Family Leave Bill Passes Senate as Veto Duel Looms

Setting up a campaign-season veto battle with President Bush, the Senate approved a bill Tuesday requiring large firms to grant workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for childbirth or family emergencies.

With the House expected to pass the bill in September, Bush, who said he supports family leave but opposes writing it into law, could find himself in the position of having to veto the measure while seeking reelection on a platform emphasizing family values.

The move was the latest effort by the Democratic-controlled Congress to send the President politically sensitive legislation that he has threatened to veto, providing Democrats with a campaign issue.

The President vetoed a similar measure two years ago on the grounds that the government should not mandate the benefit. His Democratic rival for the White House, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, supports the bill.

In a voice vote indicating a wide margin, the Senate swiftly approved a conference report that merged differing Senate and House versions of the legislation. The House apparently will be the major battlefield over the legislation this year, since the bill has never been passed by a veto-proof majority in that chamber. The House fell 50 votes short when it attempted to override Bush’s veto in 1990.

The compromise bill provides workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave--with paid health insurance and a guarantee of job protection--for the birth or adoption of a child or the serious illness of the employee or the employee’s child, spouse or parent.

Only firms with 50 or more employees would be covered by the bill, a provision that would exclude 95% of all businesses. Employees would be eligible for leave only if they worked 25 hours a week for a year or more; those in the top-paid 10% of the work force could be excluded as key employees. Where possible, employees taking leave would have to provide 30 days’ notice of their intentions.

“The President’s signature (on the bill) would indeed promote family values,” argued Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli (D-Ky.). “A veto of that bill would disparage family values.”

“President Bush talks about family values but fights a policy that values families,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chief sponsor of the legislation.

“Over the next three months, the President will have a chance to make an old campaign promise the new law of the land, a chance to assure that working parents never again are forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love.”

Advocates of the bill claim that Bush said in a 1988 campaign appearance that he favored family leave. But White House officials said he supported the concept on a voluntary basis and opposed federal legislation on the subject.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) argued that imposing family leave on large employers would force them to cut back on other benefits, such as health insurance or vacations.

“This is one of those cases where Washington does not know best,” Dole said.

Despite the partisan overtones in the timing of the congressional action, an increasing number of Republicans have joined Democratic sponsors of the family leave bill, and some members of Bush’s party believe he would be making a mistake if he vetoes it.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), a supporter of the legislation who is also seeking reelection this year, said the President refused offers to work out a compromise acceptable to all sides.

“I think the President is just plain wrong on this,” Bond said, asserting that Bush was missing an opportunity “to show a sensitivity and willingness to lead on a matter of concern to families.”

Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), a conservative lawmaker who also will face the voters in November, also has become a co-sponsor of the legislation.

Judith Lichtman, president of the Women’s Legal Defense Fund and who chairs a national coalition of organizations supporting the family leave bill, said she was “cautiously optimistic” about winning a veto override battle in the House and Senate.

“We are picking up votes in the House,” she said. “We sense real movement among both Democrats and Republicans. To the extent that this has become a campaign issue, it raises the stakes.”

The House approved the bill by a vote of 253 to 177 last year, falling far short of the required two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. In the Senate, where the bill was approved last year on a 65-2 roll call with pledges of support from three absent senators, sponsors claim they have the votes to overturn a veto.

“Working Americans have waited far too long for this very important piece of legislation,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) “When a child is born or a serious illness strikes a family member, working Americans should be guaranteed the right to take a reasonable amount of time off, without fear that they will lose the job.”