<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:37691.wais]
THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
ACT: EXTENDING COVERAGE TO
MILITARY FAMILIES LEFT AT HOME
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-691 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairwoman
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina,
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Ranking Minority Member
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire Tom Price, Georgia
Phil Hare, Illinois John Kline, Minnesota
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 18, 2007............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Wilson, Hon. Joe, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections...................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of the National Coalition to Protect Family
Leave.................................................. 40
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, a U.S. Senator from the State
of New York, prepared statement of......................... 11
Dodd, Hon. Senator Christopher J., a U.S. Senator from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
McCaskill, Hon. Claire, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri, and Hon. Barack Obama, a U.S. Senator from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 38
Ness, Debra, president, the National Partnership for Women &
Families................................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Perdew, Jessica, deputy director of government relations, the
National Military Family Association....................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Vion-Gillespie, Christine, employee relations and compliance
manager, SAS Institute, Inc., on behalf of the Society for
Human Resource Management.................................. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Wade, Sarah, public policy intern, Wounded Warrior Project... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT:
EXTENDING COVERAGE TO
MILITARY FAMILIES LEFT AT HOME
----------
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lynn Woolsey
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] Presiding.
Present: Representatives Woolsey, Payne, Bishop, Hare, and
Wilson.
Staff Present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Jordan Barab, Health/Safety Professional;
Jody Calemine, Labor Policy Deputy Director; Lynn Dondis,
Senior Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections; Michael Gaffin, Staff Assistant, Labor; Jeffrey
Hancuff, Staff Assistant, Labor; Brian Kennedy, General
Counsel; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Ann-Frances
Lambert, Administrative Assistant to Director of Education
Policy; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Michele Varnhagen, Labor
Policy Director; Robert Borden, General Counsel; Cameron
Coursen, Assistant Communications Director; Rob Gregg,
Legislative Assistant; Taylor Hansen, Legislative Assistant;
Richard Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Victor Klatt, Staff
Director; Jim Paretti, Workforce Policy Counsel; and Linda
Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairwoman Woolsey. A quorum is present. The hearing of the
Workforce Protections Subcommittee on ``The Family and Medical
Leave Act: Extending Coverage to Military Families Left at
Home,'' will come to order.
Pursuant to committee rule 12(a), any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record.
I now recognize myself, followed by Ranking Member Joe
Wilson, for opening statements.
So I want to thank everybody who is here today--who is
coming to listen and coming to participate in this very
important hearing.
My remarks will be brief. We want to hear our distinguished
witnesses; we do not want to hear me. But I want to say
something about the Family and Medical Leave Act, which is
intended to help individuals balance their families and their
work obligations.
Ninety million working people are now eligible for unpaid
protected leave for up to 12 weeks a year. When the act was
passed in 1993, it was a huge, giant step, and is of great
importance to working families still today.
A majority of military spouses work outside of the home,
and they, too, must balance work and family, among other
things, to put food on the table and to provide support for the
needs of their families. But they face additional challenges
because their lives have been disrupted by multiple deployments
involving not only active servicemembers but those in the
National Guard and the Reservists. There is so much that faces
the military family that the very least we can do is pass
legislation to help them.
The conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in
almost 30,000 casualties--I think it is more--with many
servicemembers being very, very seriously wounded. These
wounded warriors need substantial support. They need care from
their families, and they often need this care for long periods
of time. Some need the care permanently.
So, no matter where we come down on the merits of these
conflicts, we must help the families involved, families who
include not only spouses but parents, children and others. We
must help them support their loved ones who are putting their
lives on the line for us in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, this current administration has let down our
returning servicemembers, and we need to reaffirm our
commitment to these brave men and women. Therefore, I am
honored to have introduced H.R. 3481, the House companion to
Senator Dodd's and Senator Clinton's legislation, S. 1975.
This legislation amends FMLA to provide 6 months of leave
for spouses, children, parents and other next of kin to care
for injured servicemembers. This legislation incorporates the
recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for
America's Returning Wounded Warriors, chaired by Secretary
Shalala and Senator Dole. It is the least we can do, and
hopefully, we can do much, much more.
So I look forward to the testimony of panel one and panel
two.
And I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Wilson.
We are going to try then to have you heard before we go
vote, Senator.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections
Thank you everyone, for coming here today to participate in this
hearing.
My opening remarks will be brief because we want to hear from these
distinguished witnesses.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is intended to help individuals
balance their family and work obligations.
Ninety million working people are now eligible for unpaid job
protected leave for up to 12 weeks a year.
When the Act was passed in 1993, it was a giant step, and is of
great importance to working families.
A majority of military spouses work outside of the home and must
balance work and family, to put food on the table, and provide the
support their families need.
But they face additional challenges because their lives have been
disrupted by multiple deployments, involving not only active service
members but those in the National Guard and reserves.
And the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in almost
30,000 casualties with many service members being seriously injured.
These wounded warriors need substantial support and care from their
families, often for long periods of time, and some permanently.
So no matter where we come down on the merits of these conflicts,
we must help the families involved--families who include not only
spouses but parents, children and others--support their loved ones who
are putting their lives on the line for us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, this Administration has let down our returning
service members and we need to reaffirm our commitment to these brave
men and women.
Therefore, I am honored to have introduced H.R. 3481, the House
companion to Senators Dodd and Clinton's legislation, S.1975, which
amends the FMLA to provide 6 months of leave for spouses, children,
parents and other ``next of kin'' to care for injured service members.
This legislation incorporates one of the recommendations of the
President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors, chaired by Secretary Shalala and Senator Dole.
It is the least we can do and hopefully we can do more.
I look forward to the testimony today on this very critical issue.
______
Mr. Wilson. Good afternoon.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When they arrive, I want to welcome each of our witnesses.
Indeed, Senator Dodd, I am confident we can stay through
and hear your testimony.
We want to welcome our colleagues from the other body and
our colleague in the House, my good friend and neighbor, Mr.
Issa, and of course, our witnesses on the second panel, in
particular Ms. Wade, who does us a great honor by being here
today.
As a 31-year veteran of the Army National Guard and the
grateful father of four sons currently serving in the military,
I understand the challenges of our military families that they
face each and every day. They deserve our utmost respect and
admiration.
Earlier this year, President Bush, by way of Executive
order, created the President's Commission on Care for America's
Returning Wounded Warriors. The Commission, led by former
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health
and Human Services Donna Shalala, examined and made
recommendations to improve the care benefit and support
provided to America's wounded service men and women.
In July 2007, the Commission delivered its final report to
the President. One of its recommendations was that Congress
amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide extended care
to relatives caring for combat-related injured servicemembers.
President Bush has endorsed this recommendation. Indeed, no one
in this room could find a more worthy goal than ensuring
workers are not forced to choose between their jobs and caring
for an injured family member who has served his or her country.
I am particularly interested today in hearing testimony
from our witnesses regarding their reasons for supporting
expanded leave for military caregivers. Additionally, I hope
they will share their views on the various other proposals
before Congress.
Finally, I want it noted for the record that today's
hearing is one of the first in this Congress where we have
begun to look at the Family and Medical Leave Act. This
statute, which now has been on the books for almost 15 years,
is working well in some instances but not as well in others.
We are all united in our support of military families
today, and that makes our task of legislating easier. But I
would caution my colleagues that there are a number of policy
issues surrounding the Family and Medical Leave Act that do not
lend themselves to unanimous support.
I hope that, after today, this subcommittee and our
committee as a whole does not shy away from that debate but,
rather, turns to face some of the tough questions that have
arisen under the law. That is the debate for another day but
one that we must commit to having.
With that, I look forward to today's testimony, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson, Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Good afternoon, and thank you, Madam Chair. I want to welcome each
of our witnesses--our colleagues from the other body, our colleague in
the House, my good friend and hall neighbor Mr. Issa, and of course,
our witnesses on the second panel, in particular, Ms. Wade, who does us
a great honor being here today.
As a 31 year veteran of the Army National Guard and proud father of
four sons currently serving in the military, I understand the
challenges our military families face each and every day. They deserve
our utmost respect and admiration.
Earlier this year, President Bush, by way of Executive Order,
created the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning
Wounded Warriors. The Commission, led by former Senate Majority Leader
Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna
Shalala, examined and made recommendations to improve the care,
benefit, and support provided to America's wounded servicemen and
women.
In July 2007, the Commission delivered its final report to the
President. One of its recommendations was that Congress amend the
Family and Medical Leave Act to provide extended leave to relatives
caring for combat-related injured service members. President Bush has
endorsed this recommendation. Indeed, no one in this room could find a
more worthy goal than ensuring workers are not forced to choose between
their job and caring for an injured family member who has served his or
her country.
I am particularly interested today in hearing testimonies from our
witnesses regarding their reasons for supporting an expanded leave for
military caregivers. Additionally, I hope they will share their views
on the various proposals before Congress.
Finally, I would note for the record--today's hearing is one of the
first in this Congress where we have begun to look at the Family and
Medical Leave Act. This statute which has now been on the books for
almost fifteen years is working well in some instances but not as well
in others. We are all united in our support of military families today,
and that makes our task of legislating easier. But I would caution my
colleagues that there are a number of policy issues surrounding the
Family and Medical Leave Act that do not lend themselves to unanimous
support. I hope that after today this Subcommittee and our Committee as
a whole does not shy away from that debate, but rather turn to face
some of the tough questions that have arisen under the law. That is a
debate for another day, but one that we must commit to having.
With that, I look forward to today's testimony, and yield back the
balance of my time.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
I now have the honor of introducing our distinguished first
panel and to welcome Senator Dodd. And I think we will probably
drag Representative Issa up after the votes, but we will get to
hear from the Senator first.
But I think you know that the lights--you have worked here.
You know the green light means go, and the yellow light means
you are almost finished, and the red light means wrap it up as
soon as you can.
We are going to hear from Senator Dodd first. Senator
Christopher Dodd is the senior senator from Connecticut who has
tirelessly fought for working families, and did that before the
enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which was signed
into law in 1993. As the Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on
Children and Families, the Senator has continued to help
working men and women by authoring the Family and Medical Leave
Expansion Act and the Family Leave Insurance Act, which would
provide paid leave for employees.
Earlier this year, he worked closely with Senator Clinton
and a bipartisan coalition of senators to write S. 1975, the
Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, which would help
provide 6 months of family and medical leave, as I said, for
military families.
Senator, the floor is yours. Thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER DODD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
It is good to be back in the House. I started out here with
a head of black hair a number of years ago, but to come back
here and to return to the House is always a pleasure. I always
said the ideal job in politics would be a 6-year term in the
House. That always gets an applause on the House side.
Anyway, thank you very much for inviting us to come by
today, and I am delighted to be able to participate in this
hearing and to encourage support for this very important piece
of legislation.
Congressman Wilson, it is good to be with you, as well, and
with other members of the committee who have come out here this
afternoon to hear this testimony.
I am very proud to have worked, as you pointed out, with
former Senator Bob Dole, the majority leader, on this
legislative effort to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act.
And I will apologize in advance, and I regret--I have read
the testimony, and I want to thank Sarah Wade, particularly. It
is not an easy thing to come before a congressional committee
and talk about matters as personal as your family and what she
has been through and what her husband has been through,
particularly what her husband has been through, and to
recognize that someone lost a job because they were taking care
of their spouse coming back from a theater of conflict in war
where they have given everything on behalf of our country.
Whether you agree or disagree with the policies, none of us has
anything but the highest admiration for those who are serving
in very difficult theaters of conflict.
So, to you, Mrs. Wade, we thank you immensely.
I want to thank Jessica Perdew, as well, from the National
Military Family Association, for her work and for the work of
her association on behalf of military families.
Debra Ness has been a wonderful friend for many, many years
and was very instrumental and involved with family and medical
leave for the National Partnership for Women and Families.
I want to thank them, as well. I know they are your second
panel coming up here.
Madam Chairman, I will ask for consent that the entire
context of these remarks be included in your record, and I will
try and just paraphrase as much of it as I can, to move things
along for you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Without objection.
Senator Dodd. I appreciate Bob Dole asking me to draft this
legislation to implement one of the key recommendations, as I
am sure all of you know, put forth by the President's
Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. As
co-chairs of the Wounded Warriors Commission, Senator Dole and
the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna
Shalala, deserve our gratitude. And I think all of us commend
them for their thoughtful work in developing the Commission's
report.
I also want to take a moment to note that I am both pleased
and extremely grateful for the bipartisan support from Senate
colleagues. We spent a lot of time talking about the divisions
that exist here. Not enough time is spent on the matters, but
we actually work very closely together to get the job done.
You have already mentioned my colleague from New York,
Senator Clinton, who has been deeply involved in these issues
and cares about them very much and has for many, many years
here. And I am grateful to her for her participation and
support, along with Senator Dole and Senators Graham, Kennedy,
Chambliss, Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Mikulski, Senator
Murray, Senator Salazar, Senators Lieberman, Menendez, Brown,
Nelson of Nebraska, Cardin and, I presume, others, as well.
They were all part of this effort here to bring this bill to
the successful unanimous adoption by the United States Senate
as part of the Children's Health Insurance Program a few weeks
ago.
As you pointed out, Madam Chairman, 14 years ago, I started
on this journey of family and medical leave, and I would be
very remiss, particularly in this body, if I failed to mention
the name of Pat Schroeder, Patricia Schroeder, who was really
the person who originated the idea. That day of the bill
signing in February of 1993, she was not included to stand on
the podium in the Rose Garden at the White House, and I have
always regretted it deeply because she should have been there.
She was really the person who initiated the idea.
I authored the bill in the United States Senate, and as you
pointed out, it took three presidents, 7 years and two vetoes
to end up with a bill. And I should point out that it never
would have happened without the support of Arlen Specter and my
good friends, as well, Kit Bond of Missouri, Dan Coates of
Indiana; Senator Kennedy was tremendously influential. It was a
bipartisan effort. It took a long time, but we ended up
adopting that legislation.
Today, 14 years later, 50 million Americans have been able
to take advantage of this protection of caring for a sick loved
one, to recover from an illness or to welcome a new child into
the family, among other things. After an amount of time, we see
that the debate is no longer about whether Americans have a
right to its protections but, rather, about how best to expand
those rights.
And I can say without reservation that no one is more
deserving of those protections than those who risk their lives
in the service of our Nation. Most of all, of course, wounded
soldiers deserve the care of their closest loved ones. That is
exactly what we have offered in the Support of Injured
Servicemen's Act, which you are proposing here, and what was
recommended by the Commission headed by Senator Dole and Donna
Shalala.
It should come as no surprise that the Commission found
that family members play a critical role in the recovery of
wounded servicemembers. In fact, Madam Chairman, I will never
forget Dr. C. Everett Koop, who was one of the critical
witnesses. It was one of those votes I regret having made. I
voted against Dr. Koop, when his confirmation was up years ago
in the Senate. After he retired, I wrote a letter and put it
into the Congressional Record, apologizing for the vote. He
turned out to be a remarkable Surgeon General.
One of the things he did was to come and stress and testify
very forcefully, contrary to the administration's position, as
someone who is a pediatric surgeon, the importance of having
family members around during time of recovery. And he made
eloquent testimony some 15 or 16 years ago about the importance
of family members being with a loved one as you go through the
recovery from an illness or an injury. Certainly, that is what
we are trying here to achieve for people coming out of the
theaters of conflict.
The commitment shown by families and friends of our troops
is truly inspiring. According to the Commission report--and
these two numbers I found rather startling--33 percent of
active-duty servicemembers report that a family member or a
close friend had to relocate in order to be with them during
the periods of recovery, and that one out of five actually lost
his job as a result of doing so, as you are going to hear from
Sarah Wade here.
I think those two statistics had a lot to do with the
recommendation by the Commission, the idea that people have to
relocate to take care of a loved one and that as many as 20
percent, or over 20 percent, actually lost employment as a
result of making that decision.
In fact, the Commission's report points out and says, and I
quote, ``In virtually every case of a wounded serviceman, a
wife, husband, parent, brother or sister has received the
heart-stopping telephone call telling them that their loved one
is sick/injured from halfway around the world. These loved ones
bear a tremendous burden, and to add the fear of losing their
employment or their jobs is more than one should demand from
these families.''
How could we be unmoved by the stories as that of Sarah
Wade, whose husband lost an arm and suffered a severe,
traumatic brain injury in Iraq? Mrs. Wade was fired from her
job for spending too many months helping her husband
recuperate, because she had, to quote her employer, ``a lot
going on,'' end of quote, in her life.
It is true, thousands of families like hers will have ``a
lot going on'' in their lives until the day their soldiers'
recoveries are complete. They will have ``a lot going on''
because their loved ones sacrificed parts of their bodies for
our country. At the very least, we can give those families the
assurance that Sarah Wade never had, the assurance that, when
they have returned from caring for the wounded, their jobs will
still be there for them.
With an all-volunteer military, supporting our military
families is more essential today than ever.
I, too, Congressman, served in the National Guard and Army
Reserves. Thomas Jefferson was President when I did it in those
days, going back. But the old saying here, ``We recruit
soldiers, but we retain families,'' is an old saying, but it
has true merit and value. Certainly, this point we are making
here today emphasizes that particular point.
That is why the Commission recommended that family and
medical leave be expanded to provide family members of combat-
injured servicemen up to 6 months of leave to care for their
loved ones. And those 6 months are vital. According to the
staff at Walter Reed, 6 months is the average length of time an
injured servicemember needs to recover self-sufficiency. So the
period of 6 months is not taken arbitrarily out of thin air. It
was a number derived from those at Walter Reed who gave us the
indication or who gave the Commission the idea of the amount of
time that would be necessary.
For the first time, this bill offers family and medical
leave not just to parents, spouses and children, but to next of
kin, including siblings. Families, not the government, should
decide for themselves who takes on the work of caring for their
injured loved ones. This legislation recognizes that fact, and
it is a major accomplishment in this bill. But it is just a
first step, in my view, in the support that our military
families need.
Since its passage in the Senate, I have sought to expand,
as you pointed out, family and medical leave to include more
employees, particularly in small businesses. When we wrote the
legislation initially, I set the standard pretty high because
we were going through a difficult time, and I stuck with those
numbers even when Congress changed in 1994.
But, nonetheless, to expand that definition of who is a
caregiver is what we have done here and also to provide some
means of providing paid leave. A staggering number of people
who would otherwise qualify for leave could not afford to do it
for the periods necessary, so we are trying to fashion it in a
bipartisan fashion. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has been very
cooperative and helpful with me on this particular point, in
trying to fashion a paid leave proposal. And we hope to have
something to present fairly shortly in that regard.
For many years, I have worked to build on the proven
success of the Family and Medical Leave Act and have been
driven by my strong belief that more Americans are deserving of
its protections. Certainly, I continue these efforts and seek
additional resources for our military families, such as
comprehensive child care, but we will focus on passing this
bill as soon as possible.
I deeply appreciate the partnership of Chairwoman Woolsey
in this regard, along with Chairman George Miller, who
introduced companion legislation along with that which we have
done in the Senate. I would also like to recognize Congressman
Altmire, who, I understand, was very involved in this as well,
and I want to commend him for his work on behalf of expanding
family and medical leave for our military families.
Our full debt to our troops is unpayable, of course, but
perhaps the best thing we could do for them is to get out of
the way and to make it possible for the love of a family to
help heal their wounds. What this legislation does, then, is to
break down the barriers, the barriers between our troops and
the care they need most.
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, the support for injured
servicemen offers just one of the critical ways in which we can
better assist our military families. In a few moments, you are
going to hear from a group of people who truly understand the
challenges facing our soldiers and their families. They have my
admiration and my gratitude. And I look forward to working with
all of them, including, as I said earlier, my longtime ally in
so many of these issues, Debra Ness of the National Partnership
for Women and Families. Together, we can provide critical
support, I believe, for working families who sacrifice so much
for the collective safety and security of our country.
And I am deeply grateful to the subcommittee for giving me
a chance to talk about the issue and to thank all of you for
your commitment to this cause, as well.
[The statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, a U.S. Senator From the
State of Connecticut
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished
committee members: Thank you for this opportunity to testify on a
measure vitally important to our troops and their families.
I am very proud to have worked with former Senate Majority Leader
Bob Dole on this legislative effort to expand FMLA for military
families. Unfortunately, Senator Dole is unable to be here today.
Nonetheless, I deeply appreciate his asking me to draft this essential
legislation to implement one of the key recommendations put forth by
the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors.
As co-chairs of the Wounded Warriors Commission, Senator Dole and
former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala deserve our
gratitude and I commend them for their thoughtful work in developing
the Commission's report. I also want to take a moment to note that I am
both pleased, and extremely grateful for, the bi-partisan support from
my Senate colleagues including: Senator Clinton, the bill's cosponsor
and Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray,
Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin.
Through the efforts of these colleagues just last month, this measure
was unanimously adopted as an amendment to the Children's Health
Insurance Program reauthorization.
Fourteen years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
declared a simple principle: workers should never be forced to choose
between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the years
since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken advantage
of its protections to care for a sick loved one, recover from illness,
or welcome a new baby into the family. And after the seven years, three
presidents, and two vetoes it took to get the FMLA finally enacted into
law, I am pleased to see that the debate is no longer about whether
Americans have the right to its protections; but rather, about how it
may best be expanded. I can say without reservation that no one is more
deserving of those protections than those who risk their lives in the
service of our country. Most of all, wounded soldiers deserve the care
of their closest loved ones. That is exactly what I have offered in the
Support for Injured Servicemembers Act.
It should come as no surprise that the Commission found that family
members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded
servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our
troops is truly inspiring. According to the Commission's report, 33
percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or
close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help in their
recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty
servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to
find the time to care for them. To quote from the Commission's moving
report:
``In virtually every case [of a wounded servicemember], a wife,
husband, parent, brother, or sister has received the heart stopping
telephone call telling them that their loved one is sick, or injured,
half way around the world.''
These loved ones bear a tremendous burden. Add to that the fear of
losing their jobs--it is more than we should demand from these
families. How could we be unmoved by the story of Sarah Wade, whose
husband lost an arm and suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in
Iraq? Ms. Wade was fired from her job for spending too many months
helping her husband recuperate--because she had, to quote her employer,
``a lot going on'' in her life. It's true--thousands of families like
hers will have ``a lot going on'' in their lives until the day their
soldiers' recoveries are complete. They will have ``a lot going on,''
because their loved ones sacrificed parts of their bodies for our
country. And the very least we can give those families is the assurance
that Sarah Wade never had--the assurance that, when they have returned
from caring for the wounded, their jobs will still be there.
And with an all-volunteer military, supporting our military
families is more essential today than ever: We recruit a soldier, but
we retain a family. That is why the Commission recommended that FMLA be
expanded to provide family members of combat-injured servicemembers up
to six months of leave to care for their loved ones. And those six
months are vital: according to staff at Walter Reed Medical Center, six
months is the average length of time an injured servicemember needs to
recover self-sufficiency. For the first time, this bill offers FMLA
leave not just to parents, spouses, and children, but to next-of-kin,
including siblings. Families--not the government--should decide for
themselves who takes on the work of caring for their injured loved
ones. This legislation recognizes that fact, and it's a major
accomplishment. But it is just a first step in providing the support
that our military families need.
Since its passage, I have sought to expand FMLA to include more
employees, particularly in small businesses, to expand the definition
of who is a caregiver, and also to provide paid leave. For many years,
I have worked to build on the proven success of the FMLA and have been
driven by my strong belief that more Americans are deserving of its
protections. I will continue these efforts and seek additional
resources for our military families, such as comprehensive child care,
but will focus on passing the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act as
soon as possible.
I deeply appreciate the partnership of Chairwoman Woolsey, along
with Chairman Miller, who introduced companion legislation in the House
of Representatives. I'd also like to recognize Congressman Altmire, who
is here today, for his work on behalf of expanding FMLA for our
military families. Our full debt to our troops is unpayable. But
perhaps the best thing we can do for them is to get out of the way--to
make it possible for the love of family to help heal their wounds. What
this legislation does, then, is break down a barrier: the barrier
between our troops and the care they need the most.
In conclusion, the Support for Injured Servicemembers offers just
one of the critical ways in which we can better assist our military
families. In a few moments you will hear from a group of people who
truly understand the challenges facing our soldiers and their families.
They have my admiration and my gratitude, and I look forward to working
with all of them, including my long-time ally Debra Ness of the
National Partnership for Women and Families. Together, we can provide
critical support to the working families who sacrifice so much for our
collective safety and security.
Again, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. And we thank you. We are not going to
ask questions because we have to go vote.
Senator Dodd. I understand that.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Senator, we know how busy your schedule
is, and we thank you for your participation. We thank you for
authoring this legislation, and I am honored to be your House
partner on that.
Senator Dodd. I look forward to working with you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. For everybody to know, we are going to
try to get Representative Issa back here with us, and Senator
Clinton will be showing up sometime during the hearing.
Senator Dodd. Well, thank both of them for me, as well.
Chairwoman Woolsey. I will. So thank you. It is great
legislation.
Senator Dodd. Thank you. It is nice to be with you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Woolsey. All right. Now we have the privilege--
first of all, Senator Clinton came by and left her statement
for the record, and we will put it into the record.
[The statement of Senator Clinton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a U.S. Senator From
the State of New York
I want to thank Congresswoman Woolsey for holding this hearing and
to all our witnesses for their testimony today.
We have a duty to honor our veterans, service members, and their
families--something I take very seriously as a Senator, a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, and an American. It is a duty that
cuts across party lines and cuts to the heart of our values as a
nation.
I have met with so many veterans and service members who have told
me about the difficult and dangerous situations they faced on the
battlefield. All too often, they have returned home only to face new
battles just to get the treatment and care they need and deserve:
enduring deplorable conditions at Walter Reed; navigating a maze of
bureaucracy to receive disability benefits; visiting VA Hospitals in
need of guaranteed funding; struggling to re-enter civilian life.
In July, the bipartisan Commission on Care for America's Returning
Wounded Warriors--chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former
Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala--issued its final
report on the need to reform the medical care our troops and veterans
receive.
The Commission visited 23 treatment facilities run by the
Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the
private-sector. Literally thousands of service members, veterans,
family members, and health care personnel submitted their personal
stories as well.
Based on its review, the commission recommended that one important
way in which our nation can strengthen the help we provide injured
service members is by improving and expanding support for military
families through the Family and Medical Leave Act. That is why I am
proud to partner with my friend Chris Dodd in championing the ``Support
for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007,'' which implements this key
recommendation of the commission's report.
We have introduced this legislation as a stand-alone bill, and we
successfully passed our amendment through the Senate as part of the
Children's Health Insurance Program legislation. We've also introduced
our measure as an amendment to the Senate's Defense Authorization
legislation. And we have received substantial bipartisan support,
including from Senators Dole, Graham, Mikulski, Chambliss, Brown,
Cardin, Menendez, Salazar, Kennedy, Reed, Boxer, Murray, Lieberman, and
Roberts.
The Family and Medical Leave Act was the first bill signed into law
during the Clinton Administration. It has helped more than 60 million
men and women trying to balance the demands of work and family. I
believe it is time to strengthen that Act for military families. Our
legislation provides up to six months of job-protected leave for
spouses, children, parents or next of kin of service members who suffer
from a combat-related injury or illness.
The families of service men and women face extraordinary demands in
caring for loved ones injured in service to our nation. And currently,
these spouses, parents and children can receive only twelve weeks of
leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. As the Dole-Shalala
Commission found, all too often, this is just not enough time--as
injured service members grapple with traumatic brain injuries, severe
physical wounds, and other problems upon returning home from Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
In fact, 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of reservists, and
37 percent of retired service members reported to the Commission that a
family member or close friend had to leave their homes for extended
periods of time to help them in the hospital. About 20 percent said
friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as their
caregiver.
Imagine: your husband or wife, son or daughter, returns from Iraq
with an serious injury. You want to be with them and take care of them.
Right now, you have to choose between the person you love and the job
you need. That's not a choice military families should have to make. If
you are injured in service to this country, we should not add insult to
injury by failing to do everything we can to help you when you get
home.
These men and women took on great risk and sacrifice to protect our
nation. Doing right by them and their families is not a Democratic
issue or a Republican issue. It is a matter of America's values and
moral responsibility.
This is a step we can take immediately that will make a real
difference. Our men and women in uniform have made tremendous
sacrifices on our behalf. As a nation and as citizens we have a duty in
return. Thank you.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. We are sorry we missed her, but we are
delighted to have Representative Darrell Issa here.
Actually, Representative Issa was elected in the year 2001.
Today, he represents California's 49th District. He serves as
the ranking member on the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of
the Government Reform Committee.
He has been active in advocating the expansion of the
Family and Medical Leave Act to enable working family members
to care for their wounded loved ones, and he is the sponsor of
bipartisan legislation H.R. 3391, the Military Family and
Medical Leave Act.
Congressman Issa was commissioned as a U.S. Army officer,
and he later attained the rank of captain.
So, Captain Issa, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Wilson.
I appreciate your holding this hearing today on an important
and overdue issue.
I would also like to thank Senator Dodd and Senator
Clinton, who, as you mentioned, are bipartisan supporters of
this bill and of what we are trying to do; additionally,
Congressman Rahall, who also has been a leader on this issue
and who is a cosponsor of H.R. 3391.
I would like to take just a moment, if I may, to talk a
little bit about the history of what we are trying to
accomplish here today. The Family and Medical Leave Act
emphasizes leave, but, in fact, legislation that has come
before this, like this, is not about leave; it is about return.
The fact is anybody can--and today, huge numbers of people
do--leave their jobs/lose their jobs in order to care for loved
ones. Prior to 1940, military members, particularly Reservists,
left their jobs to serve in our military with no right of
return.
We changed that for veterans, beginning in 1940, with the
Reemployment Rights Act and Selective Training and Service Act.
It is a grandiose title, but all it really said was, if you go
to serve your country, there will be a job for you when you
return, and if that job is not available, effort will be made
to find a reasonable equivalent.
America, since 1945, the end of World War II, has had very
little trouble absorbing the brave men and women who have come
home from war. However, not everyone comes home the way they
left. So, when we look at our service men and women coming
home, they sometimes come home in need of, sometimes, fairly
long rehabilitation periods, sometimes a period in which they
will never be able to return to their jobs. But if they are to
return to a productive life, in fact, if they are to live at
all, it is very clear that we have an obligation to see that
they have the caregivers who are most appropriate.
With the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act in
1993, we made a decision as a body that, for the eligible
employees, for the birth of a child, adoption, foster care or
to care for a personal, immediate family member's health, it
would be covered.
What we are seeking to do here today, very appropriately,
is to extend the recognition that we have a tremendous number
of our men and women who are serving in the military who are
coming home in need of special care, and today, they are not
covered for the people who we would have take care of their
needs, whether it is the effects of IEDs, the traumatic brain
injuries, amputees, spinal cord injuries. These are not
overnight remedies, and they need their best ally.
Our legislation is nothing more, I believe today, than an
extension of a direction that Congress began in 1940, but it is
an important extension. It is an extension whose time has come
and certainly one that is critical in what is often a
controversial war but not as to those men and women who go to
serve in it.
So, if you have any questions, which I do not believe you
do, but I would be glad to take them.
Thanks, Lynn.
What I would say is that the extension of the 26 weeks, the
definitions, these are intended to be narrow extensions on a
continuum. And, in closing, what I would say, on a bipartisan
basis, is that, regardless of how legislation finally ends up,
let us all be committed that we must get legislation passed. If
we do a little less but we get done the basics today, I commit
to come back and to do more.
And there are many who say, ``Well, we have to do more in
this one bite, and we have to include beyond the scope,'' at
least of what I have drafted. I do not disagree that that may
be worthwhile.
What I hope this committee will focus on, and the Senate
too, is that we must get legislation passed that does good for
those who, today, as we speak, are choosing between caring for
a loved one injured in support of our country or keeping their
job. That is not a decision that men and women should be forced
to make when they serve in the military, and certainly, it is
not for those who care for those who come home.
I thank the gentlelady for her time, and I thank the
ranking member.
[The statement of Mr. Issa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Testimony by Congressman Darrell Issa before the Committee on
Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections for
September 18, 2007
Chairwoman Woolsey, and the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
thank you for inviting me to speak today. I also thank Senator Dodd,
Senator Clinton, and the bi-partisan Senate delegation for their
leadership on this issue. As well, I'd like to thank Congressman Rahall
for joining me as a leader in the House on this issue by cosponsoring
my bill H.R. 3391.
While the title of the law we examine today, the Family and Medical
Leave Act, emphasizes ``leave,'' the discussion is truly about the
return. What level of care will we as a nation provide to our military
upon their return? In this case the answer does not involve money. It
is about the power of family and the commitment of our communities to
rebuilding lives after military service.
The history of protecting civilian employment rights for active
military and veterans began in 1940 with the Veterans Reemployment
Rights Act and the Selective Training and Service Act. Over time, work
protections have been expanded and clarified. In 1994, the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act entitled a military
member to return to his or her civilian job upon return from uniformed
services.
With the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993,
employment protections were extended beyond the scope of the military
to include eligible employees for the birth of a child, adoption,
foster care, and the care of personal or immediate family member
health.
Now, in 2007, employment protections can come full circle to
incorporate leave for service members and their families.
The need to discuss the expansion of the Family Medical and Medical
Leave Act for the family of our wounded service members is
unmistakable. Today, our military men and women are surviving combat-
related injuries that even a generation ago, would have been
impossible.
The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors estimated 11% of the wounded received Seriously Injured
status. Over 9% of the wounded have Traumatic Brain Injuries, 2% are
amputees, 2% are seriously burned, 1% have spinal cord injuries, less
than 1% are blinded, and 1.4% are polytrauma patients.
Health studies show that regular family support is a critical
component of patient recovery. Physicians often regard the family as
the ``ally'' in combating illness, as they are the daily support for
recovering patients. Studies have shown that their time and presence
directly corresponds to the improvement of individual health. Family
participation in healthcare is vital to both the demanding physical and
mental needs of recovery. According to both physicians and medical
studies, the presence and participation of supportive relatives is
essential to improving the health of an individual.
The Commission found that families are keeping this important
commitment to care, but often at the cost of continued employment.
Approximately \1/3\ of service members indicated their family or close
friends relocated for extended times to assist with care. Family
members testified to the Commission that they have been forced to make
the decision between their job and staying by their wounded family
member's side during recovery. Between 15-20% reported close friends
and family gave up a job to be by their side.
My bill, H.R. 3391, responds to this need and follows the
Commission's recommendation to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act
to 26 weeks of leave for parents, spouses, and children caring for
qualified wounded service members.
The power of a strong support network and dedicated families is no
more evident than in my Congressional District which includes Camp
Pendleton Marine Corp Base. Here I have seen the Wounded Warrior Clinic
and the Naval Hospital, where I have talked with the service members,
their families, and health professionals who care for them. The
positive impact of a regular family caretaker is never clearer than in
the stories of their recovery. These men and women receiving care are
determined and the community is strong and resolute in their
commitment.
I realize challenges exist in the expansion of this Act for
military family leave. As a former business owner myself, I understand
the difficulties of balancing employment demands. It is my sincere hope
that we can find an appropriate balance in this discussion, so that
employers will not just comply with an expansion of leave under the
Family and Medical Leave Act, but will also embrace it.
My bill, H.R. 3391, and many of the other legislative proposals are
about giving our military members the best chance at recovery by
allowing their family to provide support for an extended recovery
period. Family care and support will strengthen our service member's
likelihood of a return to the jobs retained for them by law.
Again, thank you for this opportunity today. I am eager to work
with my colleagues in the House and Senate to appropriately extend our
country's commitment to our military and their dedicated families.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. I thank you for being here.
We do not usually ask our members questions or have them
grilled by us.
Do you have a question, Joe?
Mr. Wilson. Not a question.
I would, again, like to commend Congressman Issa on his
leadership. I am very grateful to be his neighbor on the
hallway.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Colonel Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Indeed, as a colonel formerly in the South
Carolina Army National Guard, I want to commend you on
recognizing the re-employment rights, as this is an extension.
I served as a staunch advocate for 25 years, lecturing at
armories around the State on re-employment rights. What is very
necessary now that we see is the opportunity for, in effect,
re-employment by way of medical leave for family members to
work with injured wounded warriors.
So I want to thank you for what you are doing, and your
analogy is right on point. And I appreciate your leadership
here in Congress.
I yield.
Chairwoman Woolsey. I thank you.
We thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to
be with us.
Mr. Issa. No issue is more important than this. Truly, no
issue is more important.
And I will put my official statement in for the record.
I thank the gentlelady.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Now the second panel will be seated.
I now have the honor of introducing our distinguished
second panel, and I will introduce them in the order that they
will speak.
First, Sarah Wade will speak. Sarah is the wife of retired
Army Sergeant Edward ``Ted'' Wade. Following Ted's serious
injury in Iraq on February 14, 2004, Sarah suspended her
studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to
serve as an advocate for her husband. She has recently become a
public policy intern at the Wounded Warrior Project, a
nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting military
personnel who are injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Born and
raised in the Washington, D.C., area, Sarah currently resides
in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
I bet your folks are glad to have you home today.
Jessica Perdew--Jessica has been the deputy director of
government relations for the National Military Family
Association since January 2007. A former Marine and a Marine
spouse of 14 years, Ms. Perdew has also served in various
volunteer leadership positions with several community
organizations, including Key Volunteers and the Navy and Marine
Corps Relief Society. Ms. Perdew is also a past president of
the Marine Officers Spouses' Club of Washington, D.C. She
received her bachelor of science degree from the University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor.
Christine Vion-Gillespie is the employee relations and
compliance manager at SAS Institute in Cary, North Carolina,
and is a member of the Society for Human Resource Management's
Employee Relations Special Expertise Panel. She has over 16
years' experience in human resources, and her current role
includes providing counseling to help improve employee
relations and to enhance the relationship between HR and
organizations' business units. Ms. Vion-Gillespie also serves
as an adjunct professor for Peace College.
Debra Ness is the president of the National Partnership for
Women and Families. She served as the executive vice president
of the partnership for 13 years. Before coming to the National
Partnership in 1991, Ms. Ness served in various positions at
SEIU and at the National Abortion Rights League, NARAL. Ms.
Ness graduated from Drew University with a bachelor's degree in
psychology and sociology and received her master's of science
from Columbia University's School of Social Work.
Aren't we honored to have you all as our witnesses.
Now, for those of you who did not hear me lecture the
members of Congress who were up there, let me explain the
lighting system. We have a 5-minute rule, so everyone,
including the members, are limited to 5 minutes of presentation
and/or questioning. So the green light is illuminated when you
begin to speak. When you see the yellow light, it means you
have 1 minute remaining. When you see the red light, it is time
for you to conclude your testimony. We are not going to cut you
off in mid-sentence or in mid-thought, believe me. So just know
that that means you should be wrapping up.
Turn on the microphone when you speak. Otherwise, we will
all yell at you from up here. Turn it off when you are finished
speaking.
So we will now hear from our first witness, Ms. Wade.
STATEMENT OF SARAH WADE, PUBLIC POLICY INTERN, WOUNDED WARRIOR
PROJECT
Ms. Wade. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today regarding our experiences following my husband's injuries
in Iraq.
My husband joined the Army's 82nd Airborne Division during
the summer of 2000. And following the attacks of September
11th, his country called on him to serve first in Afghanistan
and later in Iraq.
On February 14, 2004, his Humvee was hit by an improvised
explosive device on a mission in Mahmudiyah. He sustained a
very severe, traumatic brain injury. His right arm was
completely severed above the elbow. He suffered a fractured
leg, a broken right foot, shrapnel injuries, and complications
due to acute anemia, hyperglycemia, infections, and the
withdrawal of life support was considered.
Both Ted's parents and I flew to Germany to be by his side.
Fortunately, after 2 weeks, he was stable enough to be
transferred back to the United States. Ted remained in a coma
for over 2\1/2\ months. After several weeks at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center, Ted was discharged to the McGuire Veterans
Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia, for brain injury care,
where he remained for 5\1/2\ months.
At that time, I started making the 320-mile roundtrip
commute to North Carolina 3 days a week so I could work, so I
would not lose our house or my job, and I withdrew from school.
Ted's father, who lives and works in Georgia, worked out of a
hotel in Richmond and took whirlwind trips to meetings, often a
24-hour turnaround, for fear of losing his job so close to
retirement. He also struggled to shoulder the financial burden
to be near his son and to keep stride with Ted's medical
evaluation board and physical evaluation board proceedings in
Washington, D.C.
Due to the nature of his injuries, one of us had to be with
Ted every step of the way to oversee his medical care. During
Ted's hospitalization, he was placed on the Temporary Disabled
Retirement List, so we were also juggling the responsibilities
of clearing him from Division in North Carolina and out-
processing him from the Army in Washington, D.C., while his
care was ongoing in Virginia.
Next, Ted was transferred to the Durham Veterans Medical
Center near our home in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and his
parents were finally able to return to Georgia after having
been away for 7 months. Ted was housed in the extended care
facility, where he received maintenance care but no
comprehensive rehabilitation for his multiple traumatic
injuries.
Unfortunately, the expertise he needed could not be
provided in-house, nor did he have access to what civilian
expertise there is in our local community. Therefore, we
requested transfer back to Walter Reed. I was told Ted could
return when he was discharged to outpatient status. He was also
required to have a nonmedical attendant accompany him at all
times, so I had to leave work again.
Six months into Ted's prosthetic training at Walter Reed,
however, he was forced to abandon his rehabilitation due to
setbacks with his brain injury. The Army was not staffed to
address nor able to get him help due to limitations of his
temporary retirement status. Neurology advised that we seek
specialty care elsewhere. And due to the lack of upper-
extremity resources near our home in North Carolina, it made
the most sense to seek brain injury care in the Washington,
D.C., area so Ted could continue his amputee rehabilitation at
Walter Reed.
However, because Ted was not on active duty, we were told
that he was no longer eligible for the global war on terror
supplemental funds required to care for him. In addition,
TRICARE will only cover cognitive therapy in private facilities
for active-duty servicemembers, and the VA can only contract
fee-basis care through his home of record. Therefore, we were
unable to access the brain injury care Ted so desperately
needed in the Washington area.
Before returning to North Carolina, we were able to
convince VA that he absolutely had to have outside therapy.
Through the world-class cognitive care Ted was offered at a
private practice near our home, 15 months after he was
initially injured, he slowly started to recover. Unfortunately,
he is still unable to receive simultaneous treatment for his
two primary injuries due to gaps in current policies, some of
which I previously mentioned.
Due to frequent travel to Walter Reed for services, I was
unable the return to regular work or to my studies and would
eventually be fired from my job because I had ``a lot going
on'' in my life. Because his amputee and orthopedic
rehabilitation is still ongoing, we are still in transition 3
years and 7 months after the blast, and I am still unable to
maintain employment. Needless to say, the long-term financial
challenges faced by the care providers of our severely injured
servicemembers are daunting.
I have been blessed to have a family with the means and
generosity to see us through these difficult times. Our
situation is not typical, nor is the case of my father-in-law.
Mr. Wade has graduate degrees in both business and chemical
engineering and had been working for the same company for 33
years at the time of Ted's injuries. Most family members do not
have jobs that allow them to telecommute, as he did, for 6
months nor the loyalty earned over a long and successful career
in corporate America. Many family members, such as myself, work
for small businesses, have a job where they work for tips or
earn commission or are self-employed. If they do not work, they
do not get paid or they may get fired. It is that simple.
I am very pleased the committee is considering an extension
of the Family and Medical Leave Act. However, I do hope that
while you are reviewing ways to protect the employment of
caregivers who clearly need more medical leave time than is
allowed under current law, you also consider assistance to
those who are not granted any leave at all. While this change
would have been helpful to my father-in-law, those of us who
work for small businesses or who are self-employed remain
vulnerable.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to share our
experiences with you today. And I look forward to answering any
questions you might ask.
[The statement of Ms. Wade follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sarah Wade, Public Policy Intern, Wounded Warrior
Project
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding our
experiences following my husband's injuries in Iraq. My name is Sarah
Wade. I am the wife of SGT Edward Wade, or Ted as most people know him.
My husband joined the Army's 82nd Airborne Division during the summer
of 2000, and following the attacks of September 11, his country called
on him to serve first in Afghanistan and later Iraq. On February 14,
2004, his humvee was hit by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) on a
mission in Al Mahmudiyah. He sustained a very severe Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI), his right arm was completely severed above the elbow, he
suffered a fractured leg, a broken right foot, shrapnel injuries, and
complications due to acute anemia, hyperglycemia, infections, and
withdrawal of life support was considered. Both Ted's parents and I
flew to Germany to be by his side, and, fortunately, after two weeks,
he was stable enough to be transferred back to the United States. Ted
remained in a coma for over 2\1/2\ months. After several weeks at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Ted was discharged to the McGuire VA
hospital in Richmond, Virginia for TBI care where he remained for 5\1/
2\ months.
At that time I started making the 320 mile round trip commute to
North Carolina three days a week to work so I would not lose our house
or my job as a server and had to withdraw from school. Ted's father,
who lives and works in Georgia, worked out of the hotel in Richmond and
took whirlwind trips to meetings--often a twenty-four hour turnaround,
for fear of losing his job so close to retirement. He also struggled to
shoulder the financial burden to be near his son and keep stride with
Ted's Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board
(PEB) proceedings in Washington, D.C. Due to the nature of his
injuries, one of us had to be with Ted every step of the way to oversee
his medical care. During Ted's hospitalization, he was placed on the
Temporary Disabled Retirement List (TDRL) so we were also juggling the
responsibilities of clearing him from Division in North Carolina and
out processing him from the Army in Washington, D.C. while his care was
ongoing in Virginia.
Next, Ted was transferred to Durham near our home in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina and his parents were finally able to return to their
home in Georgia after having been away for seven months. Ted was housed
in the extended care facility where he received maintenance care, but
no comprehensive rehabilitation or treatment of his multiple traumatic
injuries. Unfortunately, the expertise he needed could not be provided
in-house nor did he have access to what civilian expertise there are in
our local community. Therefore, we requested transfer back to Walter
Reed. I was told he could return when he was discharged to outpatient
status. Ted also required a non-medical attendant to accompany him at
all times, so I had to leave work again.
Six months into Ted's prosthetic training at Walter Reed, however,
he was forced to abandon his rehabilitation due to setbacks with his
TBI care that the Army was not staffed to address nor able to get him
help due to the limitations of his TDRL status. Neurology advised we
seek specialty care elsewhere, and due to the lack of upper extremity
resources near our home in North Carolina, it made the most sense to
seek TBI care in the Washington, DC area so Ted could continue his
amputee rehabilitation at Walter Reed. However, because Ted was not on
Active Duty we were told that he was no longer eligible for the Global
War on Terror (supplemental) funds required to care for him. In
addition, TRICARE will only cover cognitive therapy in private
facilities for Active Duty Service Members, and the VA can only
contract fee basis care through his home of record. Therefore, we were
unable to access the TBI care Ted so desperately needed in the DC area.
Before returning to North Carolina we were able to convince VA that
he absolutely had to have outside therapy. Through the world-class
cognitive care Ted was offered through private practice near our home,
fifteen months after he was initially injured, he slowly started to
recover. Unfortunately, he is still unable to receive simultaneous
treatment for his two primary injuries due to the gaps in current
policies, some of which I previously mentioned. Due to frequent travel
to Walter Reed for services, I was unable to return to regular work or
my studies and would eventually be fired from my job because I had ``a
lot going on'' in my life. Because his amputee and orthopedic
rehabilitation are still ongoing we are still ``in transition'' three
years and seven months after the blast and I am still unable to
maintain employment.
Needless to say, the long term financial challenges faced by the
care providers of our Severely Injured Service Members are daunting. I
have been blessed to have a family with the means and generosity to see
us through these difficult times. Our situation is not typical, nor is
the case of my father-in-law. Mr. Wade has graduate degrees in both
business and chemical engineering, and had been working for the same
company for thirty-three years at the time of Ted's injuries. Most
family members do not have jobs that allow them to telecommute as he
did for six months, nor the loyalty built over a long and successful
career in corporate America. Many family members, such as myself, work
for small businesses or have a job where they work for tips or earn
commission. Others are self-employed. If they are not at work, they do
not get paid or they may get fired. It is that simple.
I am very pleased the committee is considering an extension of the
Family Leave Act. However, I do hope that while you are reviewing ways
to better protect the employment of caregivers who clearly need more
medical leave than is allowed under current law, you also consider
assistance to those who are not granted any leave at all. While this
change would have been very helpful to my father-in-law, those of us
who work for small businesses or themselves remain vulnerable.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to share our
experiences with you today, as our story is the story of so many other
families, many worse off than ourselves. I look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Ms. Perdew?
STATEMENT OF JESSICA PERDEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION
Ms. Perdew. Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address some of
the unique needs of military families with respect to the
Family and Medical Leave Act.
I have submitted a written statement, and request that it
be entered into the record.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Without objection.
Ms. Perdew. My written statement outlines a variety of ways
that NMFA believes Congress can modify the FMLA to provide
additional protections to military family members.
We have received far too many calls from military spouses
and grandparents who have been denied time off to attend a
predeployment briefing or to get a child settled into a new
school arrangement. Each of these callers expresses frustration
that there is no protection for them as military family
members. Many are certain that there is some legislation out
there that they just have not heard about. Sadly, this is not
the case.
We would like to focus our comments today, however, on a
special group of military family members: the military family
caregiver.
Six years into the global war on terror, many military
families are bearing the scars of protracted military action.
Wounded servicemembers have wounded families, and these wounded
families deserve better protection under the Family and Medical
Leave Act.
The current allowable leave period is insufficient for the
serious injuries being incurred in combat. Servicemembers today
are surviving injuries that would have been fatal in previous
conflicts. While family members are thankful for these improved
survival rates, the seriousness of these injuries requires
months or even years of rehabilitative care. Twelve weeks may
not be sufficient to allow a family member to remain by a
wounded servicemember's bedside during the initial
hospitalization. Once a wounded member moves from an inpatient
to an outpatient status, the family member caregiver's role
continues to be vitally important to the success of the
treatment program.
FMLA leave may also place a significant financial burden on
military family caregivers. At a time when the family is
dealing with tremendous emotional strain, can we also ask them
to survive without their income? Many family members travel to
the National Capital region to be with the wounded
servicemember at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or the
National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda. Even those families
receiving travel reimbursement and lodging may have significant
out-of-pocket expenses during their stay here. Asking families
to shoulder these additional expenses while on unpaid leave is
like adding insult to injury.
Some States are breaking ground to provide partially paid
family leave. California's paid family leave program is
providing benefits to families who take leave to care for an
ill or injured family member. Creating a similar benefit on the
Federal level would ensure that every military family would be
eligible for paid family leave.
Finally, some military family members may not even qualify
for FMLA. Military spouses move as frequently as their military
sponsors. Obtaining 12 months of tenure with an employer may be
impossible for a spouse who is moving every 24 months. Even
those family members who move less frequently may be employed
by a small business and be ineligible for FMLA leave.
We must remember that not all military family caregivers
are spouses or parents. Siblings of military members are also
serving in this important role. Yet, siblings and other
relatives do not qualify for benefits under the current FMLA
program. These individuals must leave their homes and jobs to
assume these caregiver roles. These issues impact military
family caregivers each day.
NMFA believes it is time to amend the FMLA with the focus
on the family member caregivers of wounded servicemembers. As
such, we recommend extending FMLA coverage to 26 weeks,
providing a paid leave benefit to military family caregivers,
waiving the 12-month qualification requirement for military
family caregivers, and expanding the definition of coverage to
include siblings of wounded servicemembers.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to share the needs of
military families with you. I will be happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The statement of Ms. Perdew follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jessica Perdew, Deputy Director of Government
Relations, the National Military Family Association
The National Military Family Association (NMFA) is the only
national organization whose sole focus is the military family. The
Association's goal is to influence the development and implementation
of policies that will improve the lives of those family members. Its
mission is to serve the families of the seven uniformed services
through education, information, and advocacy.
Founded in 1969 as the National Military Wives Association, NMFA is
a non-profit 501(c)(3) primarily volunteer organization. NMFA
represents the interests of family members and survivors of active
duty, reserve component, and retired personnel of the seven uniformed
services: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public
Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NMFA Representatives in military communities worldwide provide a
direct link between military families and NMFA staff in the nation's
capital. Representatives are the ``eyes and ears'' of NMFA, bringing
shared local concerns to national attention.
NMFA does not have or receive federal grants or contracts.
NMFA's website is: http://www.nmfa.org.
Jessica Perdew joined the National Military Family Association
Government Relations staff in 2005 as Legislative Administrative
Assistant. In January 2007 she was selected to serve as Deputy Director
in the Government Relations Department In this position, she follows
issues such as pay and compensation, housing, taxes, family member
employment, financial literacy, commissary, and exchange as well as
other issues relevant to the quality of life of the families of the
seven uniformed services. She is a regular contributor to several
publications including Military Money and Military Spouse magazines.
Mrs. Perdew serves on the Military Construction/ MWR/ Exchanges
Committee, the Taxes/ Social Security Committee and the Committee on
Military Personnel, Compensation and Commissaries of The Military
Coalition. In addition she represents military families on the Military
Saves National Partners Committee.
A former Marine and a Marine spouse of 14 years, Mrs. Perdew has
served in various volunteer leadership positions in civilian and
military community organizations including Key Volunteers, Navy and
Marine Corps Relief Society, Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA),
and Marine Spouse Clubs. She is a graduate of the University of
Michigan in Ann Arbor with a Bachelor of Science in Physics and is
currently pursuing a second Bachelors degree in Accounting through the
University of Maryland.
In addition to her work at NMFA, Mrs. Perdew is a past President of
the Marine Officers' Spouses' Club of Washington D.C. and is currently
serving as the Coordinator of the Joint Armed Forces Officers Wives
Luncheon Committee. She is also a volunteer in the youth office at St.
Mark Church in Vienna, Virginia. Mrs. Perdew and her husband,
Lieutenant Colonel Jason Perdew, reside in Vienna, Virginia with their
four children.
Madame Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, the
National Military Family Association (NMFA) would like to thank you for
the opportunity to present testimony today workplace challenges facing
military family members.
Today's military is comprised of predominantly young adults under
the age of 35. Sixty-six percent of military spouses are in the labor
force, including 87 percent of junior enlisted spouses (E-1 to E-5).
For many, working to pay bills and cover basic expenses is the primary
reason for working. Studies show the gap between the financial well-
being of military families and their civilian peers is largely due to
the frequent moves required of the military family and the resulting
disruptions to the career progression of the military spouse. In a 2005
report by the RAND Corporation, Working Around the Military: Challenges
to Military Spouse Employment and Education, researchers found that
military spouses, when compared to their civilian counterparts, were
more likely to live in metropolitan areas and are more likely to have
graduated from high school and have some college.
Yet the RAND study found that, all things being equal, military
spouses' civilian counterparts tended to have better employment
outcomes and higher wages. Surveys show a military spouse's income is a
major contributor to the family's financial well-being and the military
spouse unemployment rate is much higher (10 percent) than the national
rate. The loss of the spouse's income at exactly the time when the
family is facing the cost of a government ordered move is further
exacerbated when the spouse is unable to collect unemployment
compensation in most states. Lacking the financial cushion provided by
the receipt of unemployment compensation, the military spouse must
often settle for ``any job that pays the bills'' rather than being able
to search for a job that is commensurate with his or her skills or
career aspirations. This in turn hurts morale and affects recruitment
and retention of the service member.
Compounding these issues is the current operational tempo. Now six
years into the Global War on Terror military families are tired.
Repeated long deployments are taking their toll and stressing personal
support systems to their breaking point. This fact is very evident
among working spouses who are finding it more and more difficult to
maintain their professional schedules while also meeting family
obligations. National Military Family Association (NMFA) has not
tracked the exact number of calls received from family members with
workplace challenges, but there has been a considerable increase in the
number of these calls in recent months.
We believe the increase is a result of what NMFA refers to as the
deployment spiral. Until recently, deployment was discussed in terms of
a cycle that began with predeployment and ended with reintegration.
Based upon an NMFA survey of military spouses in 2003 and a follow on
survey in 2005, NMFA now believes that deployment more closely
resembles a spiral than a cycle. Families do not return to their
original status at the end of a deployment. As a result, subsequent
deployments begin from a different place. Families who had no children
may now have toddlers. Other families may have experienced a divorce
since the last deployment leaving the service member in a single parent
role. Increasingly parents and siblings of service members are stepping
into guardian roles while the service member deploys. In addition, the
increase in end strength for the Army and Marine Corps is bringing many
new families to the military. These families are struggling to adapt to
a military lifestyle while coping with deployments.
At the same time employers seem to be growing weary of the special
demands military service is placing upon their employees. In some cases
it appears employer goodwill with respect to flexibility and time off
for military commitments has run out. Even Reserve component personnel
called to active duty are finding many employers less willing to
support military commitments. For service members there is employment
protection under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act (USERRA). For military family members there is no such
protection. Many times the non-military spouse is forced to choose
between attending an important school event for a child who is missing
a deployed parent, or losing a job that is keeping the family
financially solvent. This is a stressful juggling act at best.
This situation may be further exacerbated in National Guard and
Reserve families where parents may work shifts to trade off child care
responsibilities. When the service member is activated the spouse is
forced to find child care and to make budget adjustments to cover this
new and significant expense, along with adjusting to all of the other
stresses a deployment brings. One spouse described her experience:
``As a National Guard spouse, I had to quit my high paying position
(primary source of income and benefits) during my husband's deployment
because of a combination of a long commute and daycare hours. My
husband had drop off responsibilities so that I could commute before
peak traffic hours. There is no protection or advocacy for guard and
reserve spouse jobs. My family went from a comfortable standard of
living to qualifying for food stamps in the year and a half after my
husband's return because of the difficulty in finding a job that I
could stick with through another potential deployment.''
Military families, like all other families, need to spend time
actively involved in their children's schools and activities. This
becomes particularly important when a parent is deployed. It is
imperative that the child experiencing a deployment be able to find
comfort in normal family routines and activities. Imagine the stress
and guilt that builds each time a parent or custodial grandparent must
explain to his or her child why they won't be able to attend a school
function. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) could be modified to
permit these parents and guardians the opportunity to attend these
important events. Providing military parents and guardians up to four
hours per month to attend school functions could have a tremendously
positive impact on military children missing a deployed parent and
dealing with deployment issues. NMFA is thankful that Chairman Woolsey
recognizes and has championed the improvement of the lives of working
families and the need for family friendly workplaces through the
sponsorship of H.R. 2392.
NMFA recommends FMLA be modified to include up four hours per month
for military family members to attend school sponsored functions or
military sponsored deployment related functions.
As if the normal stresses of military life were not enough, many
military families are now finding themselves in the role of caretaker
for a wounded service member. In an instant a family's entire life can
change. Regardless of a service member's marital status their families
will be affected in some way by the injury. Family members are an
integral part of the health care team. Their presence has been shown to
improve the wounded service member's quality of life and aid in a
speedy recovery.
Congress must be cognizant of the caregiver. Family members have
made the commitment to care for their loved one. We must acknowledge
they are a part of the health care recovery team. The responsibilities
shouldered by the family member caregiver provide relief to both the
medical staff and health care system. Family member caregivers also
help to reduce the total cost of care for the wounded service member by
performing duties that would require paid staff in the absence of a
family member. They advocate, transport, and move, along with their
wounded loved one from Walter Reed Army Medical Center or the National
Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, to a Poly-trauma center and follow on
to other military treatment facilities or Veterans Administration
health care facilities throughout the United States, often leaving
their own lives and jobs behind. Congress must take into consideration
the economic impact on families who decide to remain by the bedside to
provide care for their injured loved one. Families may voluntarily
choose to leave their jobs for a variety of reasons. They may desire to
spend as much time as possible with the wounded service member. The
overwhelming challenges of trying to care for and navigate the
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs complex health
care systems may make it impossible to meet professional and increasing
family demands. Or, they may need to relocate for an extended period of
time to be with the injured service member or veteran to a location
that can provide the optimum quality of care.
Certainly FMLA provides some protection for the families of wounded
service members. But, the reality is the time permitted under FMLA is
not sufficient for the severely wounded. Chairman Woolsey's ``Support
for Injured Servicemembers Act'', H.R. 3481, would provide a much
needed extension to FMLA leave. NMFA is thankful that Congress
recognizes the limitations in the current FMLA program and is working
to overcome those limitations. In addition, many military spouses do
not qualify for FMLA leave due to the mobile nature of the military
lifestyle. For a spouse who moves every two or three years, accruing 12
months of tenure with an employer may be a challenge. Even for family
members who qualified for FMLA leave, financial circumstances may make
leave without pay an impossible option. In the case of single service
members who are wounded, it is often a parent, step-parent, or sibling
who becomes the primary caregiver. Often the caregiver must terminate a
position in order to care for their wounded loved one during their
rehabilitation and recovery phase. Not only are these caregivers losing
income, many times they lose their health care coverage, too. If the
caregiver is a sibling, he or she is not currently eligible for any
leave under FMLA. According to the National Naval Medical Center at
Bethesda, the average age of an active duty Traumatic Brain Injury
patient arriving at their health care facility is between 21 and 23.
Many of these young service members are unmarried, placing parents and
siblings in the caregiver role.
State initiatives, such as California's Paid Family Leave (PFL) and
the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) are providing much needed paid
family leave. Providing a federal version of these programs would
enable families caring for a wounded service member to concentrate on
the service member's recovery, rather than worrying about the
possibility of lost income. While some states are already providing
these benefits, the time required to push these programs through the
legislative process in every state would mean the families of many
wounded service members might never benefit by their passage. These
programs are needed on a consistent basis nationwide to ensure all
military families are covered regardless of the duty station's
location. Certainly, states could provide a more generous benefit if
they desired but, the basic benefit would exist nationwide with the
passage of national legislation.
Primary Caregivers of wounded service members require increased
protection. NMFA recommends:
<bullet> Extending FMLA leave periods to at least 26 weeks per year
<bullet> Exempting military family caregivers from the 12 month
employment threshold
<bullet> Providing a limited amount of paid family leave
<bullet> Broadening the definition of eligibility by including
those who are considered the primary caregiver
<bullet> Providing some level of protection to employees in small
businesses
Military families serve along with their service members. The
military lifestyle is not without sacrifice and families willingly
accept the challenges inherent in military service. There is, however,
a limit to the sacrifices that can be reasonably expected. No family
should have to choose between paying the bills and caring for a
seriously ill or wounded service member. No parent or guardian should
be denied the opportunity to visit their child's school or attend an
important event while a service member is forward deployed. Military
families support the Nation's military missions. Modification of the
FMLA not only provides important benefits to military families, it also
validates their service to their country and recognizes their
sacrifice.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Ms. Vion-Gillespie?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE VION-GILLESPIE, SOCIETY FOR HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Ms. Vion-Gillespie. Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member
Wilson and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name
is Christine Vion-Gillespie, and I am the employee relations
and compliance manager for SAS Institute, Inc., headquartered
in Cary, North Carolina. I commend the subcommittee for holding
this hearing on leave for military families, and I appreciate
the opportunity to share my experiences with you today.
I am a certified senior human resources professional and
have over 16 years' experience in human resources management in
a variety of industries. I appear today on behalf of the
Society for Human Resource Management, or SHRM, the world's
largest association devoted to human resource management.
With the Nation on a heightened military status, SHRM and
its members stand in full support of the men and women serving
in America's military, both here and abroad. A considerable
number of the Nation's reserve components are currently on
active duty, requiring significant sacrifices not just of those
called to active duty but of their families and of their
employers.
At SAS, for example, we are committed to supporting our
employees serving in the military as well as their families. We
continue to compensate our active-duty military employees,
paying the difference between their SAS salary and their
military wage for up to 18 months. Active-duty military
employees and their families also continue to receive health-
care benefits for up to 12 months, and their children are
welcomed at the SAS-subsidized daycare center indefinitely. SAS
offers an array of additional support services, as outlined in
my written statement.
Because of SAS's commitment to our military employees and
their families, the North Carolina Employer Support of the
Guard and Reserve recently presented SAS with the Pro Patria
Award, the highest State-level award given to a civilian
employer by the U.S. Department of Defense.
As you can see from the SAS example, HR professionals and
their organizations are committed to assisting military
families in balancing both their work and family demands.
SHRM applauds the subcommittee's interest in examining ways
to better support workers whose families have been impacted by
a call-up. And we stand ready to work with the subcommittee on
crafting a workable solution that meets the needs of the
military servicemembers, their employee caregivers and
employers.
However, we strongly believe that a comprehensive review of
the Family and Medical Leave Act is also warranted, given that
a number of military leave proposals before Congress build upon
the leave requirements currently afforded to workers under the
statute and given the fact that employers and employees
continue to experience challenges with the practical
application of FMLA in the workplace.
As you know, there are a number of legislative proposals
before Congress to provide additional leave to military
families. I would like to briefly mention SHRM's concerns with
regard to key provisions of these proposals.
First, the House adopted an amendment offered by
Representatives Altmire and Udall during consideration of the
Department of Defense's authorization bill. That would expand
the FMLA to provide leave for military families to deal with
issues related to a call of duty or an impending call.
Madam Chair, this language is very broad. It sets vague
standards for leave, and it represents a significant departure
from the original intent of the FMLA, which was to provide
employees with family and medical leave. This amendment,
however, would authorize leave for a variety of purposes
unrelated to the family or medical leave.
The Senate also adopted an amendment to the Children's
Health Insurance Reauthorization Bill that would amend FMLA to
provide 26 weeks of leave for family members to care for
injured servicemembers.
Madam Chair, this legislation is very similar to H.R. 3481,
the bill you have introduced with Chairman Miller. While this
approach represents an improvement over the Altmire-Udall
amendment and is narrowly targeted to address the issues raised
on the President's Commission on Care for America's Wounded
Warriors, it, too, raises concerns.
For example, it is unclear under this proposal whether an
employee must use the leave within a specified period of time
after the injury or illness is incurred. In addition, the
proposal includes a vague standard of leave, especially given
the administrative challenges employers currently encounter
with FMLA.
Clearly, the Nation's men and women in uniform and their
families have made significant sacrifices for the benefit of
their country. I know this as the proud daughter of a 30-year
veteran of the U.S. Navy. SHRM looks forward to working with
the subcommittee on effective leave policies to support our
military families.
Thank you for the opportunity for us to be here today.
[The statement of Ms. Vion-Gillespie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christine Vion-Gillespie, SPHR Employee Relations
and Compliance Manager, on Behalf of the Society for Human Resource
Management
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Wilson, distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Christine Vion-Gillespie and I am the
Employee Relations and Compliance Manager for the SAS Institute, Inc.
headquartered in Cary, North Carolina. I commend the subcommittee for
holding this hearing on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and
leave for military families. I appreciate the opportunity to share my
experiences with you today.
I am a certified senior professional in human resources and have
over 16 years experience in human resource management in a variety of
industries including hospitality, healthcare, media, and high tech
software. In my current role, I manage the affirmative action program
at SAS, develop policies and programs to enhance the strategic
partnership between HR and the business units, and provide counseling
to all levels of the HR department with regards to employee relations.
I appear today on behalf of the Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM). SHRM is the world's largest professional association
devoted to human resource management. Our mission is to serve the needs
of HR professionals by providing the most current and comprehensive
resources, and to advance the profession by promoting HR's essential,
strategic role. Founded in 1948, SHRM represents more than 225,000
individual members in over 125 countries, and has a network of more
than 575 affiliated chapters in the United States, as well as offices
in China and India.
SHRM is well positioned to provide insight on workplace leave
policies for military personnel and their families. The Society's
membership comprises HR professionals who are responsible for
administering their employers' benefit policies, including paid time-
off programs as entitled to FMLA, track an employee's FMLA leave, and
determine how to maintain a satisfied and productive workforce during
the employee's FMLA leave-related absences.
Employer Support
With the nation on a heightened military status, SHRM and its
members stand in full support of the men and women serving in America's
military both here and abroad. According to the Employer Support of the
Guard and Reserve (ESGR), the men and women of the National Guard and
Reserve comprise approximately 46 percent of the total available
military manpower, a significant number of which are currently
deployed. In addition, the military deployments of the Guard and
Reserve are lasting longer, requiring additional sacrifices not just of
those called to active duty, but of their families as well. At the same
time, employers can be significantly affected when an employee is
called to active duty or when a member of an employee's immediate
family has been deployed. In these situations, HR professionals and
their organizations work diligently to support employees and their
families affected by these military call-ups. HR professionals must
also ensure that their workplaces respond appropriately to shifts in
personnel that are created when employees are called to active duty.
In my experience, employers believe it is important to assist
employees in balancing work and personal needs and this includes
employees who may be called to active duty. At SAS, we have created a
culture of support for our employees who are in the armed services that
extends to their families too.
One important way employers have assisted families of active duty
Guard and Reserve is through compensation or pay differential. In a
SHRM Weekly Online Survey conducted in April 2007, 45 percent of the
randomly selected HR professionals who responded said their
organizations employee's time on active duty; 6 percent said they do so
for the entire period of activation; and 35 percent said they provide
no direct compensation support to employees called to active duty.
In 2004, SAS revised its military service policy to increase the
amount of time we would continue to compensate an active duty employee
on military leave from 12 to 18 months. Now, employees on military
leave receive the difference, if any, between their SAS salary and
their military wage for up to 18 months. Employees on military leave
also continue to receive health care benefits for 12 months. Because
child care can be especially challenging for families when a spouse is
activated, SAS allows children of employees enrolled in our Child Care
Center to remain at the Center for the duration of the military leave.
In addition, SAS has five social workers on staff to offer a variety of
support services to employees including assistance with relocation;
finding a tutor for their children; marriage and family relationship
issues; financial services; eldercare and in-home resources; and grief
counseling.
As a result of SAS's commitment to our military employees and their
families, the North Carolina Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
committee recently presented SAS with the Pro Patria Award, the highest
state-level award given to a civilian employer by the U.S. Department
of Defense.
Need Comprehensive Review of FMLA
As noted earlier, HR professionals and their organizations are
committed to assisting their employees in balancing both their work and
family demands. Employees called to active duty, along with their
families, undoubtedly face difficult times and unique challenges. SHRM
applauds the Subcommittee's interest in examining ways to better
support workers whose families have been impacted by a call-up.
However, we strongly believe that a comprehensive review of the FMLA is
leave requirements currently afforded to workers under this Act, and
the fact that employers and employees continue to experience challenges
with the practical application of FMLA in the workplace. Adding an
additional leave requirement to the FMLA, regardless of how meritorious
it may be, will only exacerbate the frustrations HR professionals have
experienced in implementing this law.
As you know, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently completed
a thorough review of the effectiveness of the FMLA regulations in which
the Department received over 15,000 comments from employers, employees
and other interested organizations. In June, the DOL issued a report
summarizing the comments received through this process. The report
noted that in many instances, when it comes to the ``family'' portion
of FMLA, the regulations are basically working as Congress intended
with few concerns for employers or employees. However, the report also
highlighted that in other areas, particularly in the ``medical'' leave
portions of the regulations, differing opinion letters, federal court
rules and regulator guidance have clouded and sometimes undermined key
provisions of the FMLA. While SHRM appreciates the Labor Department's
efforts to initiate a dialog on the FMLA regulations, we believe the
agency should take the next logical step and issue new rules as soon as
possible to comprehensively address the issues raised in the review
process.
As mentioned above, there are certain provisions within the FMLA
regulations that work well for both employers and employees. The family
leave portion of the regulations--which provides up to 12 weeks of
unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child--has caused
relatively few problems in the workplace. For example, in the 2007 SHRM
Survey FMLA and Its Impact on for the birth or adoption of a child.
Key aspects of the regulations governing the medical leave
provisions, however, as also discussed above, have drifted far from the
original intent of the Act, creating challenges for both employers and
employees. In fact, 47 percent of members responding to the 2007 SHRM
FMLA Survey reported that they have experienced challenges in granting
leave for an employee's serious health condition as a result of an
episodic condition (ongoing injuries, ongoing illnesses, and/or non-
life threatening conditions). HR professionals have struggled to
interpret various provisions of the FMLA, including the definition of a
serious health condition, intermittent leave, and medical
certifications.
HR professionals have two primary concerns with the Act's
regulations: the definitions of ``serious health condition'' and
``intermittent leave.'' For example, with regard to the definition of
serious health condition, the DOL issued a statement in April 2005
advising that conditions such as the common cold, the flu, and non-
migraine headaches are not serious health conditions. The following
year, however, the DOL issued a statement saying that each of these
conditions could be considered a ``serious health condition.'' Almost
anything, after three days and a doctor's visit, now qualifies as a
serious medical condition (due to DOL regulations and opinion letters).
In addition, HR professionals encounter numerous challenges in
administering unscheduled, intermittent leave. It is often difficult to
track an employee's unscheduled, intermittent leave usage, particularly
when the employee takes FMLA leave in small increments. Unscheduled,
intermittent leave also poses significant staffing problems for
employers. When an employee takes unscheduled, intermittent leave with
little or no advance notice, organizations must cover the absent
employee's workload by reallocating the work to other employees. For
example, during an employee's FMLA leave, their location attends to the
employee's workload by assigning work temporarily to other employees.
In most cases, it is not cost-effective to use temporary staff because
the period to train a temporary employee is sometimes longer than the
leave itself. Furthermore, employers typically do not receive
sufficient advance notice regarding an employee's need for FMLA leave,
thereby making it difficult to obtain temporary help on short notice.
In addition to staffing problems, ``intermittent leave'' (as
defined in the FMLA regulations) has resulted in numerous issues
related to the management of absenteeism in the workplace. The most
common challenge HR professionals encounter in administering medical
leave, for example, is where an employee is certified for a chronic
condition and the health care professional has indicated on the FMLA
certification form that intermittent leave is needed for the employee
to seek treatments for the condition. This certification in effect
grants an employee open-ended leave, allowing leave to be taken in
unpredictable, unscheduled, small increments of time. While serious
health conditions may well require leave to be taken on an intermittent
basis, limited tools are available to employers in order to determine
when the leave is in fact legitimate. As a result, 39 percent of HR
professionals responding to the 2007 SHRM FMLA Survey Report indicated
that they granted FMLA leave for requests that they perceived to be
illegitimate.
SHRM supports the goals of the FMLA and wants to ensure that
employees continue to receive the benefits and job security afforded by
the Act. While we fully appreciate the immediacy of the issues being
faced by our Guard and Reserve families and employees called to active
duty, we respectfully suggest that if Congress considers proposals to
expand FMLA leave coverage for military families, it should also take
steps to address the underlying problems both employers and employees
encounter with the FMLA.
SHRM shares Congress' interest in providing military families
additional work flexibility and looks forward to collaborating with the
Subcommittee on crafting a workable solution that meets the needs of
military service members, their employee caregivers, and employers.
However, as outlined above, there is already a lengthy record of
problems with administering leave under the FMLA due to confusing and
inconsistent regulations. SHRM respectfully requests that Congress fix
the documented shortfalls of the FMLA before considering additional
leave benefits under this important workplace statute. In addition, we
would note that the Society has fundamental concerns with a number of
key provisions of the legislative proposals that have been introduced
in the 110th Congress. These concerns are outlined below.
Proposal to provide leave for an exigency arising from a call-up
As you know, earlier this year the House passed H.R. 1585, the
Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Defense Authorization bill, which
included an amendment offered by Representatives Altmire (D-PA) and
Udall (D-NM) that would expand the FMLA to provide leave for military
families to deal with exigencies arising from a call to duty or an
impending call to duty. This amendment is very broad, sets vague
standards for leave, and does not adequately address many issues key to
effective implementation, which under FMLA have led to excessive
litigation. For example, in the case of a spouse called to active duty,
the amendment would appear to authorize leave for a wide range of
purposes from providing or arranging child care to coaching a child's
baseball team, to even taking on the spouse's household chores, such as
maintaining the yard. In addition, if enacted, this amendment would
represent a significant departure from the original intent of the FMLA,
which was intended to provide leave for employees to bond with a
condition.
Furthermore, as noted previously, the most significant challenge
with the current FMLA rules is in the area of intermittent leave. Since
the Altmire/Udall amendment would allow leave to be taken on an
intermittent basis for reasons outside the original intent of Act, SHRM
and its members are extremely concerned that this proposal would only
exacerbate the current problems with FMLA leave use and administration.
Proposals to provide 26 weeks of leave for caregivers
In addition to the Altmire/Udall amendment discussed above,
Chairwoman Woolsey (DCA) and Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) have
introduced H.R. 3481, the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act and
H.R. 3391, the Military Family and Medical Leave Act, respectively.
Both of these bills would provide up to 26 weeks of leave for FMLA-
covered employees to care for relatives injured while on active duty.
These proposals seek to implement the President's Commission on Care
for America's Wounded Warriors' recommendation to expand FMLA leave for
up to 6 months for a spouse or parent to care for an injured service
member. On a similar note, an amendment offered by Senator Dodd (D-CT)
and cosponsored by Senator Clinton (D-NY) to provide caregivers of
injured service members 26 workweeks of FMLA leave was adopted during
Senate consideration of H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act.
While these proposals represent an improvement over the Altmire/
Udall approach, SHRM is concerned with the practical application of
these proposals in the workplace. For example, under several of these
proposals, it is unclear when an employee must take leave. Does the
benefit need to be used within a specific period of time after the
injury or illness is incurred? As members of the Subcommittee know,
many service-connected illnesses, such as Post Traumatic Stress
service. Therefore, SHRM recommends that any proposal to expand leave
benefits to caregivers of service members should include a finite time
period connected to the military service. If in fact a service member
would have an impairment that qualified as a serious health condition
down the road, in all likelihood, both the service member and a
caregiver would be eligible for FMLA leave at that time. Finally,
because the proposals outlined above include a vague standard for
leave, SHRM again has concerns that this type of language would only
add to the well-documented problems in complying with certain FMLA
provisions.
Proposals to provide 52 weeks of leave for caregivers
Additional legislation to provide leave for caregivers of injured
service members has also been introduced by Senator Barack Obama (D-
IL). S. 1885, the Military Family Job Protection Act, would entitle
FMLA-eligible relatives, including siblings, to 52 work weeks of job-
protected leave to care for recovering service members. This proposal
was also adopted in the Senate as an amendment to H.R. 976, the
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act.
Under the FMLA, an employee must have worked for an employer for
1,250 hours in order to be eligible for leave. However, there is no
minimum number of hours an employee must work before taking leave under
the Obama proposal. In addition, there is no length of service
requirement in the Obama legislation, which presumably means that an
employee would be eligible for the leave on their first day. Moreover,
it is unclear whether this proposal would allow employees to take leave
on an intermittent basis or what caregivers would be covered under this
legislation. These shortcomings raise serious concerns for HR
professionals.
Conclusion
Clearly, the nation's men and women in uniform and their families
have made significant sacrifices for the benefit of our country. SHRM
appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on proposals to
provide additional leave for our nation's military families. While the
goal of extending the FMLA to cover military families is laudable, SHRM
would encourage policy makers to proceed with caution in advancing
these types of proposals in order to limit any unintended consequences
for employees, caregivers, and employers. The Society looks forward to
working with the Subcommittee on workable leave policies to support
caregivers of injured military service men and women.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
Ms. Ness?
STATEMENT OF DEBRA L. NESS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR
WOMEN AND FAMILIES
Ms. Ness. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Woolsey,
Representative Wilson, Representative Bishop and my fellow
panel members. Thank you for the chance to talk about a law
that is so vital to America's working families, the Family and
Medical Leave Act, and how we can make it available to military
families when they need it most. I am Debra Ness, president of
the National Partnership for Women and Families.
One of our proudest accomplishments is the Family and
Medical Leave Act. We wrote the initial draft of the bill,
fought for 9 years to enact it, and we remain its stewards
today. The FMLA is the only Federal law that helps our Nation's
workers meet the dual demands of work and family. It provides
unpaid, job-protected leave for up to 12 weeks a year to care
for a newborn, a newly adopted or foster child, to care for a
seriously ill family member or to recover from one's own
serious illness. It protects your job and your health
insurance.
Since it was passed in 1993, more than 60 million workers
have used the FMLA in times of need to care for themselves or
family members without putting their jobs on the line.
The FMLA is, without a doubt, one of our country's most
popular laws. More than 80 percent of employees surveyed by the
Department of Labor say that all workers should be able to take
up to 12 weeks of leave a year for family and medical reasons.
Support for the FMLA crosses all demographic lines; it works
equally well in red States and blue States.
The FMLA has also been good for employers. National
research conducted by the Department of Labor indicates that
the vast majority of employers say complying with the FMLA has
a positive or a neutral effect on productivity, profitability,
growth and morale. The law benefits employers by helping them
retain trained employees, by keeping productive workers on the
job and creating a positive work environment.
It does have its limitations, however. It covers only about
60 percent of our Nation's workforce, and the leave it provides
is unpaid. So, as a result, unfortunately, there are millions
of workers in this country who are not yet covered by the FMLA
and who cannot afford to use the benefits that it provides.
We know it works. We know that millions of more workers
urgently need its protections. Yet, in the 14 years since it
became law, the FMLA has never been expanded. We hope that is
about to change. With our Nation at war and with so many
servicemembers suffering grievous injuries, we need to expand
the FMLA so that military families can care for their loved
ones without fear of losing their jobs or their health
insurance.
The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning
Wounded Warriors recognized the importance of this law this
summer when it made FMLA expansion one of its six broad
recommendations. The Commission asked Congress to expand the
FMLA to allow up to 6 months for family members caring for
seriously ill soldiers. We could not agree more.
The Commission reports that more than 3,000 servicemembers
have been seriously injured during operations in Iraq and in
Afghanistan. Many return home, as we have heard here today,
with traumatic brain injuries, amputations and other serious
conditions that require extensive, long-term medical care and
rehabilitation.
Many of these wounded veterans rely on the care of a family
member for their recovery. That care is truly essential to
their recovery. In fact, almost a third of wounded
servicemembers report that a family member or a close friend
had to relocate for an extended period of time to be with them
while they were recovering in the hospital. About one in five
servicemembers report that their family members had to give up
their jobs to care for them.
How tragic it is that in addition to the enormous
sacrifices these soldiers and families have already made, these
families also face a loss of income and health coverage. To
care for their wounded spouse, son, daughter, sister or
brother, they must jeopardize their family's stability and
economic security. Expanding the FMLA would mean that fewer
families would have to face that kind of trauma.
That is why we are so pleased that both houses of Congress
are moving quickly to implement this Commission recommendation.
Last month, the Senate unanimously enacted the Support for
Injured Servicemembers Act, which amends the FMLA to provide up
to 6 months of job-protected leave for a family member/next of
kin who is providing care to a wounded servicemember. The House
should do the same with all due haste.
Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey, for introducing this
companion bill. Thanks, also, to Representatives Miller,
Filner, Berkley, McCarthy and Skelton for co-sponsoring it.
We heartily endorse this legislation. We urge you to enact
it quickly so that military families can immediately begin
taking advantage of the extended leave it provides. It is a
modest but critically important step.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Ness follows:]
Prepared Statement of Debra Ness, President, the National Partnership
for Women & Families
Good afternoon Chairwoman Woolsey, members of the subcommittee, and
my distinguished fellow panel members. Thank you for inviting us to
talk about a law that is vital to America's working families--the
federal Family and Medical Leave Act--and how we can make sure that it
is available to support our military families when they need it most.
I am Debra Ness, President of the National Partnership for Women &
Families, a non-profit, nonpartisan advocacy organization with more
than 35 years of experience promoting fairness in the workplace, access
to quality health care, and policies that help women and men meet the
competing demands of work and family.
One of the accomplishments we are most proud of is our work on the
Family and Medical Leave Act. We wrote the initial draft of the bill;
built a broad-based, strong coalition of more than 250 national and
local organizations to support it; and pushed for nine years until it
was enacted. We were fortunate to have Senator Dodd as our champion in
the Senate, and to have many champions in the House of Representatives
as well. And of course it was President Clinton who finally signed the
FMLA into law after it was vetoed twice by the first President Bush.
We are still the stewards of the FMLA, working to make its
protections available to all workers who need it. The FMLA is the only
federal law that helps our nation's workers meet the dual demands of
work and family. It provides unpaid, job-protected leave for up to 12
weeks a year to care for a newborn, newly adopted or foster child, to
care for a seriously ill family member, or to recover from an
employee's own serious illness. It also protects the health insurance
of those on leave.
Since it was enacted in 1993, the FMLA has given more than 60
million workers the opportunity to care for themselves and their family
members in times of need--without putting their jobs on the line.
The FMLA is one of the most popular laws in the country. More than
80 percent of employees surveyed by the Department of Labor say that
all workers should be able to take up to 12 weeks of leave a year for
family and medical reasons--a finding duplicated in poll after poll. It
has high support across all demographic, political, and regional
groups.
The FMLA has also been accepted and welcomed by employers. Data
from the most recent national research on the FMLA, conducted by the
Department of Labor, show that the vast majority of U.S. employers
report that complying with the FMLA has a positive/neutral effect on
productivity (83 percent), profitability (90 percent), growth (90
percent), and employee morale (90 percent). The Act benefits employers
in numerous ways, most notably the savings derived from retaining
trained employees, from keeping productive workers on the job, and from
a positive work environment.
The Department of Labor recently published a summary of comments
submitted by employees and employers that are a testament to the
important role the FMLA plays in our nation's efforts to maintain a
healthy, productive workforce. Many of the comments are available on
the Department's website, and I want to share just a few of them with
you today:
Comments from workers:
<bullet> ``Without [the FMLA], I couldn't have cared for both of my
parents at different times in their lives and kept my job. * * *
Because of the act I was able to keep my parents out of nursing homes
and still keep my job to support them later. This is the best thing you
can do for working families around our country.''
<bullet> ``FMLA not only allows me to take time off for * * *
therapy/medical appointments but also allows [me] to take time off as
needed when I have sporadic episodes in which the medicine does not
work, needs to be fined tuned, or changed which is essential to my
well-being. * * * FMLA saved my job and I also believe saved my life,
and to this day gives me a sense of security against any discipline or
termination based on my legitimate medical needs.''
<bullet> ``I used FMLA three times in the last 9 years (with and
without pay); each time I was very grateful to know that my job status
was protected when I was out on leave. All three times I returned to
work and rededicated myself to my job. FMLA helped me, my family, and
my loyalty and productivity in the workplace.''
And from employers:
<bullet> ``If I have an employee with a child or family member with
a serious illness, and this employee is unable to be with that family
member when needed, they are distracted at work and their productivity
suffers. In contrast, if they are allowed time to care for that family
member, their productivity increases. They know what they have to
accomplish and--sometimes by working at home, or working extra hours,
or skipping lunch, or working exceptionally hard--they get it done. And
in the end I have an extremely loyal employee.''
<bullet> [Administering FMLA leave is] no more difficult to
navigate than any other labor oriented legislation. In fact I find it
very straight forward and it has been a literal lifesaver for some of
our people. * * * In the long run, most people will appreciate the
extra protection offered by the employer during a difficult time and
will return as more motivated employees once the crisis has passed.''
The FMLA has been a tremendous benefit to working families--but it
has limitations and does not cover all of our nation's workforce. For
example, the FMLA covers only 60 percent of the workforce because it
covers only employers with 50 or more employees. The decision in 1993
to leave unprotected those working for employers with fewer than 50
employees was due in large part to claims made by some stakeholders
that the law would harm employers and the economy. We now have nearly
15 years of experience with the law, and these concerns have been
proven false.
Further, the FMLA provides only unpaid leave. This means that for
the vast majority of low-wage workers who have no paid leave benefits,
the FMLA remains an empty promise. Seventy-eight percent of those who
need but do not take family and medical leave do not take it because
they can not afford to, according to the Department of Labor. And
300,000 personal bankruptcies a year are caused by lack of paid medical
leave, according to research by Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren.
We are grateful to the Congressional leaders who have introduced
bills to expand the FMLA, so more workers can benefit from its
essential protections. We applaud Chairwoman Woolsey for introducing
The Balancing Act, a comprehensive measure that would expand the FMLA,
facilitate the creation of state paid family and medical leave
programs, and provide other badly needed supports to working families.
And we thank Senators Dodd and Stevens for introducing legislation that
would create a national paid family and medical leave insurance
program.
With our nation at war, and so many of our servicemembers coming
home and needing care while they recover from very serious injuries, we
need to ensure that the protections of the FMLA are adequate to serve
the needs of our military families.
The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors issued its report this past summer, and one of its six broad
recommendations was that Congress should change the Family and Medical
Leave Act to allow up to six months leave for spouses and parents of
seriously injured soldiers.
We could not agree more. According to the Commission, more than
3,000 servicemembers have been seriously injured during operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Many return from these conflicts with serious
injuries, including traumatic brain injuries and amputations, both of
which require extensive medical care and rehabilitation. And recovering
in the care of a loved one is the best option for a significant number
of these wounded veterans.
Some already have that support. Thirty-three percent of active
duty, 22 percent of reserve component, and 37 percent of retired or
separated servicemembers reported that a family member or close friend
relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while they were
recovering in the hospital. Additionally, 21 percent of active duty, 15
percent of reserve component and 24 percent of retired or separated
servicemembers reported that family members or friends gave up a job to
be with them or to act as their caregivers.
They shouldn't have to. We are grateful that leaders in both houses
of Congress are moving quickly to implement this Commission
recommendation. Last month, the Senate unanimously enacted The Support
for Injured Servicemembers Act, which amends the FMLA to provide up to
six months of job-protected leave for a family member (spouse, son,
daughter, parent, or next of kin) who is otherwise eligible for the
FMLA and who is providing care for a servicemember recovering from a
combat-related injury or illness.
This is the first time that an FMLA expansion has been adopted by
either house of Congress since the law was enacted in 1993. The measure
was enacted as an amendment to the legislation reauthorizing the
Children's Health Insurance Program, and was sponsored by Senators Dodd
and Clinton, and co-sponsored by Senators Dole, Graham, Mikulski,
Chambliss, Brown, Cardin, Menendez, Salazar, Kennedy, Reed, Boxer,
Murray, Lieberman and Roberts. Earlier this month Chairwoman Woolsey
introduced the companion measure in the House, which has five
cosponsors (Representatives Miller, Filner, Berkley, McCarthy, and
Skelton), and which is the subject of this hearing today.
We heartily endorse this legislation and urge you to enact it
quickly, so that military families can immediately begin taking
advantage of the extended leave that it provides. It is a modest and
critically important step forward in improving health care for our
veterans and providing better support for our military families.
The President's Commission report could not have been more clear--
today's veterans and their families need access to extended FMLA leave.
We ask our military families to make great sacrifices. Now we have an
opportunity to show them how much we appreciate all that they have done
by giving them time off from work to provide care for their loved ones
through The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I am happy to
answer any questions you might have.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, I want to thank all four of you.
You have been wonderful.
First of all, I yield myself 5 minutes to make some remarks
but mostly to ask questions.
I echo--that we need to do this in the Congress. Rather
than repeat everything you say, Ms. Ness, I am going to say I
echo your rationale about the FMLA. And I keep hearing the
unpaid piece of it, and that it only covers 60 percent of the
workforce.
So, along with introducing H.R. 3481, I want to assure you
that we are working on expanding the Family and Medical Leave
Act. I have legislation called the Balancing Act. It is H.R.
2392. We have 50-some cosponsors already. And it does bring
down the eligibility to companies that are below 50 now--and we
have not quite picked the cutoff point, but it will be about 15
or 20 at the most.
And it does include paid family leave, modeled after
California. But we could even do more in this country. We are
the wealthiest nation in the world, and we take the least
amount of care of our families, their children and our seniors
through our medical and our leave policies. Shame on us.
Ms. Vion-Gillespie, I was a human resources professional
for 20 years; I know what your job is all about. I also know
that, when there is a will, there is a way. And in times like
this, we can not wait to redo the Family and Medical Leave Act
and make it all-inclusive and fix it totally. We have to do
something for our military personnel, our veterans and for
their families, and we need to do it now.
So I wanted to know from you: What would you think of
waiving the 12-month period? I mean, it is virtually impossible
for a family that is following their spouse around the country
to be in a job for 12 months.
Ms. Vion-Gillespie. I think that is a great question.
I know that expanding leave benefits for military families
is desirable. It is feasible. It is a great goal. If current
laws are amended to balance the needs of employers and
employees, we can reach that goal.
At the same time, we have an obligation to provide all
employees and employers with clear, predictable and practical
leave requirements. Certainly, looking at that 12-month waiting
period and having been a child of the military, I certainly
understand where it is difficult to maintain those levels of
employment.
As part of that partnership, I think that is where the give
and take is and that maybe there is an opportunity to be able
to do that in order to help clarify another piece of that
legislation. You all do that very well in being bipartisan, and
I know that we could do as well.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, I thank you for that.
Part of it is leveling the playing field. You know, there
are really good employers in this country of ours who do take
care of their servicemembers and their employees. Look at Ms.
Wade's father-in-law. And you are right, he had earned that
loyalty, but not all employers would provide that. But if all
employers are expected, then the playing field is leveled. And
so the employer who gives the most does not end up having less
profit, because everybody is expected to live up to who we are
as Americans.
With that, Ms. Wade, you talked about having a lot going on
in your life and having that be a label, like that was
something very negative.
First of all, I am in awe of you and your hero husband; you
are both my heroes.
In the law that we are talking about, what could make it
even better?
Ms. Wade. I think that one of the--a couple of people
touched on this, that it does not cover everybody. I know that
my husband had a soldier who was in his squad--my husband was a
team leader--who grew up in a boys' home in Tennessee. In a
situation like his, it was a former foster parent who would
have taken that role, and I think that--I mean, one of the
things that might be good to look at is that, after your
invitational travel orders expire that you initially get as a
family member with the military, then a doctor can authorize
what they call ``nonmedical attendant orders'' for somebody to
stay for a longer period of time. I believe the ITOs are 120
days, if I remember correctly, but then you become the
nonmedical attendant.
And I think it should apply to whomever is designated as
that person's nonmedical attendant, because, that way, we would
not leave anybody out. It would include a brother or a sister
or it would include whomever is that person who is providing
the care.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Okay. Thank you.
I am going to move to Mr. Wilson in 1 minute. I just want
to say siblings are covered in our legislation.
Ms. Wade. Okay. All right.
Chairwoman Woolsey. You know, it does not just say ``blood
relatives.'' and if, for some reason, it is not clear that it
is covered, we will fix that.
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you again all for being here. And, Ms.
Wade, indeed you are an inspiration, and your father-in-law and
I am sure your mother-in-law working together with you. And I
know that all of us want to be available, too, in any way as
you face the multitude of measures.
Is your husband currently at Walter Reed still, or where is
he now?
Ms. Wade. We are actually back at Walter Reed right now.
Mr. Wilson. Back at Walter Reed?
Ms. Wade. Yes.
Mr. Wilson. And is he receiving the assistance with the
prosthetic devices that you feel sufficient?
Ms. Wade. He is now, yes. That is why we are back at Walter
Reed, yes, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Again, if any of us can be of assistance, you
really have been an inspiration.
Ms. Perdew, I certainly appreciate your organization, and
particularly the definition of eligibility, including those who
would be considered primary caregiver. And Ms. Wade pointed out
if you are an orphan, how do you identify? And so I hope
whatever definition is in here, it covers the primary
caregiver.
And on the issue of paid family leave, with the nonmedical
attendant orders, where I believe persons--and I have worked
with people, and it is wonderful the devotion that family
members have at Walter Reed where I visited in Bethesda--they
are reimbursed and receive a stipend. Is that sufficient? And
that would be from obviously the government, not from a private
business. Since I would like to work with you on how we can
best address that.
Ms. Perdew. We believe that their basic needs are provided
for. What we also know is that that particularly a
servicemember with young children or children at home, they may
have to relocate the family here if this is a long-term,
protracted treatment program.
And we also know that living in the National Capital
region, we have very limited family resources for our military
families. This is unlike any other duty station. We have very
few military child care centers. We have some wonderful medical
resources, but they are overtaxed. And so what we know is that
if they come here with the entire family in tow, the cost of
providing some of the normal care for their children is
probably not being covered.
Child care is very expensive in this region, and if you
have a family member who is hospitalized, and you need to be
there for those appointments, there has to be some family care
plan. And we know that they are digging deep into their own
pockets to cover those expenses.
Mr. Wilson. Well, I look forward to your suggestions on how
we can address that.
Ms. Wade. Sir?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Ms. Wade. If I may, there is no stipend.
Mr. Wilson. A reimbursement of some type?
Ms. Wade. They have a per diem for meals, but there is no
stipend. And also if you are a retired servicemember or on
temporary retirement, you do not qualify for that.
Mr. Wilson. Well, again, however we can help on that,
please keep me informed, because in my visits to see the
caregivers, that is--they are world class working with young
people.
Ms. Vion-Gillespie, can you tell us today does SHRM support
expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide extended
care for military families? And as a follow-up, based on your
experience with the FMLA in other contexts, are there
particular challenges in the law that we in Congress should be
mindful of as we choose to expand it?
Ms. Vion-Gillespie. If it is all right with you, I will
answer the second one first, because it will lead into the
second one. There are challenges now. What we found is there
are some great things with FMLA. I think we have got it down to
a science now when we deal with a lot of family issues. I think
we have it down to a science when we deal with prolonged
illnesses and individuals have to be out.
Where the challenge comes in that chronic condition, the
condition where we don't know when they are going to be out. It
is one thing if I am going in and I know I have dialysis,
because chances are I am not going to call up the employer and
say, hey, I have dialysis at 8:00, I just found out. Typically
in those cases it is foreseen. The employee works really well
with the employer. They set up a time, they know when that is,
and they can provide for coverage so that the work is done.
Where the challenges we have with administering it is truly
with chronic intermittent. We have 5,000 employees in the U.S.
On average every month we have 150 requests for leave, FMLA.
Eighty of them are intermittent where we are not going to know
if and when the employee is going to be able to come to work
today. That is a huge challenge for us at this point in time.
Do I think in terms of looking at it being expanded
especially for the military? There is no cause nearer and
dearer to my heart than is certainly the military. Our thing is
it is desirable, it is feasible. But, by gosh, we really need
to balance those needs of employers and employees, and we need
to spend some time in trying to maybe fix where some of those
challenges are. I always think of it as a pyramid. You have the
base, and you have to have a really, really strong base,
because if you keep adding layers on there, your layers are
only as strong as that initial base.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
the panel, all of you, for your testimony.
Ms. Vion-Gillespie, is it fair for me to summarize your at
least written testimony that your organization believes that
expanding FMLA coverage for up to 6 months for caregivers of
military personnel is something that you support, but only
within the context of a broader reform or review of FMLA in
general? Is that a fair characterization of your testimony?
Ms. Vion-Gillespie. It is such a complex issue to sum up.
Yes, in the sense that we want to have that good foundation in
order to put it on there; but, yes, we understand, and we see
where the need is as well.
Mr. Bishop. Let me read from your testimony. You said,
given the fact that employers and employees continue to
experience challenges with the practical application of FMLA in
the workplace, adding an additional leave requirement to the
FMLA, regardless of how meritorious it may be, will only
exacerbate the frustrations human resource professionals have
in implementing this law.
When I read that paragraph I concluded from that that you
believe that the specific case is meritorious, but that it
would create larger problems that require being addressed. And
I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I guess that is the
subject on which I wish to engage you.
The President has described the war as the central front in
the war on terror. He has also described it as the defining
struggle of our time. We have 165,000 of our troops fighting in
Iraq and another 25- or 30- in Afghanistan. They are conducting
the work of this defining struggle for the rest of the 300
million of us.
Shouldn't this be a no-brainer? I mean, shouldn't we just
say that if this is what the families of those who have waged
this struggle on our behalf need, shouldn't we just find ways
to make this work without subjecting it to some broader review
of a piece of legislation that may well need the review, but is
going to take time, and the struggle is going on right now? I
mean, shouldn't we just get this done and then at some future
point deal with some of the larger issues that HR professionals
and employers have to contend with?
Ms. Vion-Gillespie. I guess I would see it as not being
mutually exclusive. In addition to looking at the military
families and looking at those caregivers, and you are
absolutely right, they are out there fighting so that we can be
free, and we can be able to express our ideas here, absolutely,
but we also have to look at what that does to the employees
left behind as well. We have a lot of employees in the
workforce that that is a challenge for them, too.
What we are saying is we don't have to do one at the
exclusion of the other. We can actually go ahead, put it
together and have it working, and have it working even
stronger, and maybe avoid some of those challenges and
frustrations that we faced very early on with FMLA.
Mr. Bishop. I guess I would just say as a practical matter,
you are right, they are not mutually exclusive. But this is
something that I think would attract broad bipartisan support.
We could get this done relatively quickly. In terms of
Washington time, nothing moves quickly, but a broader
assessment of FMLA would take a long, long time. And so I guess
my belief is that we should just get this done, and then at
some future time, if there are issues to look at, we can look
at them.
I guess the other thing I would say, before I came to the
Congress, I ran a college. We had 250 employees, we had 1,200
students, and it was a small town. I mean, they lived on
campus. We had to feed them; we had to provide security and so
on. We had FMLA coverage, obviously, and we even went beyond
it. We went beyond it for maternity leave and so on.
Employers have lots of tools at their disposal to
accommodate temporary absences in the workplace, even if they
are not known beforehand. And so it seems to me that given the
sacrifices we are asking people to make, to ask employers to
sacrifice in terms of coming up with some ingenuity and some
creative ways to cover temporary absences, that is very modest
in comparison to what we have asked the Wade family to deal
with. So I would hope we can find a way to do this and to do it
very, very quickly.
And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Chairwoman, and I really
commend you for calling this very important subject to light.
And unfortunately I was unable to get here in time to hear the
witnesses; however, I certainly have a feeling for what the
problems are.
I was in Congress when we passed the Family and Medical
Leave Act in general, and we had a difficult time just trying
to get that through. There was a lot of opposition to it. The
act really, compared to European countries, doesn't even come
close to medical family medical leave in Europe, especially
Germany and Scandinavian countries where it is paid leave and
both parents can take time off. Actually, men can take off
during maternity. It is just really family friendly. And that
is one of the things that I do notice here in the greatest
Nation in the world: We tend not to necessarily be so family
friendly.
So I just wonder, you know, when we gauge quality of life
here as really being superior to anyplace in the world
supposedly, however we have to battle for anything that is
progressive.
And since I was unable to hear the testimony, I won't ask
any questions, but I simply would like to say that you
certainly have my support in trying to move this legislation
forward. And we will work hard to try to see that we extend
coverage to military families, but hopefully we can just get a
saner policy as relates to us getting into war. That would be
the number one issue. I speak a little Spanish. That would be
numero uno, if I can say it in Spanish, and number one in
English. And then many of these problems that we are confronted
with now would not exist.
So I would just like to say once again that I support the
issue and will work closely with the committee and the
Chairperson to see that we move it through as expeditiously as
possible. Thank you.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent that the joint statement of Senator
Barack Obama and Senator Claire McCaskill be included in the
record. Without objection.
[The joint statement of Senators Obama and McCaskill
follows:]
Prepared Statement of U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill (Missouri) and
Barack Obama (Illinois)
Madam Chairman, thank you for providing us with the opportunity to
present testimony today to the House Workforce Protections
Subcommittee. We are grateful that the committee has chosen to examine
the fundamental question of how we can best provide the care and
support our veterans and military families deserve.
Since the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan began, our service
members have performed bravely and brilliantly, and they have done
everything we have asked of them. Our military families have also made
incredible sacrifices. Waiting and praying, they manage the stress and
uncertainty of long, repeated deployments. And when their loved ones
return home, they are there to help them heal from the physical--and
sometimes less visible--wounds of war.
Given these sacrifices, and given that three out of every five
deployed service members have family responsibilities at home, Congress
must ask if we are truly meeting our commitment to our military
families. Providing our service members and their families with the
care and compassion they deserve is the very least we owe these heroes.
The unacceptable shortcomings in care at Walter Reed highlighted
the fact that our nation has not always matched words with action when
it comes to caring for our service members, veterans and their
families. Anyone who has taken the time to visit Walter Reed, as we
have, has met spouses who don't view visiting hours as a part-time job.
Day after day, these family members help their wounded loved ones
persevere through what is often a lengthy and painful rehabilitation
process.
We must show our veterans and military families that we will help
them with the basics, including access to health care, counseling and
vocational training--all measures from our Dignity for Wounded Warriors
Act that the Senate adopted this summer. But we must also focus on
their job security. When America's sons and daughters are injured
overseas and they return home to begin their recovery, their families
should not be forced to choose between caring for a wounded family
member and keeping their jobs.
That's why in February we first proposed the idea of extending job
protections for our military families. Our Military Family Job
Protection Act (S. 1885) would provide family members with up to one
year of protected leave to care for a wounded loved one. Our approach
also calls on the Secretary of Defense to consult with the Labor
Department and develop a certification process that minimizes the
administrative burden and helps free our military families from a web
of red tape and bureaucratic delay.
Our bill provides 12 months of job protection, which we believe is
the necessary amount of time to help family members caring for a
wounded service member. In addition, the protections we propose would
be provided through channels similar to those utilized to provide job
protections for reserve component military service members called to
serve on active duty. In many ways, the family members we are trying to
assist are similar to military service members being called to active
duty. Just as we protect activated service members for the duration of
their combat tour, we must seek to protect family members for the
duration of their tour of duty caring for their wounded loved ones.
Our proposal has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by
Veterans for America. We urge our colleagues in Congress to support
this common-sense solution and send the Military Family Job Protection
Act to the president for his signature.
Madam Chairman, thank you again for inviting us to offer this
testimony.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Would anybody else like to ask any
further questions?
Would any of the four of you have anything to say that we
might not have heard, because we have kept you here a long
time.
Ms. Wade?
Ms. Wade. I think one thing I just want to caution against,
when I was listening to what Mr. Bishop was saying, is that
some people like myself ended up working for people that didn't
have a very big heart. And I know sometimes that there are
people that don't like to hire military spouses because they
move a lot, and I don't want to deter or add any more
deterrence to people wanting to employ military spouses, and so
I hope you all keep that in mind.
Chairwoman Woolsey. That is a very good point, but we are
not going to refer to just military spouses; it could be
anybody in the workforce that is going to be the caretaker of
somebody in the military. Actually we will be very careful in
our language that it doesn't set it up that way.
Anybody else?
Ms. Ness.
Ms. Ness. Just one small point going back to Representative
Wilson's question about the stipend. The other thing I think we
need to keep in mind is for folks who are not covered by the
FMLA, the question of losing their health insurance is also
very significant, and it is really a tragedy that somebody
might have to give up their own health coverage in order to
take care of a loved one.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Mr. Wilson, the closing remarks.
Mr. Wilson. I would like to move that members of the
committee have 14 days in which to submit additional
information.
Chairwoman Woolsey. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of the National Coalition to Protect Family Leave
Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Member Kline, the National Coalition to
Protect Family Leave appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to
the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections for today's hearing on
extending Family and Medical Leave Act Coverage to military families.
We commend you for convening this hearing on such a meaningful issue to
America's servicemen and women, their families, employers, and the
nation they serve.
I. Overview
The National Coalition to Protect Family Leave (``Coalition'' or
``NCPFL'') is a broad-based, non-partisan group of organizations,
companies and associations dedicated to protecting the integrity of the
Family and Medical Leave Act (``FMLA'' or ``the Act'').
The Coalition supports the spirit and intent of the FMLA. Coalition
members recognize the challenges employees face in balancing work and
family demands and their desire to feel secure in their jobs,
particularly in the event they need to be absent for family or medical
issues. We also understand the concerns of employers when administering
the FMLA on a daily basis.
Most relevant to today's hearing, the Coalition appreciates the
sacrifices of the thousands of members of the U.S. military who nobly
serve in countless capacities at home and abroad, and the difficulties
of simultaneously maintaining civilian employment. Few national
priorities rise above providing quality care and support to the
nation's servicemen and women and their families. Today's hearing
provides an important forum to discuss the challenges facing our
returning soldiers and their families.
The Coalition is pleased to submit this statement for the record of
today's hearing because, as is explained below, the issue of military
family leave is clearly a priority to the Subcommittee and the
Congress. Both the House and Senate have recently voted on legislation
to provide new Federal leave benefits to the families of military
service members, albeit without the benefit of any prior hearings on
the issue. Several important aspects of the current FMLA law and
proposals to expand the Act or create a new statute for military
families require careful consideration.
II. FMLA Challenges
The Coalition recognizes the significant contributions the FMLA has
made to the American workplace. The family leave provisions of the FMLA
have been particularly successful, and employers have encountered very
few challenges implementing the leave provisions as they apply to the
birth or adoption of a child.
Notwithstanding the successes of the family leave portion of the
FMLA, employers have experienced challenges with the ``medical leave''
provisions of the Act, in particular the use of incremental leave for
chronic conditions. Day-to-day administration of the Act has confused
both employers and employees alike. Employers have struggled with
several issues, particularly what constitutes a ``serious health
condition'' as well as with the implications of unscheduled
intermittent leave. The ``intermittent leave'' regulations, coupled
with the vague ``serious health conditions'' regulations, allow
employees to characterize chronic, non-serious health conditions as
FMLA leave.
In March 2007, the Coalition released a survey conducted by the
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) that found more than half
(51%) of human resource (HR) professionals have faced ``significant
challenges'' in implementing the medical leave provisions of the FMLA.
Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of HR professionals have experienced
problems in determining when to grant ``chronic leave'' under the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), leading to employee morale issues
and loss of productivity.\1\ The challenges of chronic leave threaten
the integrity of this important law for those employees who truly have
serious health conditions. For these reasons, the Coalition has
actively supported public policies that will strengthen the FMLA to
ensure its availability to those employees Congress intended to cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM Survey Brief: FMLA
(2007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the confusion surrounding the medical portion of the FMLA
has been the inconsistent U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opinion
letters that have undermined the original intent of the Act.
Consequently, the Coalition has repeatedly urged DOL and Congress to
strengthen the FMLA by clarifying the medical leave interpretations and
other FMLA administrative complexities which are causing problems in
the workplace.
In order to preserve the integrity of the law's leave protections
for family and medical reasons, the medical leave provisions of the Act
and the corresponding regulations must be clarified to ensure that the
Act benefits those employees who need it most. Relevant to the issue of
today's hearing, the Coalition believes that these issues need to be
addressed before expansion of the Act or other leave mandates are
considered. Furthermore, the Coalition believes a piecemeal approach to
correcting FMLA shortcomings will not provide the needed clarity for
the workforce.
III. President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors
In July 2007, the President's Commission on Care for America's
Returning Wounded Warriors (``Commission''), chaired by former Senator
Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna
Shalala, released a report on how to better support and rehabilitate
members of the U.S. Armed Forces returning from combat operations
abroad. In order to provide greater support to military families, the
Commission recommended that Congress should amend the FMLA to provide
six months' leave for any family member of a service member who
sustained a combat-related injury and meets the other eligibility
requirements in the law. The Commission surveyed injured service
members and found that 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of reserve
component, and 37 percent of retired and separated service members
reported having a family member or close friend who relocated for an
extended period of time to be with them while they received medical
care.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning
Wounded Warriors (2007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Legislation to provide leave to military families
The Subcommittee is faced with several legislative proposals that
intend to provide new leave benefits to military families. This section
examines four of the most prominent pieces of legislation:
<bullet> Altmire/Udall amendment
In May 2007, Representatives Jason Altmire and Tom Udall offered an
amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008, during its consideration before the full House. The
Altmire/Udall amendment would expand the FMLA to provide leave for
family members of military servicemen and women who are called to duty.
Under the proposal, each individual of the family of a service member
called to active duty--or who had reason to anticipate an impending
call to active duty--would be entitled to take FMLA leave for any
reason related to the call-up of a service member.
However well-intentioned, the Altmire/Udall amendment is concerning
to Coalition members. First, the amendment was constructed with such
broad language that family members of soldiers could use the FMLA
benefit for virtually any activity, including potentially those
unrelated to a loved one's military assignment. Second, the amendment
would allow leave on an unscheduled and intermittent basis, despite the
uncertainty that dispensing intermittent leave poses to employers.
Consequently, the Altmire/Udall amendment would add to current FMLA
administration challenges.
Members of Congress deserved the opportunity to explore the
potential effect of these aspects of the Altmire/Udall amendment on the
FMLA and how the amendment would interact with other federal and state
leave statutes. However, prior to its consideration, the amendment was
not reviewed by the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on
Education and Labor. The Coalition has consistently sought
clarifications to the FMLA's confusing and conflicting implementing
regulations to ensure the integrity of the Act. Due to the complexity
of FMLA administration, until a comprehensive review is completed, the
Coalition cannot support an effort like the Altmire/Udall amendment to
expand the FMLA.
<bullet> Support for Injured Servicemembers Act (Woolsey)
Subcommittee Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey and Full Committee Chairman
George Miller introduced the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act
(H.R. 3481) on September 6, 2007. Similar legislation (S. 1975) was
introduced by Senators Christopher Dodd and Hillary Rodham Clinton in
the U.S. Senate. The bill would amend the FMLA to provide a total of 26
workweeks of leave during any 12-month period to any the spouse, son,
daughter, parent, or next of kin of a member of the U.S. military.
Thus, the intent of the bill is to provide new rights to employees who
are family members of service members, not directly to service members.
H.R. 3481 would allow leave to be taken in the event that an
eligible family member is involved in caring for the service member.
The legislation covers any relative of a military member who is
receiving any kind of medical treatment or is otherwise in medical hold
or on the temporary disability retired list related to a combat-related
injury or serious illness. All FMLA job service and eligibility
requirements would apply to employees eligible for leave under H.R.
3481. The legislation also includes a section that provides the same
leave benefit to civil service employees.
It appears that the legislation would allow the leave benefit to be
taken on an intermittent basis. As under the FMLA, employees would need
to meet a 1,250-hours worked requirement as a condition of eligibility
to take leave under H.R. 3481.
The Coalition believes the bill is written very broadly. The
legislation's sole requirement to earn FMLA leave is that an eligible
employee provides ``care for the servicemember.'' This is a very vague
standard for leave, particularly in light of the tremendous
administrative problems and resulting litigation the FMLA currently
causes for employers. Such a benefit, particularly if accessible on an
intermittent frequency, would be tremendously difficult for employing
organizations to administer on a day-to-day basis.
<bullet> Military Family and Medical Leave Act (Issa)
A similar approach to the Woolsey/Miller bill is the legislation
introduced by Representatives Darrell Issa and Nick Rahall entitled the
Military Family and Medical Leave Act (H.R. 3391) on August 3, 2007.
Like the Woolsey/Miller bill, H.R. 3391 would also directly amend
the FMLA and grant 26 leave weeks in a 12-month period to a spouse,
son, daughter, or parent of a service member with a serious health
condition. Thus, the Coalition is concerned about the expansive and
vague leave benefit contained in the Issa proposal. One minor
difference is that, unlike the Woolsey bill, H.R. 3391 would not cover
service members on the temporary disability retired list. H.R. 3391
also does not include a section specifically covering civil servants.
<bullet> Obama amendment
During Senate consideration of H.R. 976, the Children's Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, Senator Barack Obama
offered Senate amendment 2588 that would allow for 52 weeks leave for a
family member to care for service member with combat-related injury.
For purposes of establishing who is eligible for leave under the
amendment, the legislation defines a ``family member'' as a spouse,
child (natural, step, adopted, and illegitimate), parent, person in
loco parentis, or sibling of a recovering service member. The term ``in
loco parentis'' means a person who has stood in loco parentis for a
period of at least one year before the member entered military service,
and only one father and one mother figure, respectively, may be
recognized under the bill relative to any one service member. It is
unclear whether ``spouse'' might include domestic partners. The term
``children'' would include adult children, regardless of whether they
are incapable of self-care.
Unlike the FMLA or the Woolsey or Issa bills, the Obama amendment
includes no length of service or hours worked requirement. Also unlike
the FMLA, the Obama amendment does not require leave to be taken during
a one year period. Thus, it is unclear if an eligible employee would
have to take all 52 weeks of leave in a single period under the Obama
amendment, or if leave can be taken intermittently or on a reduced
schedule basis.
The Coalition believes these aspects of the Obama amendment deserve
to be thoroughly scrutinized. However, just as the House considered the
Altmire/Udall amendment without the benefit of a legislative hearing on
the legislation, the Senate voted on the Obama amendment without any
committee review.
V. Conclusion
Madam Chair, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for considering the views of the National Coalition to Protect
Family Leave. The Coalition and its membership strongly supports
members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families, and we are hopeful
that you will incorporate the Coalition's views as you consider
legislation to address the existing Federal leave benefit. We look
forward to a continuing dialogue with you on these important issues.
______
Chairwoman Woolsey. Well, I want to thank you all for being
here, and I think that we need to honor somebody who is in our
audience. Sergeant Wade, would you mind standing up and let us
appreciate you?
And I especially want to thank you, Mrs. Wade, for taking
this time and your testimony at this hearing. You have made it
personal to all of us, the two of you, for being here. You have
reminded us of your sacrifices and the sacrifices of all
servicemembers and their families. Thank you for that.
We have to do more than talk about this; we have to act,
and we need to act as quickly as possible, because your story
is not that unique, it appears. I wish it were. And we have an
administration whose record on assistance for returning
servicemembers and their families has not been all that good.
So we need to take more action, we need to take it quickly, it
needs to be bipartisan. And I suppose if I quit picking on the
administration, it would make it easier for you, but we are
going to work on this together, and we thank you very much for
being the incentive for us. Thank you. Thank you all.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
<all>