Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2010 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2011, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election.

It is important to note that the cost of this bill is completely offset by reforms to the federal irrigation subsidy program. Friends of the Earth in its 2003 Green Scissors report estimated that these provisions would save at least $4.4 billion over 10 years, which is more than sufficient to cover the estimated cost of this bill--$1.1 billion over 4 years.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Until the 2008 election, every major party nominee for President since 1976 had participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well.

In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee, John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant.

In 2008, several of the leading candidates for President, including President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain and Governors Huckabee and Romney, did not participate in the primary system. While Senator McCain accepted the public grant for the general election, President Obama became the first major party candidate not to participate in the general election public funding system.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.

In the post-Citizens United world, the likelihood of general election candidates participating in the system if it is not changed is greatly reduced as well. The current system completely prohibits private fundraising, requiring candidates to fund their campaigns solely with the general election grant, which was $84.1 million in 2008. Senator McCain, who accepted the grant, raised approximately $220 million for the primaries in 2008. President Obama, who did not participate in either the primary or general election public funding system, raised a total of approximately $746 million for the entire 2008 campaign. The public funding system is clearly not keeping pace with the current cost of campaigns or the ability of candidates to raise private money.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates all spending limits in the law for both the primary and the general elections. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates. It increases the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1 and provides up to $100 million in matching funds for a participating candidate in the primaries and $200 million in total grants for the general election.

In exchange for the much more generous public grants provided by the bill, participating candidates are required to focus their fundraising on small donors. First, they must agree to accept contributions of only up to $1,000 in the primaries. The current individual contribution limit, established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is $2,400. In addition, only contributors of $200 or less can have their contributions matched. Since each $200 contribution will yield $800 in matching funds, there will be a great incentive for candidates to seek out small donors. The 2008 campaign saw an explosion of small donations to the campaigns of both parties. This bill should help promote and extend this trend, which is a positive development for our democracy.

Under the bill, for the first time, matching funds will also be part of the general election system. In addition to a $50 million grant, general election candidates can receive up to $150 million in matching funds, again based on a 4:1 match of contributions of $200 or less. General election candidates can also raise contributions of up to $500 from other donors whose contributions will not be matched. General election candidates, therefore, will be able to spend up to $200 million in public funds plus whatever they can raise in contributions of $500 or less. Even in light of the specter of corporate spending permitted by Citizens United, these should be adequate resources for a campaign that lasts only a few months.

One very important provision of the bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election

year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. By eliminating spending limits in the primaries, the bill makes sure that candidates can continue raising and spending the money they need to remain competitive. In addition, the political parties will be permitted to spend up to $50 million coordinated with their candidates, an increase from the current limit of $15 million.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before the date of the first primary or caucus, which is approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election-- the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform legislation enacted in 2007. It requires presidential candidates to disclosure all bundlers of $50,000 or more.

Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. The current President raised and spent more money than any other candidate in history. But he has a history of supporting the presidential public funding system, and he recognizes the importance of reforming and updating the current system. I am optimistic that he will endorse this bill, and will participate in the system if he runs for reelection.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money. The total cost of the system, based on data from the 2008 elections, is projected to be around $1.1 billion over the 4-year election cycle. Though this is a large number, it is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

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.

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.

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.

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.