABO. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. Good morning.
Special thanks to you for your tireless leadership on Federal work-
ers paid leave and FMLA expansions over many, many years, and
thanks to members of the committee who have engaged thought-
fully in dialogs about paid leave since the committee’s last hearing
in 2019.
I am Vicki Shabo, a senior fellow for paid leave policy and strat-
egy at New America’s Better Life Lab, though the views I express
here are my own.
The pandemic has shown us that we must do better in how pub-
lic policies enable us to care for ourselves and one another, and it
has underscored that universal paid leave is a must have.
Momentum toward expanding paid leave had been growing prior
to the pandemic. Now, 10 states have adopted paid leave programs,
but there are still more than 100 million workers left behind.
Just one in five private sector workers have access to paid family
leave to care for a new child or a seriously ill loved one. Just two
in five have access to employer-provided temporary disability insur-
ance for a personal medical leave lasting weeks or months.
For family leave, there are huge disparities. Thirty-eight percent
of the highest wage workers, but just five percent of the lowest
wage workers, have access to paid family leave through their jobs,
and access for those higher wage workers, while it has grown 20
13
percentage points in the last 10 years, for lower wage workers it
has only grown two percentage points.
Too often, critics ask how can we afford a national paid family
and medical leave program. But I think the question we have to
ask instead is how can a country continue to bear enormous,
unaffordable, and unsustainable costs of the status quo.
Lack of paid leave costs a typical family more than $9,000. It re-
duces mother’s earnings. It means hundreds of thousands of dollars
lost in older workers’ earnings and retirement savings. For busi-
nesses, it means losing workers, absorbing costs of turnover, and
for smaller businesses, difficulty competing for talent.
For the economy, it contributes to $500 billion lost annually.
Congress has made strides on paid leave in recent years, includ-
ing the 12 weeks of paid parental leave for Federal workers and
temporary limited measures put in place for the pandemic.
But now it is time for next steps. For Federal workers, I urge you
to enact the Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act
to make the Federal Government a high-functioning employer of
choice for four important groups of workers that will help make the
Federal work force diverse and inclusive, and contribute to better
inputs and better outcomes.
So, first, younger workers. Parental leave alone is not enough to
attract younger workers to replace the large numbers of Federal
employees who are at or approaching retirement age.
Generation X, Millennials, and Gen Z are all increasingly caring
for older adults, and often for both children and older loved ones
at the same time.
Second, women and people of color both bear disproportionate
caregiving responsibilities, often in multi-generational households,
and the Federal Government has a lot of work to do to attract
these workers to be public servants. Just 43 percent of Federal
workers are women, and workers of color are underrepresented at
senior levels.
Third, hiring people with disabilities is a stated goal of the Fed-
eral Government, and paid leave is a workplace benefit that most
lack. It could help to distinguish the Federal Government as an
employer of choice while also mitigating stigma.
But we have to look beyond the Federal Government as an em-
ployer and focus on the Federal Government as an investor in peo-
ple, businesses, and the economy. As we emerge from a deadly
health crisis that has exacerbated gender, racial, and economic dis-
parities and weakened the work force, it is time for paid leave for
all as a national priority.
State-paid family leave experiences show us the value we can ex-
pect from a well-crafted, well-implemented national paid leave
plan.
First, women’s labor force participation, attachment, and in-
creased earnings.
Second, children’s improved health and healthcare utilization.
Third, men’s greater engagement in the lives of children and
families.
Fourth, better health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs for
ill, injured, or disabled people and more economic security for their
caregivers.
14
Fifth, savings to Medicaid, reduced need for SNAP and public as-
sistance.
And sixth, retention benefits for businesses, especially small
businesses.
The president’s American Families Plan, the DeLauro Family
Act, and Chairman Neal’s Building an Economy for Families Act
each propose public investments and paid leave for all working peo-
ple, no matter where they live or work, their job, or their serious
personal health or family care need. These proposals make avail-
able paid leave for everyone, comprehensive, neutral, gender equal
paid leave with adequate wage replacement and inclusive defini-
tion of family.
Employers can do more. Nothing in these programs would limit
their flexibility. Paid leave rewards work, strengthens people’s at-
tachment to the work force, and promotes employee retention.
The plans under consideration would reduce a worker’s losses by
up to 85 percent, compared to unpaid leave. National paid leave
would boost GDP by up to $2.4 trillion by enabling more people to
work, and would boost demands for goods and services by increas-
ing household incomes.
But at the end of the day, this is about values that unite us like
love, responsibility, dignity, and care. It is about being by the side
of a loved one who is dying or recovering, seeing a baby’s first
smile, or getting the medical treatment you need without sacri-
ficing the well being of the family you love and support. Paid leave
is not a pipe dream. It is not a luxury and it is not a necessity.
I look forward to working with you to make paid leave for all a
reality. There is no time to waste, and I am excited to answer ques-
tions.
Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you.
Mr. Sorkin, you are now recognized for your testimony.
Mr. Sorkin?
STATEMENT OF ERIC SORKIN, CO-OWNER AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RUNAMOK MAPLE
Mr. SORKIN. Thank you, Chairman—Chairwoman Maloney,
Ranking Member Comer, and members of the committee for this
opportunity. Thank you also, Congressman Welch, for the very gen-
erous introduction and for your steadfast support of small busi-
nesses throughout the pandemic.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the urgent need
for robust public investment in care infrastructure, including paid
family medical leave.
Thank you, in particular, Chairwoman Maloney, for your strong
leadership and commitment to expanding paid leave through the
Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act.
My name is Eric Sorkin and together with my wife, Laura, we
own and operate Runamok Maple, a maple syrup manufacturing
business with 75 employees in Fairfax, Vermont. I am also speak-
ing today as a member of Main Street Alliance, a national network
of more than 30,000 small business owners.
15
The importance of paid family medical leave became crystal clear
to me during our first few years in business. At the time, we had
just about 10 employees.
I had learned that the wife of one of our employees was losing
a battle to terminal cancer. This happened in the middle of the
sugaring season, when the hours are long and unpredictable. Our
employee had been coming into work in the middle of this terrible
family ordeal because he wasn’t in a position to miss a paycheck
or risk losing his job. Put succinctly, he believed he couldn’t afford
to spend time with her, even though he desperately needed to.
In that moment, without even realizing it, we launched our com-
panies paid family and medical leave policy. We told our employee
to take the time he needed to care for his wife, and we continued
to pay him while he was out.
Even with our small team, it wasn’t a remotely hard decision.
Nobody, least of all the—least of all those in the most precarious
financial positions, should have to choose between getting paid or
taking care of loved ones or their health.
Likewise, why do we embrace a system where small business
owners feel as though they must choose between their own profit-
ability and the well being of their employees? It is a recipe for poor
choices and bad outcomes on both sides.
Since then, numerous members of our team have been out for ex-
tended illnesses, to care for loved ones, and for maternity leave.
Just in the past few months, one of our longtime employees con-
tracted viral meningitis, and was out for weeks as he battled a per-
sistent fever and delirium. Another employee was sexually as-
saulted and has struggled with her mental health since.
The last thing either of them needs is the added worry are we
are getting paid. Things happen and none of us can predict when.
As business owners, we do everything we can to support our em-
ployees and hope that they want to do the same for us.
While I personally believe that the return on paid leave is many
times the expense, paying for family medical leave is costly. The fi-
nancial burden on our own business has been significant, particu-
larly during the early years before we were profitable.
Several times, including as recently as a year ago, we have
looked into short-term disability insurance. We hoped this might be
a solution, but, unfortunately, we found the policies available to
companies of our size both inadequate and unaffordable.
That is why I, along with many other Vermont small business
owners, have been active in a state campaign to win paid family
medical leave. The idea is straightforward. You know, we set aside
a few dollars each week per employee into a fund. Then when an
employee goes out on leave the fund then pays that employee’s sal-
ary. In return, as an employer, I have their salary to hire a re-
placement worker or cover overtime.
A solution such as this would be a huge improvement over the
current system, where we face unpredictable and sharp cost hikes
when someone goes out on leave. A majority of small business own-
ers across the political spectrum support a public solution, and that
support remains high after paid leave programs have been imple-
mented in those states.
16
If we didn’t know it before, COVID brought the point home. As
a business, prioritizing employee safety goes hand in hand with
protecting our business and the health of our community.
Speaking for my business, the challenges were quite significant,
and about 80 percent of our frontline workers needed time off dur-
ing COVID, either to quarantine or to recover.
As a small company, absorbing all those costs in such a short pe-
riod of time would have been a tremendous challenge. The passage
of the federally enacted Families First Coronavirus Response Act
was extremely helpful to our company as we navigated COVID.
The legislation made what could have been tough decisions easy,
and was critical to our business during this time. Doing the right
thing as a small business owner should always be this easy.
Asking us to cover these expenses out of pocket is really asking
for quite a lot and the alternative, asking for workers to go without
coverage, is simply no solution at all.
America is a nation made up of small businesses and those who
work for them. By creating a national paid leave solution, we are
creating a more level playing field for workers and all of our small
business owners.
As Congress considers a long-term economic infrastructure and
recovery package, a national permanent paid leave policy and pro-
gram must be a priority. Paid leave is not just what small business
employees deserve. It is vital to keeping our entire community safe
and our economy resilient.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to answer-
ing any questions you may have.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Manning, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HADLEY HEATH MANNING, DIRECTOR OF
POLICY, INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM
Ms. MANNING. Thank you. My name is Hadley Heath Manning,
and I am director of policy for Independent Women’s Forum, and
I am a Senior Blankley Fellow at the Steamboat Institute.
I am also the mother of three young children, and I have taken
three paid maternity leaves in the last five years. So I, certainly,
personally appreciate the importance of this issue.
In my role at IWF, I also manage a group of female employees.
We frequently have staffers out on maternity leave, so I under-
stand how this issue impacts employers as well.
Expanding access to paid family medical leave is a noble goal, a
goal that I support. But the real question is how. Lawmakers
should keep in mind that the government is, in some ways, a
unique employer and should not serve as a model for all private
sector employers who are diverse in size, industry, labor force, and
resources.
The government can increase taxes or use deficit spending to
fund new benefits for employees. Private sector employers cannot.
Many American businesses suffered or shuttered as a result of
the COVID–19 pandemic and are still— still struggling to recover,
if they will at all. Those businesses are not contemplating a vast
expansion of benefits for their employees because they simply lack
the resources.
17
It would do those private businesses more harm than good at
this moment to require that in order to open their doors or create
new jobs they must offer a generous comprehensive paid leave ben-
efit to follow the model set by this proposed legislation.
The trend toward better access to paid leave in the United States
actually tracks closely with economic trends. At the height of the
pre-pandemic economy, more and more U.S. employers were offer-
ing paid leave as a way to attract and retain workers in a tight
labor market.
One question for lawmakers to consider today is whether the
Federal Government now as an employer needs to enhance the
compensation and benefits it offers in order to compete for labor.
If the answer is no, then to offer greater benefits than necessary
is simply poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars. In reality, the Fed-
eral work force already has access to more benefits than private
sector workers and, on average, Federal employees are com-
pensated better.
The average salary among Federal workers is $85,000. This is
significantly greater than the median total household income for
the general U.S. population. Over 50 percent of employees have a
bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 36 percent in the general
population.
This means that the Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Em-
ployees Act would be taxing a relatively less resourced general pop-
ulation to provide special and, perhaps, unnecessary benefits for
Federal workers, an already relatively privileged group.
Similarly, other proposed legislation, like the Family Act, would
create a national paid leave entitlement and would also exacerbate
income inequality.
Government paid family medical leave programs have been
shown to distribute money from low-income workers to those with
higher incomes.
Studies from California, New Jersey, Canada, Sweden, Iceland,
Belgium, and Norway have demonstrated this, and the scholars
concluded in Norway these programs constitute a, quote, ‘‘pure lei-
sure transfer to middle-income families at the expense of some of
the least well off in society,’’ end quote.
This is regressive, not progressive. Given that the problem of a
lack of paid family medical leave is most pronounced among low-
income people, lawmakers should not establish a program or policy
that disadvantages this group further.
Another potential downside of comprehensive paid leave benefits
for the Federal work force and beyond is that this benefit may ac-
tually create an incentive for discrimination against certain groups,
including women, elderly workers, and workers with significant
medical issues because these groups are more likely to take advan-
tage of those leave benefits and employers know this.
Pew Research has, in fact, documented the strong positive cor-
relation between more generous paid family medical leave and
wider gender pay gaps in 16 OECD countries.
Finally, we must consider costs. Sadly, so far, there has been no
cost estimate for the Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Em-
ployees Act.
18
But in addition to the hard cost to taxpayers, the Federal Gov-
ernment will face other costs when workers are not present at their
jobs, while they are using the new benefits that are offered in this
proposed legislation.
While we all want workers with family and medical emergencies
to have the option to take time away from work, the flip side for
employers is increased absenteeism and turnover.
Employers and fellow employees alike will take on the burden of
covering for workers who are out on leave or, in the case of the
Federal Government, the institution that we all rely on to do the
people’s work may become slower, less efficient, and less responsive
to the citizens that it serves.
The government is unlike other employers in many ways, which
is why it should not be the model for comprehensive paid family
leave.
Rather than instituting a one-size universal—a one-size-fits-all
universal policy, lawmakers should focus any government interven-
tion on helping those who need support most, while otherwise al-
lowing businesses and employees to continue to find their own per-
sonalized solutions that work best for them.
Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
Ms. Bigelow, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LELAINE BIGELOW, INTERIM VICE PRESI-
DENT FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND CONGRESSIONAL RELA-
TIONS, NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES
Ms. BIGELOW. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. My name is
Lelaine Bigelow, and I am the interim vice president for economic
justice and congressional relations at the National Partnership for
Women and Families.
I am pleased to join you to discuss the importance of paid leave
for Federal employees, including congressional employees, and this
issue is deeply personal for me, having spent more than a decade
working in the administration and in Congress.
Growing up from modest means, I came to understand the impor-
tance of access to paid leave when I was just 16, working at a fam-
ily restaurant in Pensacola, Florida. I was surrounded by hard-
working moms who were servers, and there was one in particular,
Toni, who left a mark on me.
When we didn’t have a lot of diners, Toni would tell her story
about how she went into labor at the restaurant, then went across
the street to the hospital, delivered her baby, and was back the
next day for the Sunday morning rush. People would nod their
heads in admiration, but even then, I knew Toni was faced with
an impossible choice—losing her job and her paycheck or caring for
herself and her family.
So, in January 2013, when my husband and I discovered I was
pregnant, we felt excited and scared. I was working at the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development and he was employed by
the House of Representatives.
19
I recalled Toni’s story and knew that I wanted to take the full
12 weeks of time off allowed under the FMLA to bond, recover, and
acclimate to parenthood.
At the time, the Federal Government did not have a paid leave
policy. You had to take time off without pay or use your accrued
leave if you had enough available. Complicating matters, in May
we found out that I had an incompetent cervix, and I was imme-
diately put on bed rest for the next four months.
Thankfully, I was given a pregnancy accommodation that allowed
me to work from home while on bed rest. At the time, this was un-
usual, and because it felt like a privilege, I worked extra hard
throughout my difficult pregnancy to avoid the appearance that I
was taking advantage of the situation.
But the diagnosis meant I needed to go to the doctor every week
and a specialist every few weeks, requiring more time off of work.
Taking an hour or two each week for doctor’s appointments chipped
away at the time that I was trying to save.
Plus, I was sent to the hospital twice, which eroded my time off
even more. It was stressful and I was desperate to make up time
even in the hospital.
I answered emails and made phone calls because every moment
I spent caring for myself and my pregnancy meant losing money
and time later.
Like so many women of color, I faced the challenge of navigating
pregnancy health complications without the paid leave I needed to
care for myself and my family.
Despite our best efforts, in July, my son, Jack, was born six
weeks prematurely and was immediately brought to the NICU, the
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. That same day, the Transportation
HUD appropriations bill was on the Senate floor, a bill I had been
following for my team at HUD prior to the birth.
I kept responding to emails that morning because I didn’t know
how long Jack would be in the NICU and I knew this was one more
day with a paycheck.
In the end, Jack Lincoln Bigelow was in the NICU for 10 days
and was on a breathing monitor for six weeks after discharge, and
nearly eight years later, I can see he is very healthy and has more
energy than either of his parents combined.
And now, thanks to the tireless efforts of Chairwoman Maloney
and Chairman Smith, and the other congressional champions and
advocates around this table, the Federal Government began pro-
viding 12 weeks of paid parental leave for Federal employees last
October.
During the effort to expand access to paid leave for Federal em-
ployees, I often reflected on my own experience and how the emo-
tional, physical, and financial stress of my situation could have sig-
nificantly been different if I had paid leave.
I wonder if I could have carried Jack to full term. So, it is clear
to me the work mustn’t stop here. The United States needs a paid
family and medical leave program like the one outlined in Chair-
man Neal’s Building an Economy for Families Act and Chair-
woman Maloney’s Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employ-
ees Act.
20
A national paid leave policy will provide families financial secu-
rity and peace of mind at some of the most challenging moments
and making the largest impacts on families currently struggling
the most.
It will enable more women to remain in the work force, allow
parents to invest more time and care in their children, and help
older Americans to age with dignity and support from their loved
ones.
More than 100 million working people in this country cannot af-
ford to wait any longer.
Thank you so much.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. I thank all of the witnesses
and I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
Democrats have been fighting for years for comprehensive paid
family and medical leave. When I was first elected in 1993, the
very first bill that I voted on was the Family and Medical Leave
Act.
In my career—my long career, I have gotten more compliments
on that bill than any other. It meant that women and men would
not be fired if they had a child they had to take leave to take care
of them.
But right after it many of us started work on trying to expand
it to paid leave. I remember going to meetings with then Senator
Joe Biden where we started working—and Rosa DeLauro and oth-
ers, working on expanding paid leave, and I am very proud of the
work that this committee, that COR, did in leading the successful
passage of paid parental leave for Federal employees in 2019.
[Technical issue.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. OK. We have lost the live stream.
We are going to pause for a moment. We have lost the live
stream.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. The committee will come to order. I
apologize. This was a—throughout the entire system in Congress.
We are now reconvening.
Thank you, and I now recognize myself for five minutes and for
questions.
Democrats have been fighting for years for comprehensive paid
family and medical leave. I was proud to vote for the Family and
Medical Leave Act in 1994, which granted 12 weeks of unpaid
leave so that people wouldn’t be fired for having a child.
Shortly afterwards, with then Senator Joe Biden, Rosa DeLauro,
and others, we started working for paid leave. I am very proud of
the work that the COR committee did in the successful passage of
paid parental leave for Federal employees in 2019.
But over the last year, we have seen that countless families con-
tinue to suffer because our Nation still has no nationwide paid
family and medical leave policy.
President Biden and Vice President Harris have put forward the
American Families Plan, which includes an historic investment in
universal paid leave for every American family.
Ms. Shabo, why is a nationwide paid leave policy important to
the pandemic recovery? How will it help American families for the
future?
21
Ms. SHABO. Thank you so much for the question, Chairwoman
Maloney.
You know, we saw throughout the pandemic the enormous num-
bers of people who left the work force because of caregiving respon-
sibilities and for health needs.
Some of that had to do with children who were unexpectedly out
of school or care. Some of it had to do with caring for older adults
or loved ones who needed care. Some of it had to do with the per-
sonal health consequences of COVID–19 itself.
We needed paid leave long before the pandemic. We urgently
need paid leave coming out of the pandemic. But the pandemic
brought into sharp relief, in particular, the connection between the
gendered nature of caregiving and work force participation.
You know, we have nearly 2 million women who are still out of
the work force, many of them because of caregiving. This is an
unsustainable phenomenon.
It will take women more than a year to get back to work force
participation levels of the—before the pandemic, and this is one
intervention that will help that, but more than that, help create a
stronger and more inclusive work force for women, for people of
color, for people with disabilities, for families that are multi-
generational for a long time to come.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you.
Mr. Kelley, would you agree that a permanent expansion of paid
leave to all Federal employees beyond parental leave will help
strengthen the Federal work force?
Unmute, please.
Mr. KELLEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.
I, certainly, agree with that because, you know, and I have said
this before. You know, one of the major problems I think that the
Federal Government has is that they don’t offer a good benefits
package in order to keep and retain, you know, Federal employees.
So, they will go other places because, you know, other players
will offer these benefits. So, it is so important that we do that.
Chairwoman MALONEY. OK. My bill, the Comprehensive Paid
Leave for Federal Employees Act builds on paid parental leave for
Federal employees that was implemented last October.
The bill will ensure that Federal employees have access to paid
leave in the event of a personal or family emergency or military de-
ployment of a family member.
Ms. Bigelow, can you explain why all workers and families need
this kind of comprehensive paid leave?
Ms. Bigelow? Ms. Bigelow?
[No response.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. Well, she is having difficulty.
As we have also heard, a comprehensive paid family and medical
leave program is good for business. Mr. Sorkin, you discussed the
reasons why you made the decision to offer paid family medical
leave to your employees.
How would a comprehensive national paid leave program help
small businesses like yours?
Mr. SORKIN. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to respond.
22
Well, currently, the burden falls directly on business owners and
employers to come up with a makeshift solution. Either way, that
ends up being costly, uncertain, and uneven.
A national paid leave program would offer predictability and
peace of mind, and it would also level the playing field between big
and small businesses.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you.
And just in closing, the Biden/Harris administration and Demo-
crats in Congress will continue to work to enact paid family and
medical leave for all employees in the Federal Government and the
private sector.
I urge my Republican colleagues to work with us to make paid
family and medical leave a reality for American families.
And I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Nor-
man.
Mr. Norman, you are now recognized.
Mr. NORMAN. Thank you, Chairman Maloney.
You know, I am really shocked at this—at even having this hear-
ing. This is—I think Clay Higgins said a three-ring circus. This is
a—this is an insult to the American taxpayer.
Here’s the words I have heard from some of our witnesses: love,
caring, caregiving. Mrs. Maloney, I think you mentioned or one of
the witnesses mentioned strengthening the Federal work force.
You know, I don’t have to tell anybody listening to this hearing,
you know, our cities are burning. Our police forces are being deci-
mated because they are being defunded by this administration.
Crime is—our shootings are up. Illegals are coming across the
border. One of the witnesses mentioned protecting our borders. We
have got cartels that are being—making half a billion dollars a
month.
We have got the administration that won’t even go down there.
Our businesses had been shut down for a year and a half. Work-
ers—we can’t get workers. When you go to the McDonald’s that I
did and got put on a limit to buy because $13—because they had
two people in the store. They couldn’t get people to come back.
Lumber prices are up 400 percent.
And we are having a hearing on paying people, Federal workers,
four months to work. This is an insult to the taxpayer. It really is.
Who is going to pay for this? We don’t even have a CBO score.
We didn’t even have the courage to have a CBO score.
Thirty trillion in debt. Where is the caring for our small busi-
nesses that are the lifeblood? I don’t need to tell anybody the Fed-
eral Government needs to be cut.
The Federal—people want to get the Federal Government out of
our lives, not in more of our lives. And what this administration
is doing, particularly with the 2 million illegals coming into the
country, is expanding the Federal Government. Why don’t you just
let them, you know—what is four months? Go and put six months
off.
I can tell you one thing. Small businesses don’t get six months
off. I can tell you one thing, that the small businesses that support
the Federal Government, this is a backbreaker along with the taxes
that are—that this administration is proposing. It is not your
23
money. It is not—the politicians got it wrong. It is not y’all’s
money. It is the people’s money.
And I am sick and tired of this charade that we are having. Miss
Maloney, I like you as a person. We have asked you time and time
again to have hearings on inflation. What are we going to do to
solve problems?
Let us have a hearing on the—let us pay the police maybe for
a change instead of the criminals. And here we are, wasting time,
not even letting us come to the—not let us come to the hearing
room when we had a guy in a wheelchair that showed up.
This is a—this is a, really an insult to everybody, particularly the
taxpayers. The taxpayers deserve better than this. And where are
the priorities? With this country and the shape we are in, where
are the priorities?
And we are having a hearing on paying people more money to
stay out of work. The states form the Federal Government, not vice
versa. They work for us, not vice versa.
So, you know, I really don’t have any questions for the rehearsed
responses from our witnesses. I guess thank you for coming. But,
you know, it is a—this is a complete waste of time.
But thank you anyway, and I guess we will—we will carry on
with the hearing.
I yield the balance.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton, is recognized.
Mrs. Norton?
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
This is an important hearing for a number of reasons. I particu-
larly appreciate that you are having this early hearing now because
this bill has been in effect for nine months. So, this is the time to
look to see if it has made any difference.
And it makes a difference that the Federal Government was first.
We ought to lead the way for the private sector. In fact, it looks
like they are leading the way, in many ways. But for the Federal
Government to lead the way to show that it works or doesn’t work
is exactly what we needed, and this hearing enables us to see, well,
does it work or not?
That is why my first question is for Mr. Kelley. Now, we are nine
months in, Mr. Kelley, to this bill, just the time to kind of look
back almost a year since it was passed to see how it has affected
Federal employees.
I know it is early, but it would help to know—you have already
said that it affected employee morale. But can you tell us, has it
affected, for example, retention?
Do we know this early whether it affects retention at a time we
know that people are looking for workers and we wouldn’t want to
lose experienced Federal workers? Do we have any information on
that at this time?
Mr. KELLEY. Thank you, Representative Norton. I can’t say that
we have any concrete documentation as far as retention. But what
I will tell you is that we have had so many employees to utilize
these opportunities, you know, until it is insurmountable.
We can’t tell you how much people have appreciated having this,
and I think that it will have a positive impact on retention because
24
employees are grateful for the bill that was passed to give them the
opportunity to use this leave, you know, which is vastly different
and equally important to the one that has been proposed now. OK,
so I hope that answered your question, ma’am.
Ms. NORTON. Well, I can understand it is early to know. I hope
that your union will keep—will find a way to see what the effect
is. It is also the Federal Government should do that.
And I know that, importantly, this bill affects adoption and fos-
ter—fostering a child as well, something that is very important to
parenting at this time.
Ms. Shabo, why is paid parental leave not enough to support
workers and their families?
Ms. SHABO. Thank you so much for the question, Representative
Norton.
So, parental leave is used—when we look at the unpaid leave
under the FMLA, parental leave is about one quarter of the time
people that take FMLA leave. About a fifth are for caring for an
older loved one or a person with disability, a family member, and
about half is for a worker’s own serious health issue.
So, most FMLA leaves are to care for yourself or to care for a
loved one. This will only be exacerbated as the population shifts.
We have an older population now. We have fewer people who are
available—fewer family members available to care for older loved
ones because of the mismatch in population sizes.
So, care for yourself, care for a loved one. Very, very critical and
will become more so over time.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. That is important to know.
Madam Chair, this has been an important hearing and you have
conducted it, I think, appropriately at a time when we can begin
to measure it—measure its effect. It is the first step, and I thank
you very much for this hearing allowing us to monitor where we
are now.
I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, you are now recognized.
Mr. CLOUD. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you for holding this
hearing and giving us an opportunity to speak into these issues.
I would like to echo the ranking member’s sentiments on the im-
portance of having or at least these hearings being available in per-
son. If nothing else, the tech challenges we have experienced today,
I think, echo just how important that is.
I would like to talk, really, about what is going on in this com-
mittee, first of all, and that is we are supposed to be the Oversight
Committee. That means our essential job is to ensure that the tax-
payers’ dollars are being used effectively. We are to wait, you
know, make sure we weed out waste, fraud, and abuse.
Currently, we have a border crisis going on with hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars going out, often in no-bid contracts. That is worth
looking into. We have economic and an inflation crisis that is worth
looking into.
We have unemployment benefits fraud. It has been estimated—
some reports say that nearly half of the unemployment benefits
doled out by the government have been stolen by criminals.
25
It is estimated that amount of fraud could be as high as $400 bil-
lion, which would be the largest—my understanding is, the largest
case of fraud in our Nation’s history.
We have the China COVID origins that we should be looking
into. We have cyber attacks. These are real existential threats to
our Nation and, certainly, the preeminence we have enjoyed on the
world stage.
And so we need to be able to address these things. I would en-
courage the committee to be able to take these up. This is ex-
tremely important for us to fulfill our essential duty.
I appreciated the chairwoman’s passion about the private sector
and Federal civilian work force. If only the data backed it up that
would be something.
But a Federal—data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
in 2018 said the Federal civilian work force had an average wage
of over $94,000, where the average for the private sector was about
$63,000.
And so, the notion that the Federal work force right now is lag-
ging behind the private work force that is funding the Federal
work force just doesn’t stand up to the available data.
And I would just say that right now is really the wrong time, as
we are working to recover from the economy. Right now, our offices
deal daily with casework and one of the big issues that we are
dealing with right now is FSA offices. Farmers are having trouble
getting their claims processed—their applications processed.
Veterans—we are dealing with the VA benefits processing that
is woefully behind. The passport expedited process is now weeks
long. The IRS is hopelessly backlogged.
And so all this at a time where we have some very good Federal
workers who are continuing to work and do their due diligence, but
a number of them, in the words of our constituents, are tele-not-
working, and it has been very difficult to keep up with the pace of
supporting and serving the people who have elected us to serve
them.
But I want to touch on what is really kind of the heart of this
issue, is that politicians sometimes get away with this idea that we
can measure our personal compassion by how much of other peo-
ple’s money we give away, and that is really a flawed sentiment.
Because, truly, everyone on this issue wants families to prosper.
We want families to be taken care of. We want moms to be taken
care of. We want adoptive parents to be taken care of, all these
kinds of things.
The question is, is how do we create a sustainable model that
meets the needs, but doesn’t steal opportunity from the next gen-
eration, and so we have a couple different models.
The Democratic model has been to put a heavy burden on the
American taxpayer, often with deficit spending, as we are $30 tril-
lion in debt, stealing from the next generations’ opportunities to
have these same sort of benefits, which is, I think, questionably
moral.
So, we need to meet the needs and obligations of this generation
with this generation’s resources. And so, one model that does work
and what we were seeing working, is the organic approach and
that is for us to have a thriving economy where just a year and
26
a half ago we saw wages increasing and because of that we had a
competitive work force.
And employers were—had the economic wherewithal because we
had a booming economy to create a competitive work force to begin
to offer these sort of services in a sustainable model. That is a sus-
tainable model that provides increased benefits over time without
burdening the next generation.
So, the important thing is that we realize that the heart of what
we are trying to accomplish is great, but there is a way to go about
it.
Too often, we see the government coming in and creating prob-
lems before stepping in to try to solve them. We see that with the
latest crime spree. We see that with the economic issues that are
happening right now.
So, let us have a better approach to these issues and let the
American people do the great work that they are so awesome at
doing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is now recognized.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you
for holding this hearing. The Federal work force is aging. Think
about this. Twenty percent of the private sector work force is under
the age of 30. Only seven percent of the Federal work force is
under 30.
As of April of this year, 300,000 Federal employees are eligible
to retire. That is 13.5 percent of the entire Federal work force. And
within five years, that number will go from 13.5 percent to 30 per-
cent, almost 600,000 Federal employees.
Ms. Shabo, am I pronouncing that right? Shabo?
Ms. SHABO. Yes. Yes, you are.
Mr. CONNOLLY. You testified that comprehensive paid family and
medical leave for Federal employees will help attract and retain
the work force of the future, both diverse and more inclusive and
younger.
Do you want to elaborate a little bit on that? Because we talk
about it like it is a nice thing to do and I don’t know and—but ac-
tually, from a practical point of view, how are we going to attract
younger workers who will come to expect these kinds of provisions
in the private sector, as the chairwoman pointed out earlier in this
hearing, when we are not doing it in the public sector?
Ms. SHABO. Yes, thank you for the question, and I think the an-
swer has two parts.
One, you know, with all respect to the chairwoman, I do want to
just reiterate that the private sector is not doing great for most
workers. It is doing OK for high-wage workers and some of the
same workers that would be equivalent to the Federal work force
in terms of more educated, higher skilled, higher paid.
It is not doing great for middle income and lower wage workers.
Again, just five percent of low-wage workers have access to paid
family leave and that has only increased by two percentage points
in the last 10 years.
27
So, those private sector workers are not doing great. However,
old workers, many workers, 53 million workers are caregivers to
older adults or to children with special needs. Eleven million work-
ers are caring for both a child and an adult who has a disability
or an illness or an injury.
More than half of those are Millennials. Another 25 percent or
so are Gen X. Six percent are Gen Z. So, as we think about build-
ing the kinds of workplaces that meet the needs of younger work-
ers, who, by the way, also expect these care responsibilities to con-
tinue for at least five years, maybe longer, we have to put in place
workplace policies both in the public sector for sure, as the Federal
Government as an employer, but also in the private sector for
workers overall.
This is why we need both, you know, paid leave benefits in the
Federal work force that helps you attract workers, but it is also
why we need a paid leave baseline for everybody. This is an eco-
nomic competitiveness issue for the country as well as a diversity
and inclusion issue.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.
Mr. Kelley, from your vantage point, what about that? I mean,
how are we going to recruit and retain the work force of the future,
from your point of view, if we are not addressing issues such as the
one that is the subject of this hearing today?
Mr. KELLEY. You know, I really appreciate that question because
we have to address these issues, right, because unless we forget
that—you know, COVID–19 taught us a lot.
It taught us that, you know, now is the time for us to address
family issues because what we saw was, we saw so many families
struggling to take care of their families during the COVID–19
issues. And it is more and more prevalent, and we are going to see
more and more of it.
I am going to give you just an example, not necessarily dealing
with COVID, but I just know of a member of our organization,
right. A single mother, you know, in the state of Alabama, you
know, had a son that was kind of hanging out with some of the
wrong people, right.
Got himself in some trouble doing some things that he shouldn’t
have been done, and the people—boys that he thought was his
friends actually got him high on marijuana and hung him.
OK. He ended up being paralyzed, and his mother had to be
home to take care of him. His mother almost lost her job as a re-
sult of it because she used all of her leave, you know, and there-
fore, they were proposing to dismiss her because of her abuse of
leave.
She wasn’t abusing leave. She was trying to take care of her son.
He was the—she was the only member—family member that he
had to take care of him. And so—but because we were able to save
her job is the only reason why she didn’t have to go in bankruptcy,
she didn’t lose her home and all that type of thing. And there are
numbers of stories like that that tell us that this is the right time
to have this discussion.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. I yield back.
28
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back. The gen-
tleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman is recognized for five min-
utes.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. GROTHMAN. There. We will start off with Ms. Manning.
Last week, we passed a bill, which I voted for, but I had some
misgivings because we were adding another, you know, paid day off
for Federal employees that I don’t think is going to be reciprocated
in the private sector by the vast majority of employers.
By my account, when one adds together the 12 weeks of paid
leave that this benefit would provide, 12 paid holidays, and 20 days
of paid vacation, 13 days of paid sick leave, we get up to about four
months of paid leave for Federal employees.
Could you compare that to kind of what is going on in the private
sector here, Ms. Manning?
Ms. MANNING. Sure. And a lot depends on how benefits are quali-
fied or measured. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics does keep
track of how many private sector full time and part time workers
have access to different types of paid time off.
And so while it is true that nearly 90 percent of full time work-
ers in the private sector have access to paid vacation time or paid
leave of some type, the reality is that when you start to talk spe-
cifically about benefits that are quantified or qualified as paid fam-
ily leave, it is a much lower number.
So, about one in five private sector workers who are full time and
only five percent of part time workers have access to paid family
leave. And then if you want to get industry specific, which I think
is helpful when you start to think about the competitiveness of the
Federal Government as an employer, 37 percent of workers in the
finance and insurance sector have access to paid family leave, 33
percent in the information industry sector, 27 percent in profes-
sional, scientific, and technical services.
And so the point of this is to say not even half of workers in
some of the highest-paying fields have access to this type of family
and medical leave.
So, I don’t know that it is justifiable for the Federal Government
to say we need 12 weeks of paid leave for any FMLA-qualified
leave reason in order to be competitive. That is simply not where
the private sector is.
Of course, if you look at companies—specific companies like
Netflix or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that are really
at the tip of the spear leading with the most generous types of paid
family medical leave, you could say that the Federal Government
isn’t keeping up with those employers.
But when you look at the average or you look at the portions of
different industries, it is just not the industry standard to offer 12
weeks of paid time off.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Will this have any unintended consequences for
the guys who pay the bills, the private sector?
Ms. MANNING. Oh, absolutely, and I think it is—you know,
maybe one misperception I would like to dispel, if I may, is that
the current leading proposal to establish a comprehensive national
paid leave entitlement would be paid for with a new payroll tax,
and you can establish a payroll tax on employers, but the CBO rec-
29
ognizes, as do most economists, that a new tax on employers is
simply passed along to employees in the form of lower wages.
And so, we are talking about not just increased taxation costs
but lower wages as a result, fewer economic opportunities, fewer
new jobs. That is, simply, the reality. When you raise the cost of
employment, you get less employment.
And so, I think it is a misperception to say that only businesses
or only employers will bear the costs of comprehensive paid leave
policies, at least the most popular leading proposals that Demo-
crats have advanced like the Family Act.
There are other proposals that I would be happy to talk about
that come with less downside, fewer tradeoffs, better individual
choice for workers and lower costs for taxpayers.
But if we are talking about establishing a new national paid
leave entitlement, the cost will be borne by workers and dispropor-
tionately by low-income workers because that is how regressive
payroll taxes work.
Mr. GROTHMAN. OK. Just a general question for any of you. I
know we have dealt with the Post Office in this hearing otherwise,
always in financial straits. Does anybody have any estimates on
what the cost will be to the Postal Service?
[No response.]
Mr. GROTHMAN. Nobody has thought of that?
OK. Next question. Has anybody thought about the effect it will
have on the ability of the Post Office as people take off to deliver
mail effectively on a timely basis? And we hear we have such a
shortage of people doing work of any—of any sort in this country
right now.
Anybody thought that through? Anybody on the panel?
[No response.]
Mr. GROTHMAN. OK. Something else I think we should think
about before we move ahead with this bill.
Do you feel that the Federal Government is the best place to test
out this big expansion, in your opinion, Ms. Manning?
Ms. MANNING. So, as I indicated in my testimony, I think that,
you know, just like any other employer, the Federal Government
has to set their policies related to H.R. and compensation and so
forth.
But I do not think that the Federal Government is a model for
other employers in the Nation. The private sector is different in im-
portant ways.
As taxpayers, we have a stake in how Federal Government re-
sources are used. That is a stake that I don’t have in some of the
ways that other companies choose to operate or choose to com-
pensate their employees.
So, I really feel that the Federal Government is a unique em-
ployer and shouldn’t be used as sort of the model for other employ-
ers.
Mr. GROTHMAN. OK.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.
The gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr. GROTHMAN. OK. Well, thank you for the five-minutes.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman from—thank you. Thank
you.
30
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much for calling this
really important hearing. Paid family medical leave is a fixture in
advanced countries around the world, and I think a lot of them
look at America with some shock and scandal that the wealthiest
country on earth does not provide paid family medical leave, both
for public sector and private sector employees.
And, obviously, there is a campaign going on against paid family
medical leave for workers in either the public and private sector.
And I think another piece of bitter fruit of that campaign is try-
ing to pit public and private workers against each other as if, you
know, public school teachers and letter carriers aren’t married to
people who are small business people and engineers. The public
sector and the private sector are intertwined.
And in America, the Federal Government is actually the largest
employer with 2.6 million employees. Tens of thousands of them
live in my district.
These are hardworking patriotic people who are running—work-
ing in every department from the Park Service, Interior Depart-
ment, to the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice
to the people who make it possible for the country to operate be-
cause we need government in order to make society work.
And unless there any anarchists out there or Antifa members on
the panel, I think everybody has got to agree that we need govern-
ment. So, I think some of the attacks on government workers are
really improper and sound very antiquated and obsolete to me.
But in any event, 85 percent of Federal workers don’t live in the
D.C. area. They live across the country, and they are doing the
work, whether it is for the Department of Agriculture or the De-
partment of Commerce, or Homeland Security, all over America,
and we have them in all of our states and all of our districts.
But I want to ask Ms. Shabo—I hope I am pronouncing your last
name right. I want to ask you about the public health dimension
of this, because we went through this discussion in Maryland when
I was a member of the General Assembly, and one of the things
that became very clear to us, Democrats and Republicans, Inde-
pendents alike, is that we don’t want people going to work when
they are sick.
And you would think that COVID–19 would have taught us that.
You know, there is a new report that has just came out about the
teams of doctors that President Trump had to take care of him to
save him from COVID–19 when he had rushed heedlessly into
going out without a mask and telling everybody it would magically
disappear and just use hydroxychloroquine and all that nonsense.
But he had teams of government lawyers working on him to try
to rescue him from his own folly and recklessness. Most Americans
don’t have that.
So, if somebody gets sick, don’t we want them to stay home? I
mean, do we really want to create a financial incentive for them
to go to work and spread whatever it is they have?
Ms. SHABO. Absolutely not. Thank you for bringing this up, Con-
gressman Raskin, and Maryland has been a leader on paid sick
days.
31
You know, it’s—Congress was smart at the beginning of the pan-
demic to implement the Families Coronavirus Response Act, which
though limited in terms of its scope and who it applied to, im-
pacted—impacted the contagion of COVID–19 and is estimated to
have prevented 15,000 COVID cases per day nationwide.
So, that alone speaks to the importance of time to stay home and
to recover, and to keep yourself and your family and your work-
place safe.
But more than that, as we think about the need for paid family
leave and paid medical leave, there are now untold numbers of
long-haul COVID survivors. About 25 percent of them are expected
to have symptoms, chronic, intermittent, other symptoms that con-
tinue.
We need both paid sick time and we need paid medical leave for
longer-term serious health conditions. Your research shows that
when people have access to paid leave they come back to work
more quickly.
They are more productive. This is good for them, obviously, for
their family, and for their employer in terms of——
Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Shabo.
Mr. Sorkin, let me turn to you. I have two quick questions for
you. One is, are you aware of other businesses in your industry
that also paid people—paid family and medical leave?
And I think there is some suggestion that American workers in
the private sector or public sector will cheat. If they have got paid
family medical leave, they will invent sicknesses. They will pretend
somebody has got cancer. They will pretend somebody has got leu-
kemia. They will fake it, like we are a nation of con men or con
women.
But has that been your experience? Tell us, honestly, are people,
like, rigging the system and ripping you off?
Mr. SORKIN. Well, to answer that the first question—thank you,
Congressman. But to answer the first question, other small busi-
nesses like mine, it is very unusual to find small businesses that
are willing to absorb the expense.
In my experience, we have not seen people abusing the system.
I think it accounts even—you know, it is less than a percent or two
percent of our payroll and consistently less. And, particularly, in a
small business, we know our employees and that kind of abuse just
doesn’t—you know, is much less likely to happen.
Thank you.
Mr. RASKIN. Well, thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Higgins is
now recognized.
Mr. Higgins?
Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very sorry. Now,
I hope America is paying attention. I am very sorry that we have
hurt our colleagues’ feelings by actually showing up in person for
Oversight Committee service.
America faces an unprecedented labor shortage, massive chal-
lenges that cause our economic recovery to struggle because of the
majority’s decision to spend trillions of dollars in deficit spending,
paying people to stay home.
32
Every business owner from sea to shining sea that I have had
a conversation with either in person or on the telephone, in digital
town halls, through social media, through direct contact and inter-
action, meeting with large business organizations that represent
the needs and interests of our Nation’s economic recovery, on be-
half of employers, the story is the same.
We have an incredible challenge facing America today because
our work force is staying home. Why are they staying home? Be-
cause the Democrat majority has spent trillions of American dollars
that we don’t have to pay them to stay home. And the Democrats’
answer to that is to hold our virtual committee hearings suggesting
that we should pay more people to stay home.
It is insulting. It is abhorrent. Our nation is struggling to recover
from the CCP virus. Working Americans are fighting to survive.
Employers cannot find employees. We face $31 trillion in debt.
It is wrong on many levels for Congress to suggest that Federal
employees need more time off.
I had—I had thought to submit for the—for the record the list
of benefits for Federal employees right now and paid leave right
now that Federal employees enjoy. Most American employees do
not—do not have anything close to that level of benefit and paid
leave.
But I decided not to because I challenge America. America, I am
talking to you now. Please do some research and look at what your
Federal counterparts in your industry or your background, your
profession, your area of expertise, compare that to what you have
got and what your family faces. I ask America to do its own re-
search.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the panelists for being here today. I
think this was a—this is not the kind of hearing Oversight should
be conducting and what we do investigate as an Oversight Com-
mittee should be done in person.
That is my opinion, and I yield.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized.
Ms. Tlaib?
Ms. TLAIB. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you all so much for
this incredibly important hearing, and I think for my district,
which is the third poorest congressional district in the country, this
hearing, you know, for my residents is important, as we really do
our due diligence to oversee—have oversight of what our policies
are and what the impact is.
And you all know, if anything, COVID has just exposed—this
pandemic has just exposed how these systems are set up in a way
that doesn’t really allow our residents and people to thrive, which
does impact our small businesses.
And so I just—as a person that is a mother of two, and I still
remember, Chairwoman, working at a nonprofit organization be-
cause that is what I—I wanted to change the world.
I went to law school to do that and that is what I wanted to do,
even though I was in a lot of, you know, high debt. Still am, and
for me, I brought my child to work. He was in the playpen, like,
behind my desk, and I nursed him there at my desk. I did my con-
ference calls.
33
But I was exhausted. Even thinking about it, I remember break-
ing down several times just in tears because I was tired. I didn’t
get enough sleep, and it is just—it is exhausting. We should not
have to, you know, live this way in one of the most wealthiest
countries in the world.
And so for me, I know many folks, and the panelists may or may
not know this, and I want to ask you all, you know, the majority
of my colleagues in Congress—and no offense to those that are
doing well—the majority of them are millionaires.
They are completely disconnected to what this hearing is about.
They really truly are. They are living—you know, some are going
to stay rooted and connected to the pain and these broken systems
that are on the ground.
But, again, because it is not touching their lives, they are not
going to lead with that compassion that I think is needed in Con-
gress.
And so, you know, my question, you know, very much, you know,
and I don’t know if Ms. Manning or Ms. Shabo or, you know—Eric,
thank you for testifying today—you know, and again, you know, I
think Ms. Bigelow, you can also answer this, for my district I want
to hear from you all.
The trauma, really, that we are creating—and talk a little bit
about this—to our children in that—because I know and I see it,
where we are allowing our children to not get the care that they
need or for us to get the emotional and health care that we need
to be able to provide for them and be fully there and present in
raising our children.
And so can you all talk a little bit about that? And talk about
even, you know, again, COVID. If anything, the pandemic just ex-
posed exactly what my residents have been telling me for years,
y’all. Like, it is not working, Rashida. It is not sustainable. I can’t
do it. I can’t get the hours. I can’t—it is just not sustainable. I am
sick going to work and all of those things.
So, I can start with you, Ms. Shabo, and then maybe go to Eric,
and then, of course, Ms. Manning and Ms. Bigelow.
Ms. SHABO. Yes, thank you for the question. So, you know, one
of the wonderful things we have learned about the impacts of paid
leave is about the impact on infant and maternal health.
Lower rates of maternal depression, higher rates of
breastfeeding, higher rates of children’s getting immunized on
time, lower rates of head trauma and better educational outcomes.
And, you know, to your point about Congress being disconnected,
85 percent of Americans—84 percent of Americans overwhelmingly
want Congress to enact a national paid family and medical leave
program.
These are taxpayers. They are willing to pay for this program.
They are willing to have corporations pay for this program. They
are willing to have the wealthy pay for this program.
Whatever the financing source, including themselves, they want
this done. So, thank you so much for your question.
Mr. SORKIN. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to chime in as well.
You know, looking back at COVID, it was—it was really clear to
us as a business that the first—the first line of defense for em-
34
ployee safety, for all our safety, was to make sure folks who were
sick or potentially exposed wouldn’t come into work.
But the plain truth of it is, just asking employees to stay home
without offering them pay is just preposterous. You can’t expect
our lower-wage employees to make that choice.
So, you know, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is
really, really essential for us and a program like that, I think, is
just plain as day that we need that if we want to have safe commu-
nities and safe workplaces.
Ms. MANNING. I can just chime in briefly that in my last preg-
nancy during the pandemic and having an infant child during a
pandemic, it was very hard, and part of the reason it was so chal-
lenging is because of the social isolation and the lack of community
supports that are usually there.
And I am hopeful that we can get back to a place as a country
where I will have, you know, more freedom and more comfort and
interacting with grandparents and the rest of the church commu-
nity and so forth. I think that stuff is so important.
And I think that paid leave policy is also very important and
that is why I just want to be sure that the solutions that we are
considering and pursuing are the ones that come with the least
downside.
You know, just like it’s true that public and private sector work-
ers are married to each other, we are in this together, we are part
of the American community, so are taxpayers and families.
Families are taxpayers. It is not as if those are two separate
groups of people, and so we have to be considerate of our needs as
working moms and working dads and families, but also the bottom
line when it comes to, you know, our incomes and how much re-
sources we have and how much taxes we pay.
Ms. TLAIB. Of course. Yes, there is always going to be challenges.
And Ms. Bigelow, if I may, Chairwoman, she can do the final an-
swer, please.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Actually, your time has expired so Ms.
Bigelow will have to submit it to the record for us.
Ms. TLAIB. Oh, OK.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman from—the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Keller?
Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Madam Chair. The logic of not having
this hearing take place in person, the fact that we are having it
100 percent virtually is baffling.
The COVID–19 requirements have been lifted across the Nation,
including in Washington, DC. All anyone has to do that is watching
this proceeding is turn on C-SPAN later on when we are all on the
House floor, including the Speaker, Democratic leadership, Repub-
lican leadership, all of us, gathered together exactly like we should
be doing in this committee. Not conducting 100 percent in person
committee meetings is a barrier to effectively serving the people we
work for, the people we represent.
The people that I represent, the people that all of us represent
across America go to work every day and get the job done. Our job
here in Congress to represent them should be no different as we
tackle the challenges that face our Nation.
35
So, getting into why we are here, Ms. Manning, what are some
of the examples of the reasons why Federal employees use FMLA?
Ms. MANNING. I imagine that Federal employees use FMLA for
the same reason that private sector workers might use FMLA—for
the birth or adoption of a child, for a medical emergency, for
caregiving, and so forth.
Mr. KELLER. Yes. A personal illness or an illness of somebody in
the family or birth of a child, whether those illnesses would be
emotional or whether they would be physical?
Ms. MANNING. I believe they have to get approval from a
healthcare professional to merit their FMLA absence.
Mr. KELLER. Yes. During 2020, Congress directed dollars toward
programs to assist Federal employees who had to stay home due
to COVID–19.
Ms. Manning, do we have all the performance data to determine
how beneficial this policy was?
Ms. MANNING. I don’t know if someone else has that data. I do
not have it.
Mr. KELLER. The proposal we are discussing today would allow
the Federal employees to take 12 weeks of paid leave for any rea-
son under FMLA. Is there any estimate, Ms. Manning, that you
would have seen that would have cost the taxpayers?
Ms. MANNING. No.
Mr. KELLER. OK. And taking a look at what we are doing, all
Americans, including those in Federal Government, those who
work for state and municipal authorities and those working for pri-
vate sector businesses of all sizes, deserve to be able to take the
time they need to either attend to their own health or assist a
loved one.
These benefits should be flexible and workable for both employ-
ers and employees. We need to be helping employers grow their
business so they can provide the benefits to their employees.
The majority’s proposal under discussion today is Federal em-
ployees up to four months off when you include all the time that
they would have for holidays and so on and any additional time.
That is one-third of the year.
And the thing I want to take a look at as a former small business
operator, these standards are flat out—they are not workable. Hav-
ing hardworking taxpayers foot the bill for this, you know, is just
not responsible good policy.
And I want to give you an example of when I was—when my son
was in the hospital on life support. The employer I worked for, I
had a check every week for that time we were at his bedside for
that—for that month, because they could afford to do it, because
that is what our employers do.
As I mentioned in a hearing with Secretary Walsh, I asked him
if he believed that the businesses in America, the small businesses
that are owned by our families, friends, neighbors, our constitu-
ents, cared about the health and welfare of their employees, and
after the second time, I got him to admit he did.
And I believe that of the people that I represent that own busi-
nesses and go to work every day in PA–12, and I don’t think they
need the government telling them what the right thing to do is.
36
If the business can afford to do it and somebody in their team
needs help, they will do it. If there is a member of the team in my
office that had an issue, I would certainly afford them the time to
deal with that issue, and having a law telling us what is behavior,
what we should be doing as human beings, it is just big govern-
ment not having the trust in the American people.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr. KELLER. Not having the trust in the American people to do
the right things, and that is where I am different and a lot of my
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are different. We
have that faith in the American people. We have that faith in indi-
viduals——
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr. KELLER [continuing]. That we don’t need our government to
try and legislate morality.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlewoman from the great state of
New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is now recognized.
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Chairwoman Maloney, and, you know, we
just heard some examples about what may or may not happen with
paid leave.
I would like to provide, just very quickly before I start my exam-
ple, when we first started and opened our office, I decided to offer—
and not even offering, we decided that as a matter of policy that
we are going to provide three months of parental leave, both for all
parents—birthing, nonbirthing, adoptive, et cetera, and that in-
cludes fathers as well. And what we have found has been that it
has been a profoundly successful policy.
But I think also, to just counter a point that was immediately
made, is that having time with our families should not be a matter
of charity or profitability.
The fact of the matter is, is that deciding on having paid leave
and the decision and the ability to have paid leave is not about how
good or charitable your employer is.
It is not about whether they are a good person and it certainly
shouldn’t be about whether it is profitable for a business. It should
be about the importance of value of family and human beings, and
these are rights for us.
And parents, mothers, fathers, the human development of chil-
dren, should not be decided by how profitable that leave is for a
business. It should be a right that is afforded to all parents and
all people and all human beings.
And moving on, you know, I think I want to narrow in on dads.
Let us talk about fathers and the right of fathers to have parental
leave and all nonbirthing parents as well.
You know, being a parent, a mom, a dad, et cetera, looks dif-
ferent for every family, and we don’t have to subscribe to this bi-
nary of a parent that had physically birthed child needs or de-
serves more leave or time than a nonbirthing parent.
The fact is, is that we need to have leave for all parents because
both—even if you have a birthing parent, you cannot do that alone.
I mean, I want to dig into that a little bit.
37
Ms. Bigelow, you and your colleagues at the National Partner-
ship for Women and Families recently published your findings on
the need of fathers for having paid family and medical leave.
You stated some of these facts earlier and I apologize for the re-
dundancy, but I think it is really critical for some of my colleagues
to hear this again.
So, Ms. Bigelow, you said that just five percent of fathers in pro-
fessional jobs took more than two weeks off after their most recent
child was born, correct?
Ms. BIGELOW. Yes.
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And we know that low-income dads have it
even worse because of the lack of paid leave. So, one study of dis-
advantaged families showed that nearly 60 percent of dads re-
ported taking zero weeks of paid time away from work after the
birth or adoption of a child. Does that sound about right to you?
Ms. BIGELOW. Yes.
And we know that the first year after a child’s birth or adoption
is critical to their development or adjustment inside a new home.
So, fathers are more likely to remain involved in parenting and
to equitably divide household chores with their partners if they
take time off after their child is born, right.
Ms. BIGELOW. That is right.
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And it is true that new moms and new
birthing parents have fewer postpartum health complications and
improved mental health when new dads also take parental leave,
right, or take paid leave?
Ms. BIGELOW. Yes.
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So, we see that dads having—and non-
birthing parents taking equitable paid leave is good for the parent.
It is good for the birthing parent and the mom, and it is good for
baby.
In my home state in New York, women make up about half of
New York’s labor force, you know, and I think one of the things
that we have seen in my personal experience, we have fully paid
parental leave and we have had a couple of new dads in my office
take it.
And one of the things that I have noticed so much is that after—
you know, eventually we all go back to work and sometimes they
come and bring baby—the baby and will be with our whole families
together in gatherings, and we see that, too.
Moms say, thank you so much for letting my husband stay with
me because I could not recover physically and handle a new baby
and try to keep a home together all by myself.
And so I am wondering, Ms. Bigelow, how do you think this con-
tributes to income inequity between, you know, new mothers and
fathers—and anyone else on the panel feel free to chime in as
well—or——
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but
the gentlewoman Bigelow may answer the question.
Ms. BIGELOW. So, I will just answer really quickly and say that
no new mom should feel alone to recover from birth and get used
to parenting, and I credit our own stability in my family to the fact
that my husband was able to take 12 weeks paid paternity leave
to the generous benefit provided by Congresswoman Nita Lowey.
38
And so we were able to really have a good start for our family
because of that, and I can’t imagine not having that if I were a low-
wage worker.
Mr. KELLEY. Madam Chairman, can I just chime in there?
Chairwoman MALONEY. Yes, Mr. Kelley, you are recognized brief-
ly.
Mr. KELLEY. Thank you so much. You know, paid parental leave
has been a godsend for those who have to use it so far, right. I am
a father, and I can recall those precious weeks after there was a
new addition to the family. The new baby needs attention.
The whole family needs the care and love and attention that, you
know, only can be provided given that they have no stress about
being able to pay rent and other expenses. The vast majority of
Federal employees, especially those young enough to be starting a
family, do not earn enough to skip even one paycheck.
Take, for instance, I hear a lot of talk about how much Federal
employees average a year. But when you take TSA workers that
average about $35,000 a year, you know, with a new family and
you got to worry about the house, no car, no—and all of these bills
and the stresses of those things, they will not be able to take off
work and take care of the family, bond with that family, as nec-
essary.
So, I just wanted to say that, and this FMLA leave is a necessary
addition to the family parental leave. So, I appreciate everyone
that is promoting this and that is sponsoring this. It is a necessary
thing for under-paid Federal employees.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has ex-
pired. She has yielded back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, you are now recognized
for your statement and questions.
Mr. FALLON. Madam Chair, thank you, and you can certainly say
the great state of Texas anytime you like.
So, you know, interesting to hear some earlier rants and lectures
about this. But, again, I always like to look at kind of some statis-
tics and share with our colleagues and friends.
The Federal—and I hope I am getting all this right, but we have
to trust some of the folks that we called for this research, that Fed-
eral employees—all the Federal employees are entitled to a pension
once they are vested.
Private sector, according to the National Compensation Survey
done by the Bureau of Labor, 12 percent of private sector employ-
ees get a pension. The paid sick leave in the private sector aver-
ages seven days a year and the Federal employees average 13.
Vacation—vacation is a little harder to quantify as far as aver-
age. But it looks like about 14 days with private sector and 20 days
with the Federal employees.
Paid holidays, private sector it is eight and Federal employees it
is now 11.
So, some of the things to consider. And sick leave, from what we
were told that 13 days can be carried over to the next year and
continue indefinitely. So after, say, 10 years, it is conceivable that
a Federal employee could have banked 130 sick days.
And vacation, they can only carry over 240 hours, which is about
30 days and they are getting, once they are established and I am
39
talking about an employee that has been around for, say, seven
years or plus, gets 20 days leave. But that would be a usual lose
at their bank and bring it over to the 30.
So, in a given year, if you have an employee, a Federal employee,
have about 180 days. Now, I don’t know, and I suspect that they
could use sick leave for maternity leave and if they cannot I would,
certainly, support letting them use that 12 weeks to cash in. This
is about saving.
I mean, we all are—we can’t live day to day. We need to save
money as best we can for that rainy day. That is what I was taught
growing up and my parents are retired school teachers. My father
retired after 25, 30 years service with all of making $38,000 a year.
But we saved for those rainy days.
And then you have to look at the cost of this. And it is hard to
quantify because the—there is no CBO estimate, and nobody
sought to ask the OPM.
So, there has been no due diligence on this, and it is—it is a
dereliction of duty to vote on this or form an opinion when we don’t
even know the cost. That is what—we are the caretakers of the
taxpayer dollars. The Federal employees work for the taxpayers.
I really, unfortunately, feel that this is a cover for a socialistic
policy, and if 12 weeks is great, yes—I mean, and I owned a busi-
ness, and I had an employee that had cancer and she was a loyal
employee, and I told her her job—but I was in that position—her
job was to get better and for two years I paid her. But that was
the decision that we made, and it wasn’t forced or compelled upon
us by anyone.
And that is the difference between the private sector and the
public sector, and particularly Federal employees.
And then I have heard for hours now the fact that, you know,
apparently Americans are helpless and there is no such thing as
personal responsibility, and there is certain decisions that you need
to make.
I started out in the Air Force making $18,500 a year and I had
certain decisions. I didn’t want to get married, and I didn’t want
to have children making $18,500 a year. I was responsible enough
to know that wasn’t going to be a good outcome.
And I have—we have to trust the American people. Government
is not God and governments have—and it is not a parent. It is a
bad parent.
And with that, Madam Chair, from the great state of Texas, Pat
Fallon yields back. Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. Thank you.
The gentlewoman from Missouri, the great state of Missouri, Ms.
Bush, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. BUSH. St. Louis and I thank you, Madam Chair, for con-
vening this hearing.
Just sitting here listening to what some of my colleagues are say-
ing is—absolutely just blows my mind. When we can—we can
speak from a place of, you know, I have it and every—everything
else should be great the same way that it is great for me.
But it is not that great for everybody and maybe we need to
bring it back to that, that everybody doesn’t have the same—if we
don’t have equity in this country, we don’t have equality in this
40
country. And so maybe opening your eyes to see that there is some-
body else that is suffering a different way than you.
And so, you know, I feel like, you know, the thing is this. We
have to look at more than just our little square box.
But thank you for your leadership on this, Chairwoman, and the
leadership of those on this committee.
The Federal Government now guarantees paid parental leave to
its employees. We know paid parental leave is a strong start, but
it is not at all enough leave for Federal workers or for workers,
more broadly.
And I know this from personal experience. Twice in my life I
have been fired or threatened with firing from a job for running out
of paid leave or something related to the paid leave while I was too
sick to work. Both incidents could have happened to anyone.
In one case, I was the victim of sexual violence. It was violence
upon my body that I did not ask for, and because mental health
isn’t paid for, because when you have this mental health situation
going on how do you keep your home? How do you keep—I almost
lost my home. I almost lost my car. I almost lost everything be-
cause I couldn’t deal with that sexual assault and it wasn’t my
fault.
The other one, I was t-boned in my car and I couldn’t walk for
weeks, and I remember, as a matter of fact, when I started to get
a little bit better, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez came to be with me, and she
literally carried me down the street. There’s photos of that.
It is not that I didn’t want to go to work. I physically could not
be a nurse. You physically—it is not that people want free hand-
outs. It is that, how do we take care of ourselves?
And this is the other thing. We also have to remember when you
lose a staff person that has been with you, it costs a lot of money.
It costs a lot of money to be able to get someone else in and train
them and get them to the point of the skill and the talent, the
knowledge, with that company that the other person had.
So, why not invest in the worker that you have? Why not give
them the space that they need to heal? It is ridiculous the things
that I am hearing today.
Imagine punishing a low-wage worker in response to a traumatic
life event. You punish them for that trauma. Imagine a nurse being
fired for being sick. Imagine trying to return to work but being un-
able to and being fired for it. Like me, millions of people don’t have
that, and they don’t have to imagine it. It is a reality that happens
every single day, and we see why.
Unfortunately, Federal workers are not guaranteed paid leave for
any reason specified in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
other than childcare. This leaves workers without affordable op-
tions when they have to take time off from work to address a
health issue or take care of a family member.
Mr. Kelley, great to see you again and thank you for all your
work. How would your members benefit if they had access to paid
leave during other situations when they need to care for them-
selves or their families?
Mr. KELLEY. Can I just give you a story?
Ms. BUSH. Yes.
41
Mr. KELLEY. OK. Let me tell you a story about a young man,
right. He had worked—he is a TSA worker—worked, you know, has
a wife, you know, and his wife is diabetic.
A few months ago, had to have a kidney transplant. He had to
use a lot of leave to take care of her, about two and a half months,
right, because she was very ill after the transplant.
They had a son. They had been working to send him to college,
right. Then a few weeks later, you know, the doctor discovered that
the body was rejecting the kidney, OK. So, they had to go in and
remove it. She became very ill.
So, that meant that he still wouldn’t work again, OK. So, that
became very stressful for the family, couldn’t pay the bills, and the
son that had worked so hard—to say go to college, I want you to
go to college, I want you to be a productive citizen—the father had
to ask him to come out of college and get a job in order to help
them pay the bills so that they wouldn’t leave their—lose their
home, and all these things.
So, I just agree with you. Everybody don’t have it like that.
There are people and, you know, and pastoring for 31 years to sit
here and hear the inhumanity of what I am hearing here today,
that is supposed to be representing our country, supposed to be
representing all of humanity, and there is no humanity in this. It
bothers me.
Ms. BUSH. It bothers me——
Mr. KELLEY. You are telling me that people are not concerned
about the well being of the American family. We are concerned
with those that already got it. Everybody don’t have it.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, and
the chair recognizes herself shortly.
I just want to commend Ms. Bush for pointing out that public
policy is not made on the goodness of one person’s heart. One per-
son can be very thoughtful and wonderful to their employees.
But there can be another situation where she pointed out where
people are hurt unjustly in many ways and lose their jobs, lose
their form of employment and way to provide for their families.
Public policy has to be made on what is best for the American
people, and that is what we are discussing today. We are not voting
on this bill today. We are having a debate and discussion on it.
I yield back and I now represent—I now recognize the gentleman
from the great state of Georgia.
Mr. Clyde, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. CLYDE. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, for
holding today’s hearing, and yes, Georgia is a great state. Thank
you.
Our country is facing several crises—the Biden border crisis, the
Biden crime crisis, the Biden economic crisis, the Biden energy cri-
sis, as we see gas prices go up and up and up, and the employment
crisis.
I am constantly hearing, as I travel across my district, it is clear
to me that families are hurting from inflation and are worried
about illicit drugs flooding their communities because of the crisis
at the southern border.
I am constantly hearing from small business owners about how
labor shortages are plaguing their ability to hire talented workers.
42
Thankfully, Georgia’s Governor, Brian Kemp, through his direct
order, has ended the extra payments from the Federal Government
so that we can get hard-working Georgians back to work.
I am a small businessman by trade, and I can tell you that small
and even large businesses operate a whole lot differently than does
the Federal Government.
I mean, the fact that the government, or should I say Congress,
decides how much we will spend before even putting a budget to-
gether. Is that backward in and of itself?
Not to mention the fact that we are not required to balance our
budget every year. No wonder our government is in such poor fiscal
condition.
As a business owner, I had to work to bring in revenue, which
was dependent on consumer demand, on customer service, on com-
munity engagement, on marketing, among other things.
You also must balance your budget as a small business owner
and plan to make adjustments if times are good or if they are
tough.
If times are good, and hopefully they stay good, benefits typically
become more generous than the basic benefits employers provide to
retain quality employees.
But when times are tough, sometimes you have to adjust to keep
people on the payroll because you don’t want to let anybody go. You
want to keep all your good employees.
To the contrary, if the government wants to increase its revenue
stream, all it does—all it has to do is raise taxes, easy as that. Flip
a switch and more money flows in.
But who pays the price for flipping that switch? The American
people, and if we don’t have the money now, we borrow it. And so
who pays the price? Our children.
So, for Ms. Manning, I have a question for you. I just outlined
some ways in which the government operates differently from pri-
vate employers and I briefly touched on differences in benefits in
good times and bad times.
Do the benefits for Federal employees get adjusted down when
times are tough?
Ms. MANNING. To my knowledge, they do not.
Mr. CLYDE. They do not. You are absolutely right.
So, it sounds like the Federal Government’s benefits are com-
pletely stable. And yet, with all these advantages we are sitting
here today considering the chairwoman’s proposal to further ex-
pand the already generous benefits for Federal employees.
What do you think that says to the average American, saying
that their Federal employee counterparts are getting more benefits
than private citizens who are struggling to recover from the pan-
demic? What do you think that says to the American people,
ma’am?
Ms. MANNING. You know, I think we struggle as a country to
maintain wide respect for any type of large institution, whether it
is the media or the government or academic institutions.
I would love to see greater public trust in those institutions. But
I don’t think it fosters good public trust when we feel that there
is an elite political class who can vote new benefits for themselves
43
or for the Federal work force, and that often, I think, fosters a
sense of detachment from the citizens that you serve.
Mr. CLYDE. I agree with you. Do you think the Federal Govern-
ment needs to make its benefits even more generous than they al-
ready are right now to compete for labor?
Ms. MANNING. No. As an economic question, I think it is pretty
clear there is no economic necessity with that.
Mr. CLYDE. OK. Well, thank you. I appreciate that very much.
You know, it is one thing to provide a benefit like this during an
extraordinary period, like COVID–19. But it is another entirely to
make this a permanent benefit for all times, good and bad.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate that. You know, I am
a 28-year military officer and 11 years of that was spent on active
duty. And the military gives 30 days of paid leave every year, but
that 30 days includes weekends.
So, if I take straight 30 days, then I have four weekends. I have
eight days of weekend days that are included in that paid leave.
While I know signing up for active duty is much different than
signing up for the civilian work force, you know, both are public
servants and at the end of the day their salaries are paid by the
taxpayers.
So, in my opinion, it is egregious that we are sitting here today
considering a proposal that would only require Federal civil serv-
ants to work nine months of the year. It is an affront to our serv-
icemen and women who sacrifice everything, as well as to tax-
payers who will be on the hook to pay for the additional benefits.
And with that, from the great state of Georgia, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
And the gentleman from Illinois, the great state of Illinois, Mr.
Davis, is now recognized.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairman.
You know, as I was listening to the Biden crisis, I was just re-
minded that President Biden has done more for low-and moderate-
income children and families than we have seen in this country
since the Great Society program.
Mr. CLYDE. Well, he’s admitting that it’s the Biden programs——
Mr. DAVIS. And so that is one way of dealing with and address-
ing crisis.
But we are really talking about something else at the moment.
I am in favor of paid family medical leave. As a matter of fact, not
only am I in favor of it, I introduced it, and so I am definitely in
favor of it.
I was just wondering, though, because I have always been taught
that a satisfied work force is far more productive than a work force
that is not satisfied.
So, when we start talking about costs, if we keep the work force
satisfied they are going to be more productive, according to all of
the research and all of the studies that I have ever heard anything
about.
Of course, Illinois is a great state. But I represent a large num-
ber of people in Chicago who are disproportionately among those
lacking paid leave benefits, often because they are single parents
or grandparents, caregivers who need caregiving flexibility. They
44
are often lower paid individuals in the work force and don’t get all
of the benefits that others might get.
Ms. Shabo, let me ask you, my congressional district has one of
the highest percentages of children being cared for by their grand-
parents. The burden of care giving often falls heavily on African-
American women, with many of these grandmothers working, car-
ing for young children and aging family members, and also dealing
with their own medical issues.
Could you discuss why a broad definition of family is needed to
make sure that everyone who needs it can get the family caregiving
leave and get their needs met?
Ms. SHABO. Thank you so much for the question. You know, like
constituents in your district, families across the country come in all
shapes and sizes.
They are caring for different members of their family. They
treat—members of their family require care and different people
may be available.
But too often, policies leave extended family members behind—
grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, adult children, and others
who folks care for like family.
Fourteen percent of workers who needed but didn’t take an
FMLA leave in 2018 said that they couldn’t because they were car-
ing for somebody who wasn’t covered by the FMLA.
One of the great innovations in state-paid family and medical
leave programs is that every single one of them now covers a
broader definition of family.
And this is incredibly important, particularly for families of color,
for families with people who have disabilities, for LGBTQ families,
and for women in particular, who bear the brunt of caregiving,
whether it is paid or unpaid, or whether they have to leave their
jobs in order to provide care for those who they love.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kelley, I have heard a lot about the number of days that
Federal employees have to work. Do you know any rules that re-
quire individuals to take all of the family medical leave that they
may have available to them?
Mr. KELLEY. There is no rule, sir. And what I would like—if I
might add just a little bit, I think we should refocus on what this
discussion is all about, right, because every Federal employee
would not be able to take four months of leave.
That is not what this is all about, and to propose that would be
a lot. It will be a lot to the American people, because if you think
about, you know, how many Federal employees will have a person
in their family that will fall into the category that they will be able
to take, you know, these 12 weeks, it is just not the truth.
It is not true, even to the fact that I heard earlier that Federal
employees haven’t given up anything. But it is not true. If you re-
member back in 2013 and 2014, it was Federal employees that
gave up retirement benefits. They was cut. You know, it was the
Federal employee, you know, and all of this pay was for the ex-
tended unemployment insurance. And remember that we are not
political appointees. We are Federal employees, and to bring these
untruths for today really bothers me.
45
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairman,
and I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you.
The gentleman from the great state of Vermont, Mr. Welch, you
are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Welch?
Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am going to be asking a few questions of Eric Sorkin very
shortly, but I just want to introduce it by saying a little bit about
his business.
He and his wife, Laura, created a business called Runamok
Maple. It produces the tastiest product in the world, and that is
Vermont maple syrup, and they have grown it into a business with
75 employees.
And we are very, very proud of our small businesses and
Runamok Maple, and I know that my colleagues have similar sto-
ries about successful small businesses in their districts.
And the question here about family leave is one where the debate
is about whether government should play a role, and Mr. Keller
said we should leave this up to individual businesses.
And the reality is that most businesses, I think, are like the
Sorkins’. If they can, they want to do whatever is possible for their
employees. It is like a family, and I think is universal across the
country. But there is a question of whether all businesses can do
it.
So, Mr. Sorkin, I want to welcome you and ask you if you could
say why it is important for small businesses that the Federal Gov-
ernment does offer a national paid family and medical leave ben-
efit.
Does a national policy help level the playing field with business
competitors who may not be able to or don’t want to provide the
same benefit to their employees?
Mr. SORKIN. Thank you, Representative Welch.
Absolutely. I completely agree. I guess from my perspective that
it is not—it shouldn’t be about whether a worker is working for a
company that can afford to do it or not. We do it and that is a bur-
den on us, irrespective of the fact that we feel like there is a good
return on that investment.
I don’t see the downside to having a national program that would
help workers. It would help us as well. You know, when we are re-
cruiting, and we talked a lot about how hard it is to recruit right
now, you know, we are at a significant disadvantage to bigger com-
panies that can afford to do it. So, it would absolutely be leveling
the playing field.
Mr. WELCH. Right. And as I understand it, you and your wife re-
sponded to a human situation. You had a valued employee whose
wife had terminal cancer. He couldn’t lose the paycheck. He
couldn’t be home, and he was caught between a rock and a hard
place and you guys decided, hey, this is our employee. We trust
him, value him, and we want to let him do what we would like to
do on our own if the circumstances were reversed.
Is that correct?
Mr. SORKIN. That is absolutely right.
46
Mr. WELCH. And without any support. You had to eat the cost
of that?
Mr. SORKIN. That is right.
Mr. WELCH. Right. And so, you mentioned the effect on morale
in your company that you did institute this. And by the way, to my
colleagues, 75 employees is a small business. It is a big deal in
Vermont.
And by the way, maple syrup, it is a lot of hard work. You are
out in the woods getting that maple syrup that we just get on our
breakfast table.
But tell—me tell us a little bit about how it affected morale in
your company.
Mr. SORKIN. Well, I mean, it has been—you know, a few weeks
ago there was a statistic that, I think, Vermont had the tightest
labor market in the country. I believe it was 5.1 job postings for
every—for every person on unemployment.
We recently posted a position for production associates. We have
several that we are hiring for, and we received about 150 applica-
tions in a few weeks.
Mr. WELCH. That is——
Mr. SORKIN. Yes, we are pretty well known for our policies, and
I am fairly certain that is part of why we continue.
Mr. WELCH. That is great. Let me ask you this. What impact did
the Family First Coronavirus Response Act have on your company?
Would your business have survived the pandemic without a feder-
ally funded paid leave policy?
Mr. SORKIN. It made our decisions easier, and it kept our busi-
ness and our employees healthy. It was—it was essential, no doubt
about it.
Mr. WELCH. Well, I want to thank you, because I think you have
been a successful small business. We know how hard it is to make
an enterprise like yours successful.
And your point about a level playing field so that all employers
have this option where they are not putting themselves at a com-
petitive disadvantage if they choose to help their employees, I
think, is very compelling.
Thank you, and Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from the great state of Georgia, Mr. Hice, is now
recognized.
Mr. Hice?
Mr. HICE. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Manning, let me come to you. Democrats have not provided
any information on this bill regarding the cost. Would you antici-
pate that this piece of legislation would be a good idea for the
American taxpayer?
Ms. MANNING. I am sure it comes with some costs. You know,
unfortunately, we don’t know what that cost is. But, simply, the
term ‘‘paid leave’’ implies that someone is paying for it. So, there
is—someone has to be paid, someone has to pay.
Mr. HICE. Do you have any idea what type of, just a estimate,
something like this might cost?
Ms. MANNING. No, especially given that Federal workers already
have paid parental leave. So, we are just talking about the addi-
47
tional marginal cost of other medical paid leaves that would fall
outside of the parental leave category. I don’t know. But it would
come with some cost.
Mr. HICE. Yes, and I would think the cost would be rather sig-
nificant, and it just seems to me the logical progression of dealing
with legislation in a responsible manner, that if you are going to
pass legislation that is going to have a significant price tag associ-
ated with it, it would be a good idea to know what that price tag
is, especially in behalf of the taxpayers.
Ms. MANNING. Certainly, and I think that is true, regardless how
lawmakers feel, you know, or members of the public.
If we feel that paid leave is a right or something that everyone
should be entitled to, the question still remains, how do we manage
limited resources, how do we pay for the things that we want peo-
ple to have?
And that is true of both paid leave for Federal workers and a
broader Federal program that might provide paid leave or pay re-
placement for all workers.
Mr. HICE. Well, beyond the cost factor is also this whole question
of assessing how do you work your work force—what is the impact
that something like this would have on the work force.
I mean, if we are dealing with something like this, I shared in
my opening statement, we are talking 12 weeks plus other holidays
and benefits. A Federal worker, really, we are talking working
eight months out of a year, potentially. So, we have four months
of a gap.
How does the private sector—how could anyone deal with em-
ployees who are gone a third of the time?
Ms. MANNING. Well, you know, I think there is a variety of
downsides that would come with a national paid leave program and
it is not just the cost in terms of new taxes. Of course, I believe
that deserves examination as well.
But when we talk about a paid leave entitlement that would
apply broadly to the Nation, first of all, we have talked about—we
have recognized that many employers in the private sector have al-
ready acted to put in place some kind of paid leave benefit for their
employees and, in some cases, paternal leave and medical leave.
When you establish a national standard through a Federal pro-
gram, you immediately reorient all of those individualized private
solutions that employers/employees have worked out between
themselves and you start to create an incentive for employers to
simply comply with the Federal standard and pay for the national
entitlement rather than go directly to their work force, to their
workers, and say, what can we work out, what kind of flexible ar-
rangement works for you, how many weeks do you want, do you
want to come back part time or full time or virtual, and so forth.
And there are myriad different solutions that work for different
industries, different workers, different seasons of life that workers
might be in, and so we ought to be, at a time where the American
economy and businesses and families are more diverse than they
have ever been, encouraging those diverse solutions rather than
coming forward with a one-size-all fit solution.
Mr. HICE. Well, I agree with you, and at a bare minimum I think
that any private company dealing with this type of policy would at
48
least have, I would think, an assessment of sorts to determine the
impact that something like this would have on their work force.
Do you know of any such assessment that has taken place on the
Federal Government to determine the impact that this would have
on the work force?
Ms. MANNING. I do not.
Mr. HICE. OK. And just a last question. I know you have touched
on this. But coming out of COVID, which we all, thank God, we are
coming out of, seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, but there
is no question so many businesses have been kicked in the gut, in-
dividual families, livelihoods across the board.
Many of them have lost everything they have had. Some of them
just inched their way through and now trying to recover. Even a
bill like this, were it to become law and be enacted, do you think
that is a good idea timing wise for so many private individuals who
have just suffered tremendously?
Ms. MANNING. Well, I certainly think it is the case that one of
the biggest economic problems, particularly for Americans who are
in poverty or on the brink of poverty, is the lack of an income, full
stop.
They need a job. They need income. And the requirement that or
the suggestion that those jobs have to come with a full plate of ben-
efits, whether it is health insurance or an increased minimum
wage or these paid leave proposals that we are talking about today,
that simply increases the cost of creating those jobs that Americans
desperately need and want in order to provide for themselves and
their families.
Mr. HICE. Thank you very much, Ms. Manning.
And with that, I will yield back. Thank you.
Ms. PORTER. [Presiding.] Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes herself for five minutes for questioning.
Ms. Bigelow, you have said that you worked from the day that
you gave birth to your child. Could you explain, briefly, why you
felt like you had to be working up to the very last moment before
you gave birth?
Ms. BIGELOW. Sure, and after, too, that day, because every mo-
ment was really critical to getting the most time that was paid for
me after—after my FMLA started, and it was unpaid.
So I knew that, like, if he was going to be in the NICU for 10
days if I could still do some work there, and that would buy me
10 extra days to actually bond with my baby.
Ms. PORTER. That really resonates with me. I had three children
while teaching as a professor, and I was scheduled to teach a class
on the day of my planned Cesarean section with my third child,
and the dean, ultimately, prevailed on me to reschedule and cancel
that class. But I really felt the need to use all of the time that I
could.
And I know you said that you returned to work sooner. What
was—what motivated that? Was it the stress about your family’s
financial stability? Was it concern about your career? How did that
affect your decisions about giving birth and having a child and how
it intersected with work?
Ms. BIGELOW. So, I did take 12 weeks off, but instead of only
missing one or two paychecks I ended up missing more because I
49
took time off when I was in the hospital and I took time off for all
of those appointments.
And there was a government shutdown in between, so it was a
very stressful time, you know, just trying to juggle all the finances
of having a new baby, having a new house, and all those things.
And so, it was, you know, a very difficult decision to try to be
determined and try—and to be there for my family because I knew
that was going to be more important than a job.
Ms. PORTER. You have also written about your mother’s fear of
taking time off from her retail job to care for you. Can you talk
about what that meant for your family?
Ms. BIGELOW. Yes, and I think people are very—they grow up
and you have a reaction to how your environment is, and it made
me, you know, really dedicated to this work and to know that I
needed to fight for the kinds of policies in workplaces that didn’t
cause fear for workers.
And I think for my mom, and when she was trying to take care
of me, she always was worried that I would be sick. She was wor-
ried that she could be sick, and that created a lot of stress in our
household.
And I know that impacts everyone’s health, and those are things
that I really didn’t want to pass on for my family.
Ms. PORTER. Well, and I think it is clear that the need for paid
leave is not new, although the pandemic may have exacerbated or
reignited interest in this issue.
The reality is that we have multiple generations now of working
women and families that have been harmed by a lack of paid leave
and it has disproportionately hurt people who work particularly in
industries like retail and food services, for whom even a few days
of unpaid paid time off could jeopardize their job or their ability to
put food on the table.
Ms. Shabo, turning to you, how much do American families lose
each year in income as a result of insufficient paid leave policy?
Ms. SHABO. Thanks for the question, Representative Porter.
The Center for American Progress estimates $22.5 billion lost to
families every year because of a lack of paid leave or ineffective—
insufficient paid leave.
Ms. PORTER. Twenty-two point five billion dollars is an awful lot
of groceries, an awful lot of diapers, an awful lot of utility bills that
people are going without.
And about how many workers are we talking about here who
contribute to that $22.5 billion? How many workers are being
harmed by this?
Ms. SHABO. Yes. I mean, around 20 million workers a year take
paid leave—take FMLA leave, and only a small share of those are
paid adequately or paid at all.
Ms. PORTER. And we have talked about a lot of—and, you know,
some of my colleagues in this committee hearing today have talked
about this as a, you know, progressive priority. This is a women’s
issue. This is a kid’s issue.
Ms. Shabo, who is hurt by the lack of paid leave in this country?
Ms. SHABO. Everybody is hurt by the lack of paid leave in this
country, whether it is you directly or the economy or a business.
This is not an—It is not a frill. It is a necessity for getting our
50
economy back on track and creating households that are stable and
secure, going forward.
Ms. PORTER. Are men hurt by a lack of paid leave?
Ms. SHABO. Absolutely. We did a report at New America on men
and care giving, including a big national survey, finding that men
want to be able to provide care. They want to be able to be there
for their families. But, you know, not only is it a matter of not hav-
ing access to pay or fearing for your job, it’s also stigma around the
gendered nature of care, and when men want to break out of that
mold they have a hard time.
Ms. PORTER. How about Democrats? Do they—Democratic work-
ers want to take paid leave?
Ms. SHABO. All workers want to take paid leave. All workers
want to know that paid leave is there for them when they need it,
and that is why we see in polls before the pandemic, during the
pandemic, now, 85 percent of workers want national paid leave.
That is 75 percent of Republicans, 80 something percent of inde-
pendents, and 95 percent of Democrats. The only place this is a
partisan issue is in the halls of Congress, and in some legislatures
but not all legislatures.
So, we have seen laws passed with bipartisan support in Oregon
and Washington and Massachusetts, and there is no need for the
partisan division here. This is common sense.
Ms. PORTER. Absolutely. And so Republican workers, Democratic
workers, independent voters, voters, workers who vote, workers
who don’t vote. People are having families and it effects not just
the worker, but it affects the work force, broadly.
And so, one of the things I say over and over again, and I just
want to say it here to echo what you just said, that paid leave is
not something that we do just for women, just for kids, just for pro-
gressives, just for whatever.
Paid leave is something we do for everyone, whether you have
never had a child or never want one, whether you are 50 years past
your childbearing years or you are just entering them.
Paid leave makes our economy stronger, and I don’t think there
is any American who shouldn’t want our country to have a strong
globally competitive economy and we can’t do that without paid
leave.
Thank you very much.
I am now going to recognize Mr. Johnson, the gentleman from
Tennessee, for five minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I want to thank the chairwoman for holding
this hearing, and this issue of paid family and medical leave is one
that is so important, and I thank the witnesses today for their tes-
timony and advocacy efforts because Americans faced unprece-
dented challenges during the COVID–19 pandemic—600,000 dead,
34 million infected, and many people are still living with life-alter-
ing health consequences.
And the experiences of our constituents have shown us that the
Federal Government must implement a comprehensive paid family
and medical leave policy and we must do so now.
It is a shameful tribute that it has taken us this long. The mo-
ment is here, and we must not let this moment pass. Even my
home state of Georgia, which is ground zero for voter suppression,
51
recently established three weeks of paid parental leave for state
employees.
While we still have plenty of work left to do, this advancement
was the latest result of tireless work by advocates from across the
state and the Nation, and I want to applaud you for your efforts,
and I know that those efforts will continue.
I keep hearing from my friends on the other side of the aisle
today about the costs of paid family and medical leave to the tax-
payers, and that we can’t afford to do family medical leave.
I would remind my friends that it is the working people who pay
the taxes, not the wealthy and the corporations. They don’t pay
taxes because of all the loopholes in the tax code that they use to
shelter their income.
And everyone will—we will never forget the Trump Republican
Party tax cut of 2017, which cut $5.8 trillion dollars in taxes for
83 percent—excuse me, for the top one percent.
Eighty-three percent of that $5.8 trillion in tax cuts went to the
top one percent, while at the same time raising taxes on working
people to try to fill the hole in the Federal deficit.
Yet, it is those same wealthy people and corporate interests,
most notably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Koch brothers,
and others, who have the biggest influence on policy because of
their ability to spend dark money, putting pro-business politicians
in office who do their bidding rather than serve the people.
Big business and the politicians who support them are the ones
who oppose family and medical leave protections for workers and
working people who pay the taxes should be able to allocate their
taxes to support themselves during their times of need rather than
subsidizing the wealthy who don’t pay taxes.
Ms. Bigelow, in 2018, the National Partnership for Women and
Families conducted a nationwide survey on paid leave. What did
the survey reveal about American workers’ support or lack thereof
for the concept of paid family and medical leave?
Ms. BIGELOW. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
We have actually done a number of different surveys beyond
2018 and even as recently as last year, and we always find that
paid leave has bipartisan support, and it has a majority of support
from Republicans, Democrats, and independents.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, in fact, 94 percent of Democrats and 73 per-
cent of Republicans supported paid leave. Isn’t that correct?
Ms. BIGELOW. Yes, that sounds right.
Mr. JOHNSON. Now, these numbers are staggering, and I can’t
think of another policy proposal with such bipartisan support. But
yet, states across the Nation have not been responsive to public
support for expanded and comprehensive paid leave policies.
What factors are contributing to the failure of states to pass laws
requiring that workers receive paid leave?
Ms. BIGELOW. Well, you know, I will say there has been a lot of
momentum in the states over the past few years to pass paid leave
laws. But I really think it is time for a national policy, for a na-
tional standard.
And so, while our campaigns still are being started in different
states, I think what we are seeing in, like, a lot of—a lot of these
52
areas, it is a bipartisan issue. But we are also working to get a na-
tional—yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you are right about that. What is stopping
us from getting a national paid leave policy passed?
Ms. BIGELOW. I think there is a lot of misconceptions about what
this means and, particularly, it sounds like the cost issue. The fact
of the matter——
Mr. JOHNSON. And so—and so those who are not paying the costs
want to—want to dictate to those who are paying the cost what—
how to allocate that money. It is really quite——
Ms. PORTER. The gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON. It is really quite ridiculous. And with that, I will
yield back.
Ms. PORTER. Thank you so much, sir.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for five
minutes.
Mr. Comer, you are on mute, sir. We look forward to hearing
from you.
Mr. COMER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don’t know where to begin. I have been sitting patiently listen-
ing to the comments from my Democrat colleagues. I sat through
the technical difficulties of having a virtual hearing when we could
all be right down the hall in the committee room.
You know, one thing that Representative Davis said, he said, you
know, we need to keep the Federal work force satisfied. I mean,
that is a disconnect with reality—with the reality of the taxpayers.
The Federal work force needs to keep the taxpayer satisfied with
the production and with the way their tax dollars are being spent.
We just had a briefing with the VA. Right now, if a veteran calls
any of our offices and asks for their VA records, it may take a year
for them to get the—to get their records from the VA. The VA—
I asked the question, are your workers back to work yet? Oh, no.
No. It is still—you know, it is still dangerous to be out there.
Well, those poor veterans. You know, people in the private sector
have had to go back to work. We just passed the Juneteenth bill
last week with overwhelming bipartisan support that gave the Fed-
eral workers another day off, and the next committee hearing we
have in Oversight talk about more Federal benefits and perks,
perks, for Federal employees.
The biggest problem in America right now is workers can’t find
employees. They can’t find employees. Factories aren’t at full pro-
duction. Our economy isn’t anywhere near its potential because of
the policies of the Biden administration, the policies to pay people
to continue to work—to continue to not work, to sit at home.
And with all the problems in America right now, with all the
hearings that we have pleaded to have with the majority, we have
a border crisis. We have a crime crisis in the big cities.
We have inflation. We have credible evidence that shows, despite
your all calling it conspiracy theories, that COVID started in
Wuhan. You don’t want to have any hearings on that. Nothing on
that.
You know, we are not blaming you all for COVID. We are blam-
ing China for COVID. We want to have hearings—bipartisan hear-
ings on that.
53
You want to give Federal workers more benefits, more—continue
to pay people not to work. It is just a total disconnect.
It’s a total disconnect, and it highlights the differences between
what Republicans in the House are pushing for and fighting for,
and what Democrats in the House are fighting for.
Ms. Manning, what should the process be to consider paid leave
vacation, to fully understand the costs, tradeoffs, and con-
sequences?
Ms. MANNING. Well, every employer will have to do their own
cost benefit analysis. The Federal Government has to do a cost ben-
efit analysis, and it sounds like there hasn’t been sufficient explo-
ration of the costs without a cost estimate from CBO or elsewhere.
But other private employers have to make a different calculus,
their own cost-benefit analysis based on their work force, their re-
tention, their attractiveness to workers and so forth, and what
makes the most sense for them.
Mr. COMER. So, you would agree that the process—this bill
hasn’t gone through an appropriate process to be able to determine
the costs and the effects on production and the consequences? What
is your biggest concern with this bill?
Ms. MANNING. Well, my biggest concern with the bill and more
so the hearing and the way that this issue is being presented is,
you know, I would be careful not to misconstrue public support for
the concept of paid leave and support for a particular policy, espe-
cially without a full examination of the tradeoffs and downsides as-
sociated with that proposal.
So, for example, the Family Act, which is the leading proposal to
establish a national comprehensive paid leave entitlement, comes
with a very significant downside.
And I appreciate lawmakers’ concern about low-income workers,
but it would establish a regressive payroll tax that would cost low-
income workers and families, and those are the folks who are least
likely to benefit from programs like this one, as we have seen dem-
onstrated in several of the states that have experimented with pro-
grams like this and several countries abroad that have experi-
mented with programs like this.
It is a regressive policy that redistributes wealth from low-in-
come people to upper and middle-income families.
Mr. COMER. I agree completely. Thank you for your comments.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here and I want to add
to that, inflation is a regressive tax and the policies of this admin-
istration are creating inflation, which is a tax on low-income and
poor families.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mr. KELLEY. Madam Chair, may I—may I speak to something I
just heard?
Ms. PORTER. Yes. Please pause. Just hang on one second, please,
Mr. Kelley.
Mr. KELLEY. No problem. No problem. Yes.
[Pause.]
Ms. PORTER. I am sorry, Mr. Kelley. I am going to move on to
Mr. Sarbanes, the gentleman from Maryland, and hopefully you
will have a chance to speak again later in the hearing.
Mr. Sarbanes, you are now recognized for five minutes.
54
Mr. SARBANES. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. Actually, I am
going to be asking Mr. Kelley a question so he may want to take
a chance to offer his thoughts that he had.
I am hitting some of the high points that have already been cov-
ered, but I think it is important.
So again, in 2020, we know that Congress passed the bipar-
tisan—I emphasize that bipartisan—Families First Coronavirus
Response Act, the FFCRA, which had two major provisions related
to paid leave.
As we know, the first provided 12 weeks of partially compensated
family and medical leave for coronavirus-related care giving rea-
sons, including for childcare and schools where daycare centers
were closed due to the pandemic.
The second provision provided up to two weeks of paid sick leave
for reasons related to the pandemic. The FFCRA also included tax
credits. This was very important for employers to help them cover
costs for this paid leave.
And then in March 2021, when we passed the American Rescue
Plan, it extended the tax credits to businesses, also provided addi-
tional paid family medical leave for Federal employees for
coronavirus-related reasons.
Mr. Kelley, many Federal employees, including your members,
have been on the front lines of the government’s response to the
pandemic. Of course, this includes many essential workers who
continued to work onsite throughout the pandemic.
How have the Federal Government’s coronavirus leave policies
helped Federal employees take care of themselves and their fami-
lies while at the same time serving their nation?
Mr. KELLEY. Well, you know, and that is a good question, and
I appreciate it, too. But the passing of these bills has helped tre-
mendously, OK, because a person don’t have to worry about the
stress of going to job, and the possibility of being contracted with
this virus but they are still able to, you know, perform for the
American people.
You know, and so it is very important that this bill was passed.
OK. But I want to just say that this is about, you know, emer-
gencies—emergency situations. I also want to reiterate the fact
that, you know, the VA never stopped working. That’s what I want-
ed to comment on earlier, if I may.
The VA never stopped working. Telework is working from home.
Not not working at all, but it is working from home. And as a mat-
ter of fact, production went up. Telework and paid leave made it
possible to keep things going, OK, and that is the point that I
wanted to make earlier, and it is just in line with the question that
you asked.
Mr. SARBANES. Well, actually, I appreciate you mentioning
telework just because I have worked on that issue for many, many
years, proud of the Telework Improvement Act that we passed here
in Congress.
It was signed into law a few years back, which really upgraded
the telework policies across the Federal Government in a way that
did, as you say, contribute to productivity in very measurable ways.
And I assume that the policies we put in place that we are dis-
cussing today that helped Federal workers during the pandemic
55
were also really critical in terms of keeping the employee morale
high, or at least not taking a huge hit at a time when people were
feeling a lot of stress.
So, that is one of the reasons it is—it is so important.
Ms. Shabo, I wanted to get your views on the effect that these
leave provisions in the FFCRA and the American Rescue Plan have
on the private sector. In other words, what role did they play in
helping workers and businesses weather the pandemic?
Ms. SHABO. That is a great question. Thank you so much.
You know, the FFCRA put in place for the first time ever paid
sick leave and paid childcare leave that was required of certain
businesses and available to certain employees.
It is estimated to have prevented 15 million COVID cases per
day nationwide at the height of the pandemic. Businesses were
able to get tax credits to reimburse them for the leave that they
were required to provide.
In December, the requirement went away. The tax credits re-
mained, which is great for businesses that take them. But this is
leaving behind millions of workers and it is why we can’t ever go
back to a situation where workers don’t have access to paid leave
and where the private sector doesn’t have the support that it needs
in guaranteeing access to paid leave.
And that is why a policy like the Family Act or the American
Families Plan or the Neal Building an Economy for Families Act
is so critical because it will put in place the stability that busi-
nesses and workers need, going forward, for public health emer-
gencies like COVID, and for individual family situations and emer-
gencies in perpetuity.
You know, the private sector, I think, during COVID saw that
government could provide support for paid leave, and businesses
like Eric’s here benefited from it.
Mr. SARBANES. Thanks very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. PORTER. The chair now recognizes Ms. Speier, the gentlelady
from California.
Ms. SPEIER. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Let me just start off by commenting on what my good colleague,
Mr. Comer said. He hasn’t ever had a baby. So, maybe he thinks
it is a vacation.
But for those of us who have been moms, who have given birth
to children, it is no vacation. It is stressful, it is challenging, and
his comment is truly insulting to every mother in this country.
Second, I think we have lost sight of what this is all about. This
is about creating a national program where both the employee and
the employer will contribute so that there will be the opportunity
for paid leave for employees.
Now, we already know that only 19 percent of the employees in
this country have paid leave, and for those that are concerned that
this is somehow going to impact poor people, well, poor people have
even less opportunity for paid family leave now. It is, like, eight
percent.
So, you know, we are the only industrialized country in the world
that has this caveman attitude about parental leave, and we have
got to grow up.
56
We have got to recognize that it takes a two-income family to
make it in this country today, and we have got to make it easier
on both parents.
And I am just going to speak about one bill in particular and ask
for some commentary on it. Believe it or not, our service members
do not have the same parental leave benefits that our Federal em-
ployees have, and I guess the question I have is, are my Republican
colleagues willing to support a bipartisan bill, co-authored by Con-
gresswoman Bice and Congressman Joyce, to equalize that for the
men and women in our country who will put their lives on the line,
but whose parental leave is less than what it is for Federal employ-
ees?
Let me start with Ms. Shabo. Why do you think these kinds of
benefits are important for all but, particularly, for service mem-
bers?
Ms. SHABO. Well, reams of research show the importance of gen-
der-equal parental leave in terms of maternal health, child out-
comes, fathers’ engagements. For service members, if we are seri-
ous about creating a diverse and inclusive military, we have to en-
sure equitable parental leave.
This means that male service members will be able to take care
of their new children at equal levels. It will make the Federal—the
military service, again, competitive.
It will help ensure that as young people who enter the military
make decisions about whether to stay, it will make them more like-
ly to stay.
I actually had a law student working with me. He and his wife
actually both left the military as they were thinking about having
children because of the inequitable paid leave and the lack of paid
leave for dads.
So, this is a real issue for military readiness and competitive-
ness, and more than that, we also need to destigmatize care giving
that is so often falling on women and holding women behind, in-
cluding in the military.
So, for all those reasons, I think that bill is really important, and
creating equity between the genders in military service for parental
leave is critically important.
Ms. SPEIER. Thank you.
Mr. Kelley, you are an Army veteran and former Army civilian
employee, and I think you are also aware of the challenges for our
families of the Reserve and National Guard, and they have no com-
prehensive paid leave policies to support these military families.
Can you comment on the burdens and stress associated with
that?
Mr. KELLEY. Yes, I think the burden and the stresses is the same
as anyone else, right, and we have heard throughout the day of
how it is a burden on any family member, right, that doesn’t have
the paid leave.
I mean, the fact that if you are, you know, not able to spend time
with your family, your newborn baby, or whatever, you know, it
stresses, right. There is just stress all around.
So, I think the impact for the military is the same impact that
you have for anyone else. So, I think it is a benefit that everyone
should be able to share.
57
Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. And let me just close by saying, at one
point in my congressional office I had two of my staff members out
on parental leave, my chief of staff and one of my leg staff, for
three months, and the sky didn’t fall.
We were able to conduct business, do the job, and it was a great
benefit to them, and they were very grateful for it.
So, if we are truly a country that supports family values, it is
time to show it.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. PORTER. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Ms.—the gentlewoman from Illinois,
Ms. Kelly, for five minutes.
Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that
Federal employee benefits are already generous, and they are—and
that Federal employees don’t need another leave benefit.
I would like to remind my colleagues about the 35-day-long gov-
ernment shutdown from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019.
During that time, 800,000 Federal employees were either on fur-
lough or were working without pay.
More than 60 percent of those workers reported exhausting their
savings during the shutdown, which tracks with the 63 percent of
Americans who don’t have enough savings to cover a $500 emer-
gency. Federal workers endure the same hardships and financial
insecurities as many of their fellow Americans.
Mr. Kelley, can you tell us about what kind of financial hard-
ships Federal employees have endured during the 2019 shutdown,
the pandemic, or even over the course of their careers?
Mr. KELLEY. Again, that is so—a great question. You know,
think about the—and you have heard me reference TSA quite a bit,
right. Think about the fact that this TSA work force average about
$35,000 a year, OK, and not getting paid, but still having to travel
back and forth to work in a metropolitan area like New York City,
like Washington, DC, OK.
They have to go back and forth to work. You know, they have
to take care of childcare and all these types of things, you know,
and they are not getting a paycheck. You know, some of them lost
their homes, right. Some of them couldn’t get back and forth to the
doctor.
I mean, it was all kind of crisis coming up, you know, and that
is just with the TSA work force. But throughout America, there
was all kinds of employees that were being affected, you know, be-
cause, like you said, you know, $500 is a lot to a lot of people and
they couldn’t work, right.
They weren’t getting paid, you know, and they couldn’t come up
with the house note. They couldn’t come up with a car note, and
many of them lost their homes, lost automobiles, and those type of
things.
Sure go back and rectify, you know, what is going to happen in
the future. But it didn’t help the fact that many of those employees
lost their homes. Many of them, you know, lost their
[inaudible] if you will
[inaudible] the American work force.
Ms. KELLY. And thank you for that.
58
While the Federal work force falls within this committee’s juris-
diction, I support comprehensive paid family and medical leave for
all workers.
Ms. Shabo, can you explain to us why paid family and medical
leave is not some superfluous perk, but an essential requirement
for the health and prosperity of American workers and businesses?
Ms. SHABO. Absolutely, Representative Kelly. Thank you.
Paid leave is essential for all of us because, at one time or an-
other, every single working person is going to need to take time to
care for themselves, to care for a loved one, or to welcome a child
into their family.
And yet, now just one in five workers and just five percent of
lower-wage workers have access to paid family leave. This means
families are losing, on average, a thousand dollars a year.
Families in the aggregate are using 20—are losing $20.5 billion
a year. Businesses are incurring costs up to 200 percent of the cost
of turnover when workers leave, and the economy itself is losing
out. Five hundred billion dollars a year is estimated that paid
leave—lack of paid leave before the pandemic.
The flip side, McKinsey estimates that the GDP of the U.S. could
grow by $2.4 trillion if we address gender inequities, and paid fam-
ily and medical leave is a big part of that.
Ms. KELLY. Thank you so much, and I yield back the balance of
my time. But thank both of you so much.
Chairwoman MALONEY. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
And the gentlewoman from the great state of Massachusetts, Ms.
Pressley, is recognized.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair.
All I can think about as I have been sitting here is there but for
the grace of God go I. Many of my colleagues today have really
proved that our greatest deficit as a nation is not one of resource,
but of empathy.
Our greatest wealth as a nation is the health of our people, and
a meaningful, universal, and permanent paid leave policy is about
the health of our people, about the stabilization of our families.
So, many of your opinions fly in the face of what you often char-
acterize as your promotion of family values. This really flies in the
face of that and, furthermore, proves that you value people’s labor,
in the traditional sense, more than you do their very lives.
As someone who had the honor of being a care giver to my moth-
er in the final weeks of her life as she valiantly battled leukemia,
although I was away from work, I was certainly not off.
It requires great emotional and physical labor, and there is no
place else in the world that I would have rather been to support
my mother in her transition.
Your comments not only dishonor parents, people who have
grown their family through adoption, but the millions of caregivers
who, in this moment, feel alone and unseen, you have just contrib-
uted to that hurt.
But let me get to my questions.
Ms. Bigelow, there has been a long and inaccurate assumption
that people with disabilities are only the recipients of care, and not
the providers of care, when the reality is that people with disabil-
59
ities play both roles and often face barriers to benefits and services
as a result.
Can you elaborate on the importance of centering people with
disabilities in any effort to advance universal paid family and med-
ical leave?
Ms. BIGELOW. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman, for this question.
It is a really important point to make.
People with disabilities are a valuable part of our communities
and our work force. A disability-inclusive paid leave program can
help support people with disabilities to more fully participate in the
economy and have economic independence.
A recent analysis of FMLA data found that nearly 16 percent of
workers who took any leave in the past 12 months may have done
so for a disability, and nearly one-third of those workers with a dis-
ability also had at least one child under 18.
So, it is important to remember that workers with disability al-
ready have lower incomes, meaning they are less likely to have
savings to rely on. So, centering them in the paid family and med-
ical leave policy will really help bring a financial lifeline to them,
which is part of their economic stability.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you. As I transition, I wanted to ask the
chair if I could enter a report into the record. The report is titled,
‘‘Paid Leave is Essential for Healthy Moms and Babies.’’ It is by
the National Partnership in collaboration with the National Birth
Equity Collaborative.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Without objection.
Ms. PRESSLEY. All right. So, we have spoken about the disability
justice, a part of this that is often overlooked. I wanted to talk
about pregnancy loss, which is also often overlooked, and other
health events. Three out of four people who take paid leave do so
for reasons outside of maternity or parental care.
Ms. Bigelow, why is it important to establish a national paid
leave program that supports a diverse array of care needs?
Ms. BIGELOW. Like you said, the majority of people need time off
to care for a family member’s serious health issue or their own, and
this is for things like cancer treatment, to help an aging parent re-
cover from a fall, or to be with a child in the hospital.
Comprehensive paid leave improves health outcomes for those
who need care and prevents people from having to make impossible
choices between being there for their families and their own health,
and their jobs and income.
It is also important for gender equity, because women are more
likely to take parental leave. A policy that only covers new parents
could reinforce gender discrimination.
So, finally, as the population in the work force that are both
aging, a comprehensive paid leave policy is just smart economics to
ensure older workers can continue working and can manage work
with caring for an aging parent or loved one.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you.
And, Ms. Shabo, what are some of the policies—I want to talk
about those that are receiving SSI and SSDI. What are some of the
policies, Ms. Shabo, that this committee should be considering
when it comes to ensuring that a paid family medical leave pro-
60
gram is inclusive for individuals who work and receive supple-
mental security income?
Chairwoman MALONEY. Your time has expired but, Ms. Shabo,
you may respond to the gentlelady’s question.
Ms. SHABO. I’ll be brief. Thank you for the question.
I think we need to ensure that any new programs we put in place
are not taking away rights to other programs for people who are
working.
So, somebody who has—is on SSI or has a partial disability but
is working part time, and then needs to take leave, must have that
portion of their wages replaced and not be barred from accessing
either of those benefits because of the receipt of the other.
The point here is to pull low-income people and people who are
living paycheck to paycheck, just barely, up to the level where they
are going to be able to continue to pay their bills and make ends
meet and have security for themselves.
This is—this is about stabilization, financial independence, and
well being.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentlewoman’s time has expired.
The gentlewoman from the great state of Michigan, Mrs. Law-
rence, you are now recognized.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you so much. I want to thank the panel
for being here. I am so happy we are having this discussion.
I just want for the record, again, to reflect that I spent 30 years
working for a Federal agency, and nothing has changed now that
I am in Congress. I am a mother. I was a daughter. I am a daugh-
ter. I have family.
Just like as a Member of Congress, if any of us have a family
emergency or we have a crisis, we are paid leave to be able to care
for our families. Federal workers should not be exempt from that,
and some of the privileged conversations I am hearing is really
heartbreaking.
I am co-chair of the Women’s Caucus. But one of the issues I
want to emphasize while we talk about the impact of women, and
pregnancy, and being the number-one caregiver in almost every
family, this is a family issue.
I had a town hall where a man said, Congresswoman, almost—
I will have no vacation. I have used all my vacation time to care
for my children during this pandemic.
And so, I want the sensitivity of this body to think about human
beings who are our Federal workers, who show up every day to do
the work, who have worked as front liners during this pandemic.
Ms. Shabo, would access to paid leave help women maintain the
work force participation? Now, we are struggling with this dis-
appearance of women in the work force. Can you please talk to
that?
Ms. SHABO. Absolutely. I think COVID brought into sharp relief
the invisible caregiving that is happening. Women bear a dis-
proportionate share of that caregiving. But one of the reasons we
need gender-equal leave is both to recognize the caregiving as it is
happening today and encourage a more equitable division, going
forward.
You know, something that has really struck me recently is a sur-
vey finding from Bipartisan Policy Center and Morning Consult,
61
which found that 38 percent of currently unemployed workers, I
think as of April, said that they would be more likely to return to
work sooner if their next employer provided paid family leave, and
that was particularly true of unemployed parents, nearly half of
whom said it would help them return to work sooner.
So, this idea that providing paid leave keeps people out of work
is exactly backward. People need access to paid leave to know that
they can show up, they can do their best work, and that they are
going to be able to take the time that they need and then come
back if they do need to take time for a caregiving need.
And that is particularly true, in this survey, of Black workers
and Latinx workers who cited care giving as a reason that they had
to leave the work force, compared to white workers.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. I appreciate that. And the other issue that we,
as Members of Congress, should understand, the fact that the
emergency leave, if my child is sick, a lot of care giving facilities
will say if your child has a sniffle or a cold, don’t bring them in.
You keep them at home and take care of that child.
I know for a fact that there are women who, if they had the abil-
ity to take leave, would maintain their employment. But because
they don’t and because of childcare—and this is on another plat-
form that we must provide as a country, the sensitivity to the need
for childcare in America.
The last question is to Ms. Kelley. The temporary paid leave
measures for Federal employees help members. I know that. But
do you believe that Federal employees who have—now have guar-
anteed paid parental leave have been able to take advantage of this
emergency—temporary emergency paid leave, demonstrates that
we need to make this permanent?
Mr. KELLEY. Did you say Ms. Kelly or Mr. Kelley?
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Kelley. I am sorry.
Mr. KELLEY. OK. All right.
So, I certainly think that, you know, it demonstrates that we
need to make this permanent because, you know, we have heard
more than—I mean, I don’t know how many stories I have heard
of how much it has been a benefit to have the temporary paid
leave, right.
And so it tells us that if we were to make it permanent, then mo-
rale is definitely going to be boosted because employees are happy
for the measures that the lawmakers took and considered them,
considered their well being, considered their family and all those
things.
It meant so much to them, and to put something permanently in
place for that, I think, would only send the right message.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Kelley. Forgive me for using the
wrong title.
Mr. KELLEY. It is OK.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. I just want to say to everyone, Federal employ-
ees are the backbones of this country, and when I hear discussions
about them getting too much, you don’t say that when they give ev-
erything to keep this country running, our democracy, our govern-
ment, our services that we provide that makes us America.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady. She yields back.
62
And the gentleman from the great state of California, Mr.
DeSaulnier, is now recognized.
Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for hav-
ing this hearing. Thank you for the leadership on this subject, and
thank you for the manner that this hearing is being held.
I wanted to talk about the impact on regional economies and
small businesses, as a former small business owner.
Mr. Sorkin and Ms. Shabo, if you could comment on this chal-
lenge of—that 70 percent of small business owners want to provide
these kind of benefits, but only 15 percent are.
So, I also come from a region in the San Francisco Bay area
where the state of California, local government in Northern Cali-
fornia, and large private employers, really, were at the forefront of
this.
So, we have had enough time to start to see that some of the
benefits accrue to small businesses, as someone like myself, who
was a retailer. There is more disposable income out in our economy
that also benefits.
So, this conundrum of doing what small business wants to do, ac-
cording to surveys, but the challenges they have vis-&-vis cash-
flow, maybe you could comment on that, Mr. Sorkin, and your own
personal experience.
And, Ms. Shabo, if you could followup with any thoughts you
have.
Mr. SORKIN. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
You know, I don’t—I don’t know any employees or any workers
who don’t want paid family and medical leave. It really comes
down to the ability of small businesses to afford it, particularly in
the smallest businesses and in startups.
You know, cash-flow can be a real headwind to getting that done.
So, having Federal support for that is just a game changer. It is
as simple as that to me. It is really—in my mind, it is a no-brainer.
I don’t—you know, I know a ton of businesses who would really ap-
preciate the Federal support.
Mr. DESAULNIER. Ms. Shabo, any observations?
Ms. SHABO. Absolutely. I mean, I think what is really exciting is
that we now have seven jurisdictions that have paid family and
medical leave programs in place and functioning, and in the four
that have been functioning the longest there are studies in each
one of those that shows that businesses and, particularly, small
businesses have benefited.
They have benefited in terms of productivity. They haven’t seen
any negative impacts. More than a majority of small business own-
ers in each of those jurisdictions support the programs that are in
place. It has improved retention. It has improved, in just the study
that was done in New York recently, their ability to navigate long
leaves.
You know, I really commend Mr. Sorkin for providing what his
employees need on a one-to-one basis. But the reality is that many
of his peer companies don’t do that, can’t do that even if they want
to do that, and that is the reason that we need a national program.
Far from the talking points by opponents, you know, this isn’t
about increasing costs. It is not about diminishing flexibility. It is
about ensuring that every worker can take access, can take the
63
time that they need to care for themselves or a loved one. Have
their employees be more likely to come back to work.
And we just don’t see any of the negative impacts that doubters
like to say will occur. We just don’t. Each state has figured out how
to deal with it, and San Francisco is a great example of that.
Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you.
Ms. Bigelow, your organization has done some research on at-
tracting and retaining work force. Again, my experience in the res-
taurant business in a high-cost area, being able to retain employ-
ees, I wanted to be able to pay them enough and also provide them
with these kind of benefits.
So, your research indicates that providing for this helps small
businesses. I wonder if you could comment on that.
Ms. BIGELOW. Yes, I think that that is true because, just like we
have heard from Mr. Sorkin here, it is very hard to do this on your
own, and what we have learned from these state programs is that
this is a really great equalizer for small businesses to compete with
the larger companies like in your district that already offer it, a lot
of the tech companies.
And this is really a core reason why we are fighting for paid
leave for all, not because all businesses should be able to provide
this, and all people should be able to have it, no matter where you
work.
Mr. DESAULNIER. Madam Chair, I want to thank all the wit-
nesses and I want to thank you again. There is a challenge here
and it is a short term versus, I would say, medium term.
In our experience here in Northern California, there were pres-
sures, particularly on small businesses that had a small rate of re-
turn, like the businesses I were in.
So, you tend to hunker down and say, I just want to make my
next payroll. But in the very near term, I think, within a year or
two, you could see the benefits.
And last, Madam Chair, just personally, I am reminded today of
wisdom from my Irish mother, who used to tell myself and my
three brothers, weak men attack strong women.
So, thank you for your leadership.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman from California, the great
state of California, Vice Chair Gomez, is recognized.
Representative Gomez?
[No response.]
Chairwoman MALONEY. Mr. Gomez, you are now recognized.
Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Maloney, for hav-
ing another hearing on paid family leave. This is something that
is extremely important.
I don’t know why I am on two screens at once. But you guys get
to get double of me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GOMEZ. But first, let me just say, I know my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are starting to, like, ask why this is even
necessary, right, this paid family leave, and they made so much
progress during the last administration when they were—they
stopped arguing about if it is needed, and they started arguing
about how to get it done.
64
But I feel like they have backtracked a little bit. So, let us bring
them back to the forefront of the fact that universal paid leave is
just critical to protecting all Americans.
I think the fact is no longer up for debate. I think it is particu-
larly true. We have seen it time and time again, and we saw the
pandemic show that it is absolutely needed.
And I am proud that in California, I led one of the largest expan-
sions of paid family leave when I was a State Assembly member.
Made the wage replacement more progressive, in the fact that
lower-income individuals would get a higher wage replacement so
that they can actually afford to take time off, and the fact that we
expanded it to include not just parental leave, but also how do you
take care of a sick family member—how do you actually go and
make sure that they have the time off to be there during their last
days.
And I think if we care about the family, we have to care about
the ability of these individuals to be there in the toughest of cir-
cumstances and not worry if they are going to have a job when
they return or not.
So I want to just—to get to some questions. Ms. Shabo, can you
describe how a comprehensive national paid leave policy can ad-
vance racial and gender equity?
And the reason why I am asking that is the fact that we know
that lower—a lot of working-class folks, tend to be minority, tend
to be—work in a lot of industries that are just part time, and they
often—and it is not that they don’t work.
They often work four or five jobs a week to make ends meet. But
then they don’t have the kind of leave that is necessary to be able
to take time off.
Like my parents. When I got sick with pneumonia when I was
seven, my parents had to, like, miss shifts at work, and they were
working all the time. And it was something that still sits with me
to this day.
So, Ms. Shabo, that was a question for you.
Ms. SHABO. That is great. Thank you for bringing this up. And,
you know, your story—you tell your story so eloquently and it
sticks with me because it is the experience of so many other fami-
lies and kids who spend more time in the hospital because they
don’t have a parent there to care with them to be—care for them,
to be able to talk to doctors and make sure that the care that they
need, that their child needs, is going to be able to be continued
when they get home.
But to answer your question, you know, we have learned a lot
from the state-paid leave programs. We have learned that wage re-
placement that is higher for low-wage workers is critically impor-
tant to ensure that lower-wage workers are able to take the benefit
that is provided.
We know that employment protections are critically important so
that the 44 percent of workers who are not covered by the Family
and Medical Leave Act are able to take the benefit that they have
without fear of losing their job.
We know that the ability of people to care for more than just par-
ents, spouses, and children is critically important, and that is why
Chairwoman Maloney’s FMLA expansion bill that she has been
65
working on for a number of years is so critical, and why the inclu-
sive family definition in both the Neal Building an Economy for
Families proposal and the American Families Plan is so important
as states—as states have all recognized.
You know, importantly, I want to come back to something that
Ms. Manning said earlier about the ways in which lower-wage
workers may not be served by paid leave. I think we have learned
a lot from how state programs have been constructed, and that
gives us a tremendous opportunity when Congress does implement
a Federal program to correct some of the—some of the challenges,
and to ensure that all workers, whether they are lower-wage work-
ers or middle-wage workers, are able to take the paid family and
medical leave that they need, and then come back to work, to be
back at businesses like Mr. Sorkin’s, to be back.
And employers, you know, that we talked to all across the coun-
try, 70 percent of whom want access to paid leave, according to,
you know, many national surveys of small businesses.
Mr. GOMEZ. Great, and it is true. Some folks are saying that we
don’t learn from how these programs are implemented. No, we
have learned a lot. Wage replacement is the key. Job protection is
key, and then just knowing about the programs is key.
And if we can do that, we can help people through—across the
board.
And the Federal Government, because we have the ability,
should play an active role in structuring a program that can be a
model, that Chairwoman Maloney has led on, and I think that will
help people think about it in a different way.
So, I think it is—we are moving in the right direction. We got
to keep going, and I am glad Chairwoman Maloney has been lead-
ing this fight.
So with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman MALONEY. The gentleman yields back.
And that concludes the questioners, and I just want to thank all
of my colleagues and all the panelists. You really did a wonderful
job today answering the questions and sharing your expertise with
us.
But before I close, I want to offer the ranking member an oppor-
tunity to offer any closing remarks he may have.
Ranking Member Comer, you are now recognized.
Mr. COMER. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and I, again, thank
the witnesses for being here today.
Again, Madam Chair, this is the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, and we, certainly, have no shortage of
oversight opportunities.
I am going to conclude by, once again, requesting that this com-
mittee meet in person and hold hearings on the border crisis and/
or the origination of COVID–19 and/or a committee hearing on the
problems with the excessive fraud in the unemployment system,
specifically California.
So I think those would be three really good committee hearings.
We know that we can work in a bipartisan way because we passed
bipartisan postal reform out of the House Oversight Committee.
But, again, we just feel like when we are—when we are talking
about workers right now, there is a shortage of workers in America
66
and the employers are pleading with the government to get out of
the way and stop paying people not to work.
And I just—you know, to have this committee hearing at a time
when our economy can’t rebound, because there is a labor shortage,
8 million jobs posted in America right now, we just feel like there
were better opportunities for committee hearings, moving forward.
So, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and hope
that we can have some good committee hearings that the taxpayers
of America want to see this committee work on.
Thank you.
Chairwoman MALONEY. Thank you. I now recognize myself.
If we have learned one thing today it is that paid leave is not,
as my Republican colleagues claimed, ‘‘a perk,’’ end quote. Workers
need paid leave to recover from serious illnesses, to take care of
sick children, and to deal with the sudden military deployment of
a family member.
Having a seriously ill child is not a perk. Taking time to deal
with active-duty deployment is not a perk. As our Nation seeks to
recover from the pandemic, permanent comprehensive paid leave is
essential to support workers and the families who depend on them.
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Americans, including most
Republicans, support paid leave. But it is not only workers and
their families who gain from paid leave. Employers, including the
Federal Government and the private sector, also benefit from a
healthier, motivated work force.
That is why paid leave is supported by a growing number of
small and large businesses. Ensuring comprehensive paid leave for
Federal workers through H.R. 56—564 would help lead the way for
comprehensive paid family and medical leave for all American
workers.
I look forward to continuing to move this bill forward in our com-
mittee. Before I close, I would like to submit the following state-
ments and letters for the record:
A statement in support for H.R. 564 from Tony Reardon, presi-
dent of the National Treasury Employee Union; a statement of sup-
port from Karen Rainey, president of federally Employed Women;
a statement of support from Jenna Johnson, the head of Patagonia,
Inc.; a statement of support from the National Air Traffic Control-
lers Association; and a letter for H.R. 564 from the Government
Managers Coalition.
Chairwoman MALONEY. In closing, I want to thank our panelists
for their remarks, and I want to commend my colleagues for par-
ticipating in this important conversation.
With that and without objection, all members have five legisla-
tive days within which to submit extraneous materials and to sub-
mit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair,
which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. I ask
our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG_CHRG-117hhrg44985_CHRG-117hhrg44985.pdf
- Size
- 274,938 bytes
- SHA-256
- eea0bea462f1f97c324918ba17f806487c5d09017ebed41e241abdb4e26e298e
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov