A House Ways and Means Committee hearing January 28 demonstrated broad support for stronger paid family and medical leave benefits but deep disagreements over how to pay for such a proposal. Republicans oppose a bill to fund benefits with a new payroll tax and Democrats are against a bill that requires beneficiaries to draw down Social Security benefits, emblematic of a years-long partisan debate in Congress over whether raising revenue should come from tax increases or benefit cuts.

Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) explained that, currently, workers must rely on a patchwork of paid leave options with many gaps: some states provide coverage to all workers; some employers provide paid leave to their most highly-compensated employees, and fewer provide it to all of their employees; some workers spend down all of their savings, and some leave the workforce and never return. Neal is a co-sponsor of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY Act, H.R. 1185/S. 463) to establish national paid family and medical leave along with a new employer/employee payroll tax to provide funding.

Republican members expressed opposition to the FAMILY Act. Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-TX) said the proposal would require a new payroll tax of between 2.7% and 3.1%, which "could cost an average worker making $50,000 well over $1,500 a year in new taxes, whether they use the program or not." In his statement and in a letter to Chairman Neal with Reps. Jackie Walorski (R-IN), Adrian Smith (R-NE), and Tom Reed (R-NY), Brady said, "Ways and Means Republicans are working on a plan that will: Increase access to paid leave; build on what is already working; and ensure families can choose what works for them."

The first witness panel featured Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ann Wagner (R-MO) and Elise Stefanik (R-NY). Rep. DeLauro, who sponsors the FAMILY Act, said the issue is bipartisan but warned against proposals that require risking Social Security benefits. That is the premise of Rep. Wagner's New Parents Act (H.R. 1940/S. 920) with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), which would create a voluntary option for paid parental leave by allowing parents to use a portion of their Social Security benefits after the birth or adoption of a child. Rep. Stefanik cosponsors the Advancing Support for Working Families Act (H.R. 5296/S. 2976) to allow families the option to advance up to $5,000 of their child tax credit in the first year of a child's life or the first year a family adopts a child.

Panel 2 featured:

• Joan Lunden, journalist and former host of Good Morning America, author, motivational speaker and women's health & wellness advocate
• Kemi Role, Director of Work Equity at the National Employment Law Project
• Sharon Terman, Director of Work and Family Policy at Legal Aid at Work of California
• Hadley Heath Manning, Director of Policy at Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women's Voice
• Rebecca Hamilton, Co-CEO of W.S. Badger
• Vicki Shabo, Senior Fellow for Paid Leave Policy and Strategy at New America

Lunden, Role, and others voiced support for the FAMILY Act, and witnesses generally provided examples of why paid family and medical leave and other policy tweaks are necessary. Manning said the FAMILY Act comes with downsides, including discouraging employers from providing paid leave and a regressive payroll tax split between employers and employees.

Rep. Brady expressed concern about the FAMILY Act's federal mandate that would be accompanied by smaller paychecks, but nonetheless said paid leave is an issue Republicans and Democrats could work together on. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) expressed wariness over a proposal that introduces new taxes.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) countered that the New Parents Act would punish those taking advantage of paid leave benefits with significant and disproportionate Social Security cuts.

Rep. John Larson (D-CT) said the debate over how to pay for leave benefits is a common theme in Congress and the funding debate somewhat mirrors discussions over sustaining and refocusing Social Security, which he has been at the forefront of. He challenged Manning over her group's advocacy of paying for leave benefits through reducing Social Security benefits, and of cutting Social Security and taking steps toward privatizing the program.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) admitted that he is "tired of hearing, 'Isn't it nice that we all care about the same thing?'" when proposals backed by Democrats and Republicans "are Like 180 degrees apart from one another." He said lawmakers have a long way to go toward agreement on this issue and implored members to "be honest about the point from which we are starting."

However, Rep. Walorski said she was optimistic because members recognize the importance of doing something pro-family and pro-worker in 2020 without crowding out employer-provided benefits. She said she spoke with the President at the White House on the issue and noted Ivanka Trump's long-held interest.

———————————————