[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6549-S6553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      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''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 3681. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform 
the system of public financing for Presidential elections, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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

[[Page S6552]]

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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

      Presidential Funding Act of 2010 Section by Section Analysis


               SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS

                       TITLE I--PRIMARY ELECTIONS

       Section 101: Increase in and modifications to matching 
     payments--Current law provides for a 1-to-1 match, where up 
     to $250 of each individual's contributions for the primaries 
     is matched with $250 in public funds. Under the new matching 
     system, individual contributions of up to $200 from each 
     individual will be matched at a 4-to-1 ratio, so a $200 
     individual contribution can be matched with $800 from public 
     funds. Contributions are ``matchable contributions,'' 
     however, only if the donor has made $200 or less in aggregate 
     contributions to the candidate, and the candidate certifies 
     that he or she will not accept more than $200 from that 
     donor. In addition, ``matchable contributions'' may not be 
     bundled by anyone other than an individual.
       A participating candidate can receive up to $100 million in 
     matching funds.
       ``Contribution'' is defined as ``a gift of money made by a 
     written instrument which identifies the person making the 
     contribution by full name and mailing address.''
       Section 102: ELigibility requirements for matching 
     payments--Current law requires candidates to raise $5,000 in 
     matchable contributions (currently $250 or less) in 20 
     states. To be eligible for matching funds under this bill, a 
     candidate must raise $25,000 of matchable contributions (up 
     to $200 per individual donor) in at least 20 states.
       In addition, to be eligible for matching funds, candidates 
     must agree not to accept more than $1,000 in aggregate 
     contributions from a single donor. That amount will be 
     indexed for inflation. Participating candidates must also 
     agree to not accept contributions either made by or bundled 
     by lobbyists and PACs.
       Finally, to receive matching funds in the primary, 
     candidates must also pledge to apply for and accept public 
     money in the general election if nominated.
       Section 103: Inflation adjustment for contribution 
     limitations and matching contributions--Contribution limits 
     will be indexed for inflation, with 2012 as the base year.
       Section 104: Repeal of expenditure limitations--Under 
     current law, participating candidates cannot spend in excess 
     of the primary spending limit, which was $54 million in 2008. 
     The bill eliminates that spending limit.
       Section 105: Period of availability of matching payments--
     Current law makes matching funds available on January 1 of a 
     presidential election year. The bill makes such funds 
     available six months prior to the first state caucus or 
     primary. That date for the 2008 elections would have been 
     July 3, 2007.
       Section 106: Examination and audits of matchable 
     contributions--Current law requires that the Commission 
     conduct an audit of the qualified campaign expenses of 
     candidates and authorized committees that received payments 
     under section 9037. This Section would require the Commission 
     to also audit matchable contributions accepted by candidates 
     and authorized committees.
       Section 107: Modification to limitation on contributions 
     for presidential primary candidates--Under current law, all 
     elections held in a calendar year for President are 
     considered to be a single election for purposes of the 
     contribution limits. This Section addresses the possibility 
     that a primary or caucus might be actually be held the year 
     before the general election by changing ``calendar year'' to 
     ``four year election cycle.''


                      TITLE II--GENERAL ELECTIONS

       Section 201: Modification of eligibility requirements for 
     public financing--Currently, candidates can participate in 
     either the primary or the general election public financing 
     system, or both. Under the bill, a candidate must participate 
     in the primary matching system in order to be eligible to 
     receive public funds in the general election.
       Furthermore, the candidate must agree to (1) furnish the 
     Commission with evidence of qualified campaign expenses, if 
     requested; (2) agree to keep any records, books and other 
     information the Commission may request; and (3) agree to an 
     audit by the Commission and pay any amounts required to be 
     paid as a result of that audit.
       To receive public funding in the general election, 
     candidates must certify that they will not (1) accept 
     contributions or bundled contributions from lobbyists or 
     contributions from a political committee other than a 
     political party; (2) solicit funds for a joint fundraising 
     committee that includes a political party after June 1 of the 
     election year ; and (3) solicit funds for any political party 
     committee after they have received their general election 
     grant.
       Section 202: Repeal of expenditure limitations and use of 
     qualified campaign contributions--Currently, candidates who 
     receive public funds are prohibited from raising any private 
     funds for general election campaign expenses. Under the bill, 
     such candidates may continue to raise ``qualified 
     contributions'' for the general election. Qualified 
     contributions are defined as contributions of no more than 
     $500 in the aggregate that are received after June 1 of the 
     election year. To accept a qualified contribution, candidates 
     must certify that the donor has not contributed more than 
     $500 in the aggregate to the candidate for the general 
     election, and the candidate will not accept additional 
     contributions from that donor once $500 has been received 
     from that donor.
       Section 203: Matching payments and other modifications to 
     payment amounts--The major party candidates for President 
     will be entitled to equal payments of $50 million, plus 
     matching funds of up to $150 million for a maximum total of 
     $200 million in public funding. Individual contributions 
     raised after June 1 of the election year of up to $200 will 
     be matched at a 4-to-1 ratio. Contributions are ``matchable 
     contributions,'' however, only if the candidate certifies 
     that the donor has made contributions of $200 or less in 
     aggregate for the general election, the candidate will not 
     accept more than $200 from that donor, and the contribution 
     has not been bundled or forwarded by anyone other than an 
     individual fundraiser.
       Minor party candidates can receive grants and matching 
     funds for the general election after the fact, based on the 
     percentage of

[[Page S6553]]

     votes received by those candidates in the election. If a 
     minor party fielded a candidate in the previous election, 
     general election funds can be received by that party's 
     candidate based on the performance of the candidate in the 
     previous election. These rules mirror current law on the 
     availability of general election funding for minor party 
     candidates.
       Section 204: Inflation adjustment for payment amounts and 
     qualified contributions--The general election grant amount, 
     ($50 million in 2012), general election matching fund maximum 
     amount ($150 million in 2012), and qualified contribution 
     limit for the general election ($500 in 2012) will be indexed 
     for inflation.
       Section 205: Increase in limit on coordinated party 
     expenditures--Current law provides a single coordinated 
     spending limit for national party committees. In 2008, that 
     limit was about $15 million. The bill increases the limit to 
     $50 million. This will allow the party to support the 
     presumptive nominee during the so-called ``gap'' between the 
     end of the primaries and the conventions. The entire cost of 
     a coordinated party communication is subject to the limit if 
     any portion of that communication has to do with the 
     presidential election. Party spending limits will be indexed 
     for inflation.
       Section 205: Establishment of uniform date for release of 
     payments--Under current law, candidates participating in the 
     system for the general election receive their grants of 
     public money immediately after receiving the nomination of 
     their party, meaning that the two major parties receive their 
     grants on different dates. Under the bill, all candidates 
     eligible to receive public money in the general election 
     would receive their grants and whatever matching funds they 
     are entitled to at that time on the Friday before Labor Day, 
     or 24 hours after both major party candidates have been 
     nominated, whichever is later.
       Section 206: Amounts in presidential election campaign 
     fund--Under current law, in January of an election year if 
     the Treasury Department determines that there are 
     insufficient funds in the PECF to make the required payments 
     to participating primary candidates, the party conventions, 
     and the general election candidates, it must reduce the 
     payments available to participating primary candidates and it 
     cannot make up the shortfall from any other source until 
     those funds come in. Under the bill, in making that 
     determination the Department can include an estimate of the 
     amount that will be received by the PECF during that election 
     year, but the estimate cannot exceed the past three years' 
     average contribution to the fund. This will allow primary 
     candidates to receive their full payments as long as a 
     reasonable estimate of the funds that will come into the PECF 
     that year will cover the general election candidate payments. 
     The bill also allows the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow 
     the funds necessary to carry out the purposes of the fund 
     during the first campaign cycle in which the bill is in 
     effect.
       Section 207: Use of general election payments for general 
     election legal and accounting compliance--Current FEC 
     regulations permit general election candidates to raise money 
     for a separate fund to pay their legal and accounting 
     expenses (so-called ``GELAC funds''). The bill specifies that 
     all such expenses will now considered general election 
     expenses and must be paid for out of their general election 
     funds.


                    TITLE III--POLITICAL CONVENTIONS

       Section 301: Repeal of public financing of party 
     conventions--This section eliminates the public financing of 
     party conventions.
       Section 302: Contributions for political conventions--This 
     section allows the national political parties to establish a 
     separate account to receive contributions that can only be 
     used to fund their party conventions. Individuals may 
     contribute up to $25,000 in a four year election cycle to 
     that account. The aggregate annual contribution limit 
     applicable to an individual who contributes to a political 
     convention account will be increased by the amount of such 
     contributions, meaning that the contributions essentially 
     will not count toward the aggregate limit.
       Section 303: Prohibition on use of soft money--Federal 
     candidates and officeholders and national parties and their 
     officers are prohibited from raising or spending soft money 
     in connection with a nominating convention of any political 
     party, including funds for a host committee, civic committee, 
     or municipality.


                       TITLE IV--OTHER PROVISIONS

       Section 401: Revisions to designation of income tax 
     payments by individual taxpayers--The tax check-off is 
     increased from $3 (individual) and $6 (couple) to $10 and 
     $20. The amount will be adjusted for inflation, and rounded 
     to the nearest dollar, beginning in 2010.
       The IRS shall require by regulation that electronic tax 
     preparation software does not automatically accept or decline 
     the tax checkoff. The FEC is required to inform and educate 
     the public about the purpose of the Presidential Election 
     Campaign Fund (``PECF'') and how to make a contribution. 
     Funding for this program of up to $10 million in a four year 
     presidential election cycle, will come from the PECF. These 
     provisions will take effect immediately upon enactment of 
     this bill.
       Section 402: Regulations with respect to best efforts for 
     identifying persons making contributions--Within six months 
     of enactment, the FEC must promulgate new regulations on what 
     constitutes ``best efforts'' for determining the identity of 
     persons making contributions, including persons making 
     contributions over the Internet or by credit card. The 
     regulations must require the entity receiving the 
     contribution to verify that the name on the credit card 
     matches the name of the donor.
       Section 403: Prohibition on joint fundraising committees--
     Federal candidates are prohibited from forming a joint 
     fundraising committee with any political committee other than 
     an authorized candidate committee.
       Section 404: Disclosure of bundled contributions to 
     presidential campaigns--This section builds on the bundling 
     disclosure provision of the Honest Leadership and Open 
     Government Act of 2007 (``HLOGA'') to require presidential 
     campaigns to disclose the name, address, and employer of all 
     individuals or groups that bundle contributions totaling more 
     than $50,000 in the four year election cycle. Individuals who 
     are registered lobbyists would have to be separately 
     identified. HLOGA's definition of bundling would apply to 
     bundling disclosure by the presidential candidates, and no 
     change is made to the requirements of HLOGA with respect to 
     congressional campaigns.
       Section 405: Judicial review of actions related to campaign 
     finance laws--Current law provides four separate judicial 
     review provisions: (1) Section 403 of the Bipartisan Campaign 
     Reform Act (``BCRA''), which applies to actions challenging 
     the constitutionality of any provision of that Act; (2) 2 
     U.S.C. Sec. 437h, which applies to actions challenging the 
     constitutionality of any other provision of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act (``FECA''); (3) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 9011, 
     which applies to certifications or other actions taken by the 
     FEC in connection with the general election public financing 
     program; and (4) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 9041, which applies to 
     certifications and other actions by the FEC in connection 
     with the primary public funding system.
       The bill replaces all four of those provisions with a 
     single judicial review provision. All actions shall be filed 
     in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with 
     an appeal permitted to the Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. All courts 
     are required to expedite any such actions to the greatest 
     extent possible, and Members of Congress are granted the 
     right to intervene as of right in any case challenging the 
     constitutionality of any provision of FECA or the public 
     financing provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. Members of 
     Congress may themselves bring such a case.


                            TITLE V--OFFSETS

       Section 501: Offsets--This section would reform a federal 
     irrigation subsidy program by closing a loophole in the 1982 
     Reclamation Reform Act to require a means test to qualify for 
     federal irrigation subsidies. This would ensure that small 
     family farmers, not huge agribusinesses, benefit from federal 
     water pricing policies intended to help small entities 
     struggling to survive. This new approach limits the amount of 
     subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in 
     excess of the 960 acre limit that claimed $500,000 or more in 
     gross income. 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.


               TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE

       Section 601: Severability--If any provision of the bill is 
     held unconstitutional, the remainder of the bill will not be 
     affected.
       Section 602: Effective date--The amendments contained in 
     this bill will apply to presidential elections occurring 
     after January 1, 2010.

                          ____________________