House Approves Unpaid-Leave Bill : Congress: Workers would be granted up to 12 weeks a year for family and medical reasons. The 237-187 vote indicates that a threatened Bush veto would be upheld.

Despite a presidential veto threat, the House approved landmark legislation Thursday that would require large employers to grant workers unpaid leave to care for newborn babies and seriously ill family members or to recover from sickness.

The measure, which now goes to the Senate, was passed by a larger-than-expected margin of 237 to 187, but fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to override a veto. A total of 198 Democrats and 39 Republicans voted for it, and 133 Republicans and 54 Democrats opposed the bill.

It would require firms with 50 or more workers, as well as state and local governments, to allow workers to take as many as 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for specified medical or family reasons, including the adoption of a child. Employers would have to continue health benefits during the leave and guarantee that the workers would get their jobs--or equivalent jobs--back. Federal employees would be entitled to longer leave periods under the bill.

Advocates said the measure is the first breakthrough in the five years they have been attempting to pass a law that recognizes the vast increases in the labor force of mothers with small children and families with two wage earners.

“You shouldn’t have to decide not to have a child because you don’t want to lose your job,” said Rep. Lynn Martin (R-Ill.).

Opponents, however, contended that the bill would increase costs to employers and set a bad precedent for government intervention in setting job conditions that might reduce other benefits now enjoyed by employees.

“This is a solution in search of a problem,” contended Rep. Fred Grandy (R-Iowa), floor manager of the opposition forces.

Proponents relied on government figures that showed nearly three-fourths of married women with school-age children work, as do more than half of all mothers with preschool children. They also noted a Government Accounting Office study that said the unpaid leave requirement would pose only a minimal cost to employers.

“Family leave is a basic necessity,” said Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.), a key architect of the bipartisan compromise that sailed through the House despite strong opposition from organized business. “It’s a bedrock family issue.”

The bill also provides unpaid leave to care for adult family members, which supporters said is crucial for the growing number of families with elderly parents.

Despite the setback in the House, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business vowed to continue their fight against the bill in the Senate.

Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.), a business owner, said the legislation would force many businesses to pay overtime to cover the absent worker. Rep. Steve Bartlett (R-Tex.) called the legislation “a yuppie bill,” saying that only professionals could afford to take 12 weeks unpaid leave.

White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu told business lobbyists Monday that President Bush would veto the family leave bill. Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Hanford Dole tried this week to persuade House Republicans to support Bush and oppose the legislation.

On Thursday, Alixe Glen, a deputy White House press secretary, said that Bush is holding fast to his position. The President, she said, believes that flexible family leave “should not be dictated by a Washington mandate.”

Roukema, however, said she and other GOP backers of the measure would try to see Bush and ask him, “as a sincere and compassionate grandfather,” to sign the legislation to help working families.

Rep. Bill Green, a liberal Republican from New York, quoted from remarks Bush made as a presidential candidate:

“ ‘We need to assure that women don’t have to worry about getting their jobs back after having a child or caring for a child during a serious illness. That is what I mean when I talk about a gentler nation,’ ” Green quoted Bush as saying in September, 1988. Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) said Bush has heard from only one side in the dispute and might change his mind once he hears from supporters of the bill.

“The message today is that you can’t talk kinder and gentler and vote for corporate interests,” Schroeder told reporters.

Schroeder’s original bill required longer maximum periods of leave and applied to smaller firms. It was put aside in favor of a less generous bill co-sponsored by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) to guarantee House passage.

The substitute bill limited coverage to firms with 50 or more employees--thus exempting 95% of the smallest businesses but still covering 44% of the work force. It also reduced the total amount of unpaid family or medical leave an employer would be required to provide and would insist on a doctor’s certificate--rather than a statement by a nurse or other medical practitioner--that an employee is seriously ill.

Like the original bill, the substitute would allow federal employees to take as much as 26 weeks of unpaid medical leave each year and as much as 18 weeks of family leave every two years.

The Democratic leadership in the House--working closely with a group of moderate Republicans--put on a major drive for the modified family leave legislation. Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) broke with precedent to endorse it before it came to the floor for a vote. Rep. Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose) led a group of 99 Democratic whips assigned to push for the measure’s passage.

Supporters of the bill said they anticipated a narrow margin of victory--by 10 votes or so--and were pleased to rack up a 50-vote margin on final passage.

One unexpected backer was Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), usually a major voice for conservative opinion in the House.

“Society should have a policy of encouraging motherhood and not encouraging abortion,” Hyde said. “This (bill) does not involve apple pie and motherhood, but it does involve motherhood.”

Rep. Ed Jenkins (D-Ga.), a Southern conservative, also voted for the measure and told his colleagues: “Have we abandoned those people who work every day of their lives, paying taxes, asking nothing more than decency?”

In a preliminary test of strength, the Gordon-Weldon compromise was adopted by an overwhelming vote of 259 to 157, including 212 Democrats and 47 Republicans. But when the same legislation came up for final approval a short time later, the margin of approval shrank to 237 to 187 as lawmakers switched sides for reasons that remain unclear.

In the California delegation, for example, all Democrats voted for the family leave bill. Republicans who voted on the first round all opposed it, except for Rep. Charles Pashayan Jr. (R-Fresno). But on the final vote he switched and voted against the bill. In contrast, Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Palo Alto) voted against the substitute amendment but later voted in favor of its passage.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) was the only member of the California delegation who did not vote.

(Southland Edition) VOTE ON FAMILY LEAVE

WASHINGTON--Here is how members of the California delegation voted Thursday on a House bill requiring large employers to provide unpaid leave for workers with newborn babies, seriously ill parents or personal sickness:

Democrats for--Anderson, Bates, Beilenson, Berman, Bosco, Boxer, Brown, Condit, Dellums, Dixon, Dymally, Edwards, Fazio, Hawkins, Lantos, Lehman, Levine, Martinez, Matsui, Miller, Mineta, Panetta, Pelosi, Roybal, Stark, Torres, Waxman.

Republicans for--Campbell.

Republicans against--Cox, Dannemeyer, Dornan, Dreier, Gallegly, Herger, Hunter, Lagomarsino, Lowery, McCandless, Moorhead, Packard, Pashayan, Rohrabacher, Shumway, Thomas.

Republicans not voting--Lewis.