3 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in ENGROSSED IN SENATEcompared with REPORTED TO SENATE (Sep 8, 2025)

Technical corrections only. The diff reflects the bill's progression from being reported in the Senate to being engrossed and passed by the Senate, changing the header from 'A BILL' to 'AN ACT' and adding a certification of passage. No substantive policy changes were made between v2 and v3.

S. 1440119th CongressIntroduced Apr 10, 2025

Uniformed Services Leave Parity Act

Passed SenateHealthSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Committees: Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
Last action: Oct 17, 2025

Bottom line

The bill ensures that commissioned officers of the Public Health Service receive the same leave benefits as members of the Army, promoting parity across uniformed services.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to extend the leave provisions outlined in Chapter 40 of Title 10, United States Code (which governs leave for members of the Armed Forces) to commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (PHS) and their beneficiaries. It also repeals a previous section of the Public Health Service Act that specifically addressed PHS leave, thereby standardizing their leave benefits with those of other uniformed services.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill ensures equitable treatment across all uniformed services, recognizing the similar duties and sacrifices of Public Health Service officers. It promotes fairness and helps recruit and retain talent by offering comparable leave entitlements, including modern parental leave provisions, to those serving in the Army, thereby strengthening the PHS Commissioned Corps.

Opponents contend

No specific organized opposition is typically raised against bills that align benefits for uniformed services, as they are generally seen as matters of fairness and administrative efficiency. Potential concerns, if any, might revolve around the administrative burden of integrating new leave systems or minor fiscal implications, but these are generally not significant enough to generate strong opposition.

The bill text is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a quick and complete understanding of its provisions in less than a minute.

Section 2(a) and 2(b)

Application of Military Leave Provisions to Public Health Service Officers

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends Section 221(a) of the Public Health Service Act to explicitly grant commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (PHS) and their beneficiaries the same leave rights and privileges as those provided to commissioned officers of the Army under Chapter 40 of Title 10, United States Code. Concurrently, it repeals Section 219 of the Public Health Service Act, which previously governed PHS leave, thereby streamlining and standardizing leave policies under the military framework.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupCommissioned officers of the Public Health Service Commissioned CorpsImpactEnhanced and standardized leave benefits, including potential access to expanded parental leave or other specific leave types available to military personnel.MechanismDirect statutory amendment to incorporate Title 10, Chapter 40, into the Public Health Service Act.ScaleAffects all current and future commissioned officers of the PHS Commissioned Corps.

GroupBeneficiaries of PHS commissioned officersImpactMay receive benefits related to leave, such as family leave provisions, consistent with military benefits.MechanismIndirectly through the officer's eligibility for leave benefits.ScaleAffects families of all current and future commissioned officers of the PHS Commissioned Corps.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that aligning PHS leave with military leave ensures equitable treatment for all uniformed services, recognizing the critical public health missions performed by PHS officers. This parity is essential for recruitment, retention, and morale, as it provides PHS officers with comprehensive and modern leave benefits comparable to their military counterparts.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is generally viewed as a technical correction to ensure fairness and consistency across federal uniformed services. Any potential concerns would likely be minor administrative adjustments rather than fundamental policy disagreements.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension is balancing the unique operational needs of the Public Health Service with the desire for benefit parity across all uniformed services. While standardizing benefits simplifies administration and promotes fairness, it requires careful consideration of how military-specific leave policies (e.g., related to deployment) translate to the PHS context, though Chapter 40 is general leave.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.