U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–691 PDF 2008

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairwoman

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Tom Price, Georgia 

John Kline, Minnesota 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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. 

3

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. 

4

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 

5

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. 

6

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 ofVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:08 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-64\37691.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
7

fered 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. 

8

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 

9

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.’’

10

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. 

11

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 

12

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, 

13

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 

14

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. 

15

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. 

16

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 21⁄2

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 

51⁄2 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. 

17

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 inhouse, 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 worldclass 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 longterm 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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:08 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-64\37691.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
18

juries. 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 21⁄2 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 51⁄2 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 twentyfour 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 

19

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 

20

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. 

21

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 

22

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. 

23

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: 

• Extending FMLA leave periods to at least 26 weeks per year 

• Exempting military family caregivers from the 12 month employment threshold 

• Providing a limited amount of paid family leave 

24

• Broadening the definition of eligibility by including those who are considered 

the primary caregiver 

• 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 

25

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. 

26

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 

27

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 

28

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. 

29

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 maVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:08 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-64\37691.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
30

jority 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 adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:08 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-64\37691.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
31

vantage 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: 

• ‘‘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.’’

• ‘‘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.’’

• ‘‘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: 

32

• ‘‘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.’’ • [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 combatrelated 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 coVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:08 Mar 27, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-64\37691.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
33

sponsors (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 allinclusive 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. 

34

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-inlaw. 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? 

35

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? 

36

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 

37

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. 

38

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 

39

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:]

40

1Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM Survey Brief: FMLA (2007) 

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. 

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. 

41

2The President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (2007) 

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

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: 

• 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. 

• 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 

42

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. 

• 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. 

• 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? 

43

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.]

Æ