Senate Passes 12-Week Family Leave Bill : Congress: It would require larger employers to allow unpaid time off for the birth or adoption of a child or to care for certain ill relatives.

Defying the threat of another presidential veto on the issue, a bipartisan Senate coalition approved legislation Wednesday that would require large employers to give workers as much as 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or ill family members.

Similar to a four-month family leave measure signed Tuesday by California’s GOP Gov. Pete Wilson, the Senate bill was a compromise put together by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), Wendell H. Ford (D-Ky.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.).

Approval was by a vote of 65 to 32, with all three senators who missed the vote known to support the legislation. Thus, the Senate would appear to have the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

President Bush vetoed a slightly broader bill last year, an action that Congress did not attempt to override. Senior Administration officials said that they will recommend a veto of the new measure, which is sought by labor and women’s organizations but opposed by business groups.

Although the legislation is a top Democratic priority, it is backed by a wide spectrum of Republicans. Two leading GOP sponsors, Bond and Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.), expressed hope that the overwhelming Senate vote would give the bill a strong boost in the more-resistant House as well as soften Administration opponents.

“This is a clear signal to the White House that they had better get out of the way of this train,” Roukema said. She added that many House Republicans are eager to vote for the bill because “they have had to cast a lot of unpleasant votes on domestic issues like unemployment benefits. They don’t want another one.”

Dodd, recalling that Bush had signed a compromise child care bill last year after originally threatening a veto, expressed willingness to discuss changes in the family leave measure.

However, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) predicted that Bush would veto the legislation and be sustained by Congress.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) voted for the bill and Sen. John Seymour (R-Calif.) voted against it.

Seymour, echoing Bush’s complaints last year, said that the legislation “creates an unprecedented mandate that imposes restrictive costs on small business. . . . My concern is that an overly restrictive, inflexible mandated benefit plan forces employers to cut costs in existing benefit plans.”

Seymour also charged that the bill would supersede the new California law, which he called “less costly and more flexible on small business.”

Bond, Dodd and Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.) said at a news conference that they are uncertain what impact the Senate bill would have on family leave laws in other states.

Under their bill, firms with at least 50 employees would have to give workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child or for the serious illness of the employee, his or her child, spouse or parent.

Employees would have the right to return to the same or equivalent positions with their health benefit coverage intact and with their pension benefits having accrued while they were on leave.

To pick up votes of Republicans and conservative Democrats, the compromise would restrict eligibility to employees who have worked an average of 25 hours per week over the previous 12 months. It also would permit the exemption of the highest-paid 10% of workers and would limit legal damages to twice actual losses.

Although 95% of employers and 60% of workers are not covered by the bill, opponents protested that it would open the door to wider mandated benefits. While they support family leave, they said, the terms should be negotiated by management and labor.