[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6549-S6551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3680. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
permit leave to care for a same-sex spouse, domestic partner, parent-
in-law, adult child, sibling, or grandparent who has a serious health 
condition; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and 
Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This is a bill--previously introduced in 
the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis--that would extend 
the important protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act to same-
sex couples in America. Under current law, it is impossible for many 
employees to be with their partners during times of medical need.
  The late Senator Edward Kennedy once said, ``It is wrong for our 
civil laws to deny any American the basic right to be part of a family, 
to have loved ones with whom to build a future and share life's joys 
and tears, and to be free from the stain of bigotry and 
discrimination.''
  America has a rich history of embracing those once discriminated 
against and making them part of our nation's family. All Americans--
regardless of their background--are deserving of dignity and respect.
  In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to, among 
other things, protect American workers facing either a personal health 
crisis, or that of a close family member.
  Thanks to the FMLA, those people in the workforce who suffer a 
serious illness or significant injury are able to take time to heal, 
recover, follow their doctors' orders, and return to their jobs strong, 
healthy, and ready to be productive again. Most importantly, they know 
that they will still have jobs to return to, because those are 
protected by the law.
  Likewise, workers who learn the terrible news that a child, a parent, 
or a spouse is sick or injured, and in need of help from a loved one, 
can provide that care and support knowing that their jobs are not in 
jeopardy for doing so.
  In passing the FMLA, Congress followed the lead of many large and 
small businesses which had already recognized and addressed this need. 
These companies had put in place systems that gave their employees time 
to heal themselves or their family members, and ensured that those 
employees would return to work as soon as they could. In standing by 
their employees in a time of need, these companies accomplished three 
laudable goals: they eased the burden of those employees in crisis, 
they reassured the rest of their employees that they too would be 
covered should they find themselves in need of that protection, and 
they ensured the return of these skilled and trusted employees, sparing 
business the expense and effort of recruiting and training new people. 
It was a win-win strategy.
  The FMLA took that model and its benefits and brought the majority of 
the American workforce under the same protections.
  Today, once again, we have the opportunity to learn from a number of 
forward-thinking, pioneering businesses--big and small and across the 
United States--who have taken it upon themselves to improve on the 
protections provided by law. While respecting the spirit and purpose of 
the FMLA, these companies have simply recognized the changing nature of 
the modern American family.
  According to the Human Rights Campaign--a leading civil rights 
organization that strongly supports the Family and Medical Leave 
Inclusion Act--461 major American corporations, nine states, and the 
District of Columbia now extend FMLA benefits to include leave on 
behalf of a same-sex partner.
  In 1993, the FMLA was narrowly tailored to apply only to those caring 
for a very close family member. The idea was to capture that inner 
circle of people, where the family member assuming the caretaker role 
would be one of very few, if not the only person, who could do so. That 
idea is still valid, and that idea has not changed.
  What has changed are the people who might be in that inner circle. 
The nuclear American family has grown--sometimes by design, and 
sometimes by necessity. More and more, that inner circle of close 
family might include a grandparent or grandchild, siblings, or same-sex 
domestic partners in loving and committed relationships.
  As the law stands right now, too many of these people are left 
outside of the protections of the FMLA.
  Earlier this summer, the U.S. Department of Labor issued guidance 
clarifying that an individual serving as a parent, but who may not have 
a legal or biological relationship to a child, is eligible to take FMLA 
leave to care for that child or attend to a birth or adoption. As Labor 
Secretary Hilda Solis noted, ``No one who intends to raise a child 
should be denied the opportunity to be present when that child is born 
simply because the state or an employer fails to recognize his or her 
relationship with the biological parent. . . . The Labor Department's 
action today sends a clear message to workers and employers alike: All 
families, including LGBT families, are protected by the FMLA.''
  I applaud the Labor Department and the Obama Administration for 
sending this important message, but unfortunately, the FMLA statute 
still does not allow an employee to take leave to care for a same-sex 
partner. We must act to truly make these important protections 
available to all families.
  At times like these, when we as a nation are experiencing a difficult 
employment market, those with good jobs know the value of those jobs 
and are working as hard as they can to keep them. Those people should 
never have to weigh the value of their employment security against 
family duties to care for a loved one.

[[Page S6550]]

  But even in the best of economic times, this bill makes sense. Injury 
or illness can come at any time, and families are rocked by the needs 
and decisions that come along with that reality.
  There are many who would understandably question what this kind of 
change in the law would cost the business community. I would remind 
those people that the FMLA is already a very good law; it is in place 
and it is working. It provides unpaid leave when the need arises, and 
it only applies to businesses that have enough employees on hand to 
handle the absence of a single worker without too great a burden.
  We have also seen that 90 percent of the leave time that has been 
taken under the FMLA has been so that employees can care for themselves 
or for a child in their care, and those situations are already covered 
under the law as it stands. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion 
Act would do is provide a little more flexibility, and recognize that 
there are a few more people in that inner circle of family who we might 
call upon, or who might call upon us. It will not make a big difference 
to the companies involved, but it will make all the difference in the 
world to those protected by it.
  We often hear calls from some of our colleagues who feel that the 
Government tries to do too much, and that we try to force government to 
do for us what we should be doing for ourselves or for each other. That 
is exactly why this should be a law that we can all agree upon. 
Certainly we can all agree that family is the first and best safety net 
in times of personal crisis. Families need to be given the realistic 
ability to provide that assistance. What the Family and Medical Leave 
Inclusion Act does is give those family members the ability to help 
their loved ones in ways that only they can, without fear of losing 
their jobs in the process.
  The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act takes a very good law and 
makes it even better. It contains reasonable changes that merely 
reflect the modern American family. It is the right thing to do, and I 
hope we can join together on a bipartisan basis to pass it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3680

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Family and Medical Leave 
     Inclusion Act''.

     SEC. 2. LEAVE TO CARE FOR A SAME-SEX SPOUSE, DOMESTIC 
                   PARTNER, PARENT-IN-LAW, ADULT CHILD, SIBLING, 
                   OR GRANDPARENT.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic 
     partner.--Section 101(12) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2611(12)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic 
     partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
       (B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
       (2) Inclusion of same-sex spouses.--Section 101(13) of the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611(13)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, and includes a same-sex spouse as 
     determined under applicable State law'' before the period.
       (3) Inclusion of grandparents, parents-in-law, siblings, 
     and domestic partners.--Section 101 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2611) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Domestic partner.--The term `domestic partner', used 
     with respect to an employee, means--
       ``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the 
     employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union 
     law of the State or political subdivision of a State where 
     the employee resides; or
       ``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a 
     State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex 
     under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person 
     of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed, 
     personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Secretary) 
     relationship with the employee, who is not a domestic partner 
     to any other person, and who is designated to the employer by 
     such employee as that employee's domestic partner.
       ``(21) Grandchild.--The term `grandchild', used with 
     respect to an employee, means any person who is a son or 
     daughter of a son or daughter of the employee.
       ``(22) Grandparent.--The term `grandparent', used with 
     respect to an employee, means a parent of a parent of the 
     employee.
       ``(23) Parent-in-law.--The term `parent-in-law', used with 
     respect to an employee, means a parent of the spouse or 
     domestic partner of the employee.
       ``(24) Sibling.--The term `sibling', used with respect to 
     an employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the 
     employee's parent.
       ``(25) Son-in-law or daughter-in-law.--The term `son-in-law 
     or daughter-in-law', used with respect to an employee, means 
     any person who is a spouse or domestic partner of a son or 
     daughter of the employee.''.
       (b) Leave Requirement.--Section 102 of the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling, of the employee if such spouse, 
     domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling,'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son, 
     daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
     law, grandchild, sibling,''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent,'' 
     and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
     law, grandparent, sibling,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling,''.
       (c) Certification.--Section 103 of the Family and Medical 
     Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent'' 
     and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
     law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or parent 
     and an estimate of the amount of time that such employee is 
     needed to care for the son, daughter, spouse, or parent'' and 
     inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling and an estimate of the amount of time 
     that such employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, 
     spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, 
     or sibling''; and
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``parent, or spouse'' and 
     inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling''.
       (d) Employment and Benefits Protection.--Section 104(c)(3) 
     of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2614(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``spouse, or 
     parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, 
     parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``spouse, or 
     parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, 
     parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic 
     partner.--Section 6381(6) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic 
     partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
       (B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
       (2) Inclusion of grandparents, parents-in-law, siblings, 
     and domestic partners.--Section 6381 of such title is further 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (11)(B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) the term `domestic partner', used with respect to an 
     employee, means--
       ``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the 
     employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union 
     law of the State or political subdivision of a State where 
     the employee resides; or
       ``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a 
     State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex 
     under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person 
     of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed, 
     personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Secretary) 
     relationship with the employee, who is not a domestic partner 
     to any other person, and who is designated to the employer by 
     such employee as that employee's domestic partner;
       ``(14) the term `grandchild', used with respect to an 
     employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of a son 
     or daughter of the employee;
       ``(15) the term `grandparent', used with respect to an 
     employee, means a parent of a parent of the employee;
       ``(16) the term `parent-in-law', used with respect to an 
     employee, means a parent of the spouse or domestic partner of 
     the employee;

[[Page S6551]]

       ``(17) the term `sibling', used with respect to an 
     employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the 
     employee's parent;
       ``(18) the term `son-in-law or daughter-in-law', used with 
     respect to an employee, means any person who is a spouse or 
     domestic partner of a son or daughter of the employee; and
       ``(19) the term `spouse', used with respect to an employee, 
     includes a same-sex spouse as determined under applicable 
     State law.''.
       (b) Leave Requirement.--Section 6382 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling, of the employee, if such spouse, 
     domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling,'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son, 
     daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
     law, grandchild, sibling,''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent'' and 
     inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, sibling''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son, 
     daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic 
     partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, 
     grandparent, or sibling,''.
       (c) Certification.--Section 6383 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent'' 
     and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
     law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or 
     parent, and an estimate of the amount of time that such 
     employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, spouse, or 
     parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, 
     parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling and an estimate of the 
     amount of time that such employee is needed to care for such 
     son, daughter, spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
     law, grandparent, or sibling''.
                                 ______