    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      MARKUP OF H.R. 6116, ``THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT,'' TO REFORM THE
                          FINANCING OF HOUSE ELECTIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                   Held in Washington, DC, September 23, 2010

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    00-000                    WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California,             DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California,
      Vice-Chairwoman                      Ranking Minority Member
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    KEVIN McCARTHY, California
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                          Jamie Fleet, Staff Director
                   Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director

    MARKUP OF H.R. 6116, THE FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT TO REFORM THE FINANCING
                               OF HOUSE ELECTIONS

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in Room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Gonzalez,
    Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Lungren, and Harper.
        Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Khalil Abboud,
    Professional Staff; Tom Hicks, Senior Elections Counsel;
    Janelle Hu, Elections Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Elections
    Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle
    Anderson, Press Director; Shervan Sebastian, Legislative
    Assistant, Elections; Greg Abbott, Professional Staff; Darrell
    O'Connor, Professional Staff; Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff
    Director; Peter Schalestock, Minority Counsel; Karin Moore,
    Minority Legislative Counsel; Salley Collins, Minority Press
    Secretary; Katie Ryan, Minority Professional Staff; and Mary
    Sue Englund, Minority Professional Staff.
        The Chairman. Good morning. I would like to call the
    Committee on House Administration to order. Today, we markup
    H.R. 6116, the Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by
    Representative Larson of Connecticut. The Fair Elections Now
    Act is a voluntary program and would allow qualified House
    candidates to run for office utilizing a blend of contributions
    from small-dollar donors and limited public matching funds. It
    is designed to change the current system of campaign
    fundraising, which largely relies on large donors and special
    interests. It does not limit or discourage spending by outside
    groups but instead aims to ensure that these voices are not the
    only ones that can get heard in public debate. It is about
    encouraging more speech, not less.
        I am sure that there are questions as to why this bill is
    needed now. The American people are frustrated and want
    Congress to focus on the economy and fixing our Nation's
    problems, yet they see in Washington a never-ending money chase
    fueled by lobbyists and big donors. The average American feels
    that he has been left out and his problems ignored. If our
    constituents are to know that we work for them, we have to
    change the way we operate and run our campaigns.
        I support the Fair Elections Act Now because it will put
    our elections back in the hands of ordinary working Americans
    instead of us relying on corporate lobbies to form their
    political campaigns. By creating a competitive system that
    relies on small-dollar local contributors and matching funds,
    congressional candidates can focus on the people back home in
    their districts and the work that needs to be done.
        If we are to have a government that is fair, effective, and
    accountable, we need to have a system in which individual
    voters are as important as corporate lobbyists. We need an
    electoral system in which a coal miner's voice can be heard as
    clearly as the owner of the mine he works in.
        It is not easy to change the system. It will cost time and
    money to change the status quo. But this program is a
    responsible investment in good government and will likely save
    American taxpayers money over the long run. For example, we
    lose an estimated $70 billion to $100 billion every year in tax
    revenue due to offshore tax schemes and loopholes written into
    the law at the urging of lobbyists. By contrast, the cost of
    the Fair Elections Act Now is approximately $4 per voting age
    citizens per year.
        This is not about favoring one party or the other in a
    tough election year. Whether Republicans or Democrats, we have
    all been elected to represent Americans first, and we all share
    an interest with the people we represent in having a government
    that is accountable, effective, and transparent. We need a
    system that puts Americans first.
        I would like now to recognize my ranking minority member,
    Mr. Lungren, for any opening statement.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your personal commitment to
    the committee process and the committee hearings. And I want to
    thank you for that. As someone once wrote, Congress in session
    is Congress on display, but Congress in committee is Congress
    at work. As I have said before, we have all worked well
    together here in this committee and I appreciate your civility
    and your sincerity. I do, however, question the need for our
    presence here today.
        Now one would wonder why I would say that since members on
    your side of the aisle on your official campaign committee are
    doing their best to put me out of this place and are sending
    all sorts of messages around this town that the reason I am
    vulnerable is because my opponent is raising so much money.
    That is the total and sole reason why they are gauging the race
    in my particular district that way--the amount of money that
    the Democrat is raising outside the district.
        So I find it interesting to be here at a time when the
    majority is bemoaning the fact that that is the case when they
    are displaying and advertising the fact that that is how we
    ought to judge whether someone is a worthy candidate or not.
        Having said that, however, I will stand on principle here
    today. With the innumerable, innumerable pressing needs
    affecting citizens in this country, in my State of California,
    in my district--the national unemployment rate may be near 10
    percent. It is over 12 percent in the State of California. It
    is in excess of 13 percent in my district. I have some
    communities where it is approaching 20 percent. If you go
    further down in the Central Valley of California, you have
    communities that have 40 percent unemployment. My constituents
    and those throughout California have begged, have literally
    begged the Federal Government to pay attention to the economic
    problems affecting us. In other words, they have asked us, What
    about jobs? Where are the jobs; where is the promised jobs that
    came out of this administration and the majority leadership?
        But instead of us doing something like that, we are going
    to name I think another post office today on the floor of the
    House. And I have nothing against naming post offices, it just
    not ought to be our sole responsibility around this place. We
    are going to again be engaged in suspension calendar
    activities. And so what are we going to do here? We are going
    to hold a markup on a piece of legislation that furthers an
    idea that has been rejected soundly by the American people time
    and time again. Time and time again the American people, when
    given the chance to look at something like this, have said, We
    don't want it.
        According to a recent Congressional Research Service
    report, the number of tax returns containing a check in the
    box--and that is the way you vote on this subject--supporting
    voting financing for presidential elections has declined from
    its peak in 1980 of 28 percent to a new low last year--we set a
    new record--7.3 percent. The American people are going in one
    direction and in this committee we are told to go in another
    direction.
        Recently, in my home State of California, that State which
    is suffering from unemployment, I think third in the country,
    of over 12 percent, Proposition 15 legalizing government
    financing on campaigns was soundly defeated by a margin of 15
    percent. That is by a margin of over 750,000 votes. Now maybe
    that is not here, but I happen to think that is important.
        We ought to listen to what the people are telling us. And
    while proponents like to point to the State systems of
    government financing of campaigns in Maine and Arizona, they
    are hardly models we should follow. A recent GAO report found
    that the systems in those States, in Maine and Arizona, have
    not met any of their stated goals. In addition, recent reports
    out of Arizona state that candidates have been using public
    funds as their own personal slush funds. The Phoenix New Times
    in 2009 reported that candidates using the public financing
    system have been using government funds on important expenses
    like sushi, segway ramps, and hiring startup consulting firms
    coincidentally owned by the candidate.
        I have mentioned time and time again also that during this
    campaign season we have seen people at rallies who are
    purportedly members of the Tea Party who turn out not to be
    members of the Tea Party with their pictures of Hitler and
    making the President look like Hitler. They are members of the
    LaRouche Group, which happens to be, unfortunately, a segment
    of the Democratic Party. But the point I am making is Mr.
    LaRouche has been able to use public financing even when he sat
    in prison to run for President of the United States using
    public funds.
        So, as I said in our last committee hearing on this issue,
    I believe the electoral process is a way for individuals to
    exercise their right of freedom of expression. It is
    unwarranted and undesirable to expand the government with a new
    Fair Elections Oversight Board overseeing the Federal Elections
    Fund, deciding how much elections should cost and how much
    candidates should receive to pay for them.
        I might add that the funding mechanisms I find in this bill
    are interesting. They are supposed to pay for the new program,
    but the funding exists on paper only. The money isn't there.
    Proceeds from the spectrum auction--I might just mention, the
    main funding source in this bill--were already allocated or
    returned to the Treasury, presumably to pay down part of the
    national debt, after the auction was completed in 2008. The
    other funding source, fines from the FEC, would return the
    magnificent sum of $1.1 million in revenue a year under the
    bill. That isn't enough money to fund a single campaign.
        So instead of producing a budget, instead of passing
    appropriation bills, instead of growing our economy and
    reducing the massive deficit and even larger national debt, we
    are now asking taxpayers to pay for elections. Because if in
    fact the money from the spectrum is gone and there is literally
    no money or $1.1 million a year from the FEC, you go to the
    other sections of the funding part of the bill and it comes out
    of appropriated funds. Now that is not magic. That is money,
    taxpayer moneys or further debt appropriated by the Congress of
    the United States for the purpose of this bill.
        Look, we have talked about this before. I don't know a
    single member on this committee who enjoys raising funds. If
    you did, I would think there was something wrong with you. I
    probably like it the least of anybody on this committee. But so
    long as the United States Supreme Court interprets the
    Constitution and the First Amendment to say that if you have
    your own money, you can spend it on your own campaign; that is,
    that money is speech--and I don't think they are ever going to
    change, I am not suggesting they change--I think we are in a
    conundrum. And I think there are other ways to address this.
        I would certainly take limits off of what political
    committees could give to campaigns. Actually, I would move in
    the opposite direction. I would take the limits off of
    individual contributions but make them reportable immediately,
    electronic reporting within 24 hours of receipt so that
    everybody could know where you get the money. And if in fact
    you are going to get a large amount, we could decide whether
    the amount was $20,000 or whatever it is from one individual,
    make sure that comes in 10 days before an election so that
    everybody would have an opportunity to see it.
        Those are kinds of reforms that I think would help us go as
    I think we would all like it to go. So I am sorry to say that I
    think the bill is a bad idea. I hope the members will reject it
    soundly.
        I thank you for the time. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other additional opening statements?
        Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you
    for calling this markup on the fair and clean elections bill. I
    wanted also to note my gratitude to Congressman John Larson for
    his extraordinary efforts in trying to move this bill forward
    and his leadership on the overall issue.
        I do support this bill. As a matter of facts, I am a
    cosponsor of the bill. I believe that establishing a voluntary
    system so that members can raise small donations from
    individuals rather than corporate interests will make elected
    officials more responsive to the needs of the people they
    represent, and I think this bill provides that opportunity.
        Members of Congress spend a large amount of time raising
    money, and I think all of us on both sides of the aisle would
    rather spend that time working on the issues that are before
    the country and before the Congress.
        Now, having said that, I listened carefully to the ranking
    member's comments. But I think, and he would agree, that being
    responsive to constituents is not a partisan issue. That is
    something that both sides of the aisle, each Member of
    Congress, hopes to do. And I think that this measure would
    enhance that.
        I didn't attend the rally that Glenn Beck held on the
    Capitol, but I saw some of the groups that were interviewed at
    the time. And everybody who was there who was kind of a Tea
    Party proponent, a conservative group, said that they also
    would like to see a decrease in corporate influence on
    elections.
        So I think this really is a broad call across the political
    spectrum for special interests to have less of the say.
        Now that is not to say that when people make contributions
    that they in fact get any special edge. I certainly would not
    allege that. But the perception is it is not healthy for our
    democracy. And so to the extent that we can limit that
    perception, we will strengthen our democracy. And I think this
    bill does that.
        There is a long set of court decisions in the Supreme
    Court--the Buckley case; the Connecticut Green Party case; the
    McComish-Bennett case most recently, the Duke-Leake case in
    North Carolina, all upholding public financing. This bill is
    supported by a number of very fine advocacy groups, including
    Common Cause and the League of Conservation Voters. I think it
    would be a good step forward for our democracy, and I hope that
    we will pass it out today and that we will have an opportunity
    to make this bill into law.
        I would note--and I am also from California--that yes, we
    have a very serious economic problem, not only in California
    but in our entire country. We are digging our way out of the
    huge ditch that we fell into in the fall of 2008. But I think
    that our constituents want to know that we are not--that the
    Congress is not beholden to the offshores. They want to know
    that we are beholden to the little guys that are sending in $5
    or $10 checks, not the offshores who have caused some of this
    economic downturn.
        And just a little point of clarification, in addition to
    post offices, today we are bringing up the Small Business
    Lending Fund Act of 2010, which is enormously important for job
    creation in the country. And I know that Mr. Lungren did not
    mean to slight that. But that is also on our agenda in the
    House today, a very important measure.
        And I thank the chairman for recognizing me and yield back.
        The Chairman. Any other opening statements?
        Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have serious objections to this bill, not the least of
    which is the timing. The unemployment rate in my home State has
    remained between 10 percent and 11 percent this year and we
    have people hurting all over the country. And so when you have
    a time like this when so many people are out of work, don't
    have jobs, don't have income, and we are going to add to the
    taxpayer burden of those who are working really makes no sense
    at this time.
        Putting the audacity of the concept aside, this bill adds
    insult to injury by creating a new Federal program that isn't
    even funded. Of course, the last thing we need around here is
    another new Federal program. So it isn't just current taxpayers
    that we are asking to pay for our campaigns. It is the future
    taxpayers who will have to pay off the money we borrowed to do
    it.
        Even if you give all of the FEC fines collected annually
    instead of 50 percent, it doesn't touch the surface of that
    cost. And certainly I do agree that no one enjoys having to
    raise money for a campaign. But it is part of that process. And
    it certainly means that people give to the candidates of their
    choice and who they want to. And here we are going to force
    taxpayers to give contributions in effect to everyone, even
    those that they might completely disagree with.
        The other funding mechanism is the revenue generated from
    previous analog spectrum auction sales, and let's just be
    honest, that money is not there. It has either already been
    spent or returned to the Treasury. So there is no money set
    aside. This is not paid for. There is no revenue to pay for
    this taxpayer funded campaign scheme other than running the
    currency printing presses like we have done at a record pace
    these past 20 months. And I am sure it is no surprise there is
    no CBO score on this.
        Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member has noted, I and my
    colleagues here certainly appreciate your commitment to the
    committee process and your respect for civility and fairness.
    However, I cannot support this misguided bill. And I would urge
    my colleagues to join us in voting ``no.''
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other speeches?
        Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
    like to thank you for having this markup, and I would like to
    thank Mr. Larson from Connecticut for his hard work on this.
    Without his continuous push, we wouldn't be here today.
        I want to be real clear. I fully agree that there are other
    issues that are important in this country and that we should be
    dealing with. No problem with that at all. But that doesn't
    mean we should not be dealing with this as well. Maybe I am the
    only person that can do one thing at a time, but I don't think
    so.
        So to think this is not an issue, everyone has said and
    will continue to say that they don't like raising funds, yet
    they are not willing to do anything about it. I don't like it.
    I don't like the perception it leaves. And this is the best
    proposal I have seen to end our need to be on the money
    treadmill, which I really do hate. I don't just say I hate it.
    I actually want to do something about it. And if others have a
    proposal on how to get us off it, I am more than happy to
    listen.
        I am not stuck on this particular proposal. It just happens
    to be the one that is best suited that I am aware of at this
    time. I am more than happy to work with anyone to get us off of
    that treadmill. And it is not just me wanting to get off it. It
    is also me trying to get the American public to understand and
    to accept and to believe, more importantly, that we are not
    beholden to those people who donate to us, especially those
    people who donate large sums or, under some proposals, who
    donate unlimited funds.
        As far as Mr. Lungren goes, I look at this as simply my way
    to try to help you in your race. And I hope you take it that
    way, because that is my clear intention.
        I don't like the idea of people being judged and I decide
    by the amounts of money they can raise. It is not a fair way to
    do it. It is not an accurate way to do it. And even if it is or
    it isn't, it is not a good way to do it. I am sitting here
    today, when I ran in 1998, my first race, I was seventh in
    money. I was outspent 12 to 1 by one of my opponents. I didn't
    like it but that is what I could raise, what I could do, and he
    could write a check. So be it.
        I am simply trying to find a way to do it. If there are
    other proposals, I am more than happy to listen and work with
    people to get us off it. But it is either that or stay on the
    treadmill and stop complaining. And for me, it is not a joke.
    Not a joke just to me. It is not a joke sociologically, it is
    not a joke politically, governmentally. It is not good what we
    are required to do in order to get here and to stay here. It is
    not good for us, it is not good for the American public, it is
    not good for the system, and it is not good for the people that
    want to sit back and complain about the whole thing.
        So that is how I look at it. This particular bill in front
    of us, I like it in general. I have some concerns with some
    specifics. I will have an amendment later on. As far as where
    the money comes from, I am more than happy to find other
    sources of revenue. Again, I am not stuck with these. These are
    as good as any. But if somebody has a better idea, I am more
    than happy to listen and work with them as we go forward.
        So I think like many things that we are faced with in
    Congress, and it is not just in Congress, it is at the State
    legislator level, the school committee level, we don't get to
    do what we want to do. We get to choose amongst the choices
    that are before us. And in this particular case, as in so many
    cases, doing something is better than doing nothing. And this
    particular bill is a clear and equivocal step forward and a
    clear and equivocal step away from the money treadmill that we
    are forced to get on, and I think it will be a great step
    forward in gaining more trust amongst the American people.
        With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Any other statements?
        Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want
    to thank you also for bringing this up. I know my colleagues
    have said that we need to be focusing on what is going on in
    the country right now, and I can't agree with you more, and
    that is why I certainly would encourage you to join us in
    looking at the small business bill today. But I also think that
    because the elections are only 41 days away, this is the time
    that people are really focusing on the elections. And the
    reality is, what are they asking? They are wondering how much
    people have raised and they are wondering where that money has
    come from. That is what people are interested in. That is what
    the pundits are interested in, and that is generally what the
    media is concerned about. And we know that it takes about a
    million dollars to even have a chance to win a House seat. Even
    to have a chance.
        So for those people who want to serve their country as an
    elected official here, and they find out about the million
    dollar job qualification, then they have to start thinking
    about where are they going to go for that kind of cash. Where
    are they going to find it. And where they are going to find it,
    unfortunately, sometimes is turning to bigger donors. It is
    going wherever they can, to PACs, to lobbyists, to CEOs, and to
    wealthy individuals.
        We are at the point where wealthy interests are spending $8
    on campaigns for every $1 that comes from small donors. And we
    know that a candidate's ability to get elected depends on how
    many big checks he or she can collect. Then it becomes obvious
    and I think a shame that the public perceives Congress as being
    bought and paid for by special interests. And I, obviously,
    hate to see that. And I honestly don't believe that my
    colleagues base their votes on their campaign contributions.
    But from time to time there are some bad apples. And the
    perception of a quid pro quo is toxic, absolutely toxic for our
    institution and for our democracy.
        We also know that the amount of time required to fund-raise
    is problematic because it interferes with our focus on kitchen
    table issues. I don't think we can ever forget that it is all
    about we the people. No matter which side of the aisle is
    saying that, it is about we the people. And our job is to solve
    people's problems and not to make calls to special interests.
        So I wish we could do away with fundraising altogether. I
    don't like it any more than anybody else does. But I know that
    there need to be some base parameters so that the public can
    determine whether candidates are viable. That is important to
    be able to get one's message out. So creating truly clean
    campaigns where the many and not the big few have the loudest
    voice is not easy. But this is one strong solution that has
    come forward. The Fair Elections Now Act is about as close to a
    solution as we have been able to get.
        And I think we could argue all day about the details. I
    agree. Honestly, I could tweak, change, do different things
    with the bill. But we have it before us today. And I think that
    Representative Larson has worked very, very hard to get the
    best kind of input on this and to try and draw something that
    is important. And we do have considerations about funding. The
    economy certainly is hurting. We all feel that for our
    constituents deeply. But campaigns--clean campaigns aren't
    free. We are really looking at the cost of about a fancy cup of
    coffee today that we need to think about in terms of individual
    citizens.
        I just urge my colleagues to support the clean elections
    and I hope that we can have a good discussion on it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling
    on me. There are a lot of very admirable impulses behind this
    bill. The author of this bill, the chairman of the Democratic
    Caucus, John Larson, is one of the ablest Members of the House
    of Representatives. And every one of us on this committee in
    some way, shape or form bemoans the presence of big money
    politics and every one of us on this committee laments the
    amount of time that candidates have to spend raising money. But
    let me take just a few moments to say why one Democrat does not
    support this bill.
        Reason number one. If we want to look at what happens when
    you resort to public financing, we don't have to look to
    another countries, we don't have to look to any particular
    State. We can look at the American presidential election
    system. After Buckley v. Valeo became the law of the land and
    matching funds were instituted in the mid-1990s, what happened?
    A spate of minor fringe candidacies showed up in the Democratic
    and Republican Parties and became the parents of an extremism
    in American politics that is still with us today.
        The Lyndon LaRouche movement was born out of Federal
    financing of campaigns. Many strands of the extreme left and
    the extreme right were born out of the Federal financing of
    campaigns and the lure that if you show up in some way, shape,
    or form, you will find a way to get some money to stay in the
    contest. What happened? In 2008, an election where a large
    number of small donors participated in the political process,
    the Democratic candidate, the President that this side of the
    aisle is very proud of, opted out of the Federal financing of
    campaigns and the sanctions that were put in place around that
    process.
        We don't have to guesstimate, we don't have to imagine what
    will happen if we institute Federal financing of congressional
    campaigns. There will be three specific consequences. The first
    one is this. More minor candidates, more fringe candidates,
    more candidates who have their pet cause, their pet issue, and
    will use it to pull the Democratic Party further to the left
    and the Republican Party further to the right.
        The second thing that will happen, most Members of Congress
    will no more follow this system than they will sit down to read
    a treatise on the budget tonight. Most Members of Congress will
    decide that they don't need this system. They will break out of
    it. They will do what they wish to do. Tom DeLay would have
    never participated in this process. The most well-heeled
    Members of Congress, the very sectors in Congress that we fear
    might be too greatly influenced by money, will be the first
    ones to opt out of it. The influence will remain whether or not
    the system is in place.
        And, finally, who will benefit from public financing of
    congressional campaigns? It is not the student who comes to
    D.C. during the summer who is inspired for a season to believe
    in politics. It is not the person sitting at home who is
    watching C-SPAN right now trying to learn more about democracy.
    It is the person who has access to a 20,000-long e-mail list or
    an organization that has access to a large list of e-mails or a
    large list of names. In other words, it will be special
    interests. They may not be corporate but they will still be
    narrow, they will still be discrete, they will still insular,
    and they will focus on organizing and mobilizing people who
    participate in the political process and have the benefit of
    public financing to further the candidates of their choice.
        So for all the good, admirable goals around this process,
    there is only one step, Mr. Chairman, that would really make a
    difference, and the Supreme Court has, unfortunately, taken it
    off the table. That would be if expenditures could be limited.
    If you don't limit expenditures but you simply change the rules
    of the game, you create a shell game where the money simply
    moves from one place to another and campaigns still have the
    big money but the big money masquerades under different names.
    And it is not the people who benefit. It is the interests in
    the extremes on both sides who thrive and prosper.
        So I do think that we should go back to the drawing board--
    or the individuals returning in the next Congress should go
    back to the drawing board, because this is an important
    question. But the presidential process and the public financing
    of presidential campaigns tells us in a very clear way that not
    only will this not work, it will leave us in fundamental ways
    worse off than we are today.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other statements?
    Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
    disagree, obviously, with my colleague, Mr. Davis, even though
    I think he has made an excellent argument for many things. But
    truly it is a matter of choice at this point, and that is, do
    we just throw up our hands in frustration and say that the
    system cannot be improved? The Supreme Court is going to rule,
    has ruled, will continue to rule, in a way that we believe
    doesn't really assist in the democratic process. But it is
    their interpretation of the Constitution of the United States,
    and we all take an oath to uphold it.
        We are going to have our own differences of opinion with
    the other party, not for the same reasons as articulated by Mr.
    Davis. But it is an interesting argument. But at the end of the
    entire debate I think it is an improvement because it extends
    the opportunity to those that may not have the opportunity to
    seek public service.
        Are we encouraging opposition? Sure. Are we going to have
    more crowded ballots? Maybe. Do we promote a system that
    excludes the more reasonable moderate voices in each party?
    Maybe. But not to move in this direction is a lot worse. It is
    not perfect. Nothing we do up here is perfect. We strive to
    improve the system, and I think this is what this bill does.
        I will be honest with you, I didn't get on the bill
    initially, and I had my conversations with Mr. Larson and I had
    them with my constituents. Because they saw this as the silver
    bullet. And I actually cited some of the same reasons that Mr.
    Davis cited for the proposition that it is not the complete and
    entire answer.
        We can't do anything about somebody that wants to spend
    $120 million out of their back pocket. I wish we could. It is
    the answer. In Texas, we do have campaign limits on judicial
    races, which is being challenged right now in the courts. And
    it has been a good thing, by the way. But this is a step
    forward. It is an improvement on a system, a system that is
    coming apart. And we have to acknowledge that technology and
    how we communicate and we have to make those adjustments.
        Sure, somebody with a list of many, many e-mail addresses
    can do many things. Well, guess what? We can do the same thing.
    It is available to us.
        I will say this. I am sorry that I disagree with Mr. Davis.
    And I am more sorry, Artur, that you are not going to be here
    next session because I think he is one of the brightest minds
    that we have ever had in Congress, at least since I have been
    here for 12 years. But it is a debate and it is a good faith
    one. And maybe that is what will endure: that we have a good
    faith debate, that we move forward and do what we can with what
    we have.
        With that, sir, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other statements?
    I guess not; everybody spoke. The only thing I would like to
    add is to thank Congressman Larson. We talk about how in
    Congress there is never a perfect bill. Well, I have never seen
    a perfect bill, but it is a start. And he had the courage to
    start it up, to get it on our committee, and whether it passes
    this committee or not, whether it goes to the floor or not,
    whether it passes the other body or not, no matter what happens
    to it, it is a start. And he had the courage to bring it up.
    And I think the American people are out there begging for a
    start.
        As my friend Mr. Lungren says, he hates making these calls.
    Everybody hates making these calls because you are like begging
    for dollars out there for yourself; you have got to sing for
    your own supper. I got to tell you, I am fortunate I have never
    made one in my life. Don't know if I would start. If I had to,
    I probably wouldn't be sitting here. I would be joining Mr.
    Davis going out to the nice bright new world and not have to
    worry about these bells ringing. And I agree with Mr. Gonzalez,
    we are absolutely going to miss you because I don't listen to
    many people, but I listen to you when you speak, and what parts
    I can understand, I get. That is no disrespect for you. That is
    on me. That is on me.
        Again, my problem with not demonstrating that we are doing
    something is in the City of Philadelphia we have this new
    reform system about pay-to-play. That is my problem. My problem
    is with big business coming in--not big business--big money
    people coming in and then people look at how you vote and they
    figure you voted because this person gave you this large amount
    of money and then you are in this pocket or in that pocket. And
    then what do you do when both sides of an issue happen to
    contribute to your campaign. You have to recuse yourself. We
    would never get 219 votes out there to pass anything.
        So it is a start, and it is a start in the right direction.
    Where it ends up, I hope it ends up someplace, but I am happy
    and I was more than happy to have this hearing to, again, thank
    Mr. Larson for giving us a starting position to where we can
    start out and hopefully try to rectify some of the ills that
    this system does provides for us, what we need to do and how we
    need to do it to maintain our seats or to get elected into this
    Congress.
        So, with that, I would now like to call up before the
    committee H.R. 6116. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with and the bill is considered as read
    and open for amendment at any time.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Is there any debate? Any amendments?
        Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is
    considered read and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. Before I start talking about the amendment I
    think we should make one thing clear to people listening to
    this debate. Under current law, and this does not change with
    this bill or any suggestion I have seen, there are no direct
    corporate or union contributions to campaigns. We do have a
    system where PACs--political action committees--supported by
    those who are identified with a particular interest, in some
    cases a corporation or in some cases a union, are allowed. And
    I just hope that anybody listening does not mistake that.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that I hope will
    be acceptable to members on both sides. The amendment would
    provide that any funding for the bill, whatever its source--I
    think there are four different sections or four sources here--
    would not be authorized if there is a deficit in that
    particular year, and that in the case of a deficit any funds
    allocated to the bill's programs will be used for deficit
    reduction.
        We have heard a lot about what the American people want in
    our debate here, and one of the things I have found loud and
    clear from groups of all types in my own district is they would
    like us to stop spending and to draw down on the debt. But in
    this case just make sure we don't increase the deficit.
        There seems to be a reflexive position in this Congress
    that whenever we see a problem, the easiest solution is to just
    tax taxpayers to solve that problem. At least I have noticed in
    my district and in my State that the people are rejecting that
    notion.
        So, given the fiscal state of our government at the present
    time, I think it is important that the House and the Congress
    prioritize. I respect the gentleman from Massachusetts who
    suggested that we can do more than one thing at once. And I
    agree with that. I don't think that is the problem in this
    Congress. I think the problem is, in doing that, we don't
    prioritize, we don't decide what is truly essential, what is
    important.
        There are certain programs and certain projects that are
    necessary. In my view, this program is not even desirable. But
    even if it were, I believe that it is not necessary,
    particularly at this time. If members want to go down this
    path, can we at least agree not to dig ourselves further into
    debt in the process.
        So I think I have made it clear that I don't agree with the
    principle of this bill, but I would hope that we could agree we
    should not make our deficit even worse.
        The last comment I would make is this. Reference has been
    made to the Supreme Court, and so forth. The fact of the matter
    is the Supreme Court in this area is required to explicate the
    contours of the First Amendment. And, as I said, so long as
    they have said that you cannot stop someone from spending their
    own money for speech, we have to deal with that.
        This Congress attempted a number of years ago to deal with
    that problem in saying that the individual limits that are on a
    campaign would be taken off and--I forget-- either doubled or
    tripled, if in fact your opponent was so wealthy that he or she
    contributed a specific amount of money based on a formula to
    their own campaign. And I recall this happening in my own
    campaign in 2004, when in the primary one of my opponents
    contributed $1.2 million to her own campaign. It was kind of
    interesting. The threshold was not--the postponement of the
    meeting of the threshold was the way in which she put the money
    towards her campaign so that when that millionaire's clause
    came into effect, it was rather late in the game and so it made
    it more difficult for those in my situation to be able to
    respond. But we did. As we know, subsequently the U.S. Supreme
    Court has told us that you cannot do that.
        So where we tried to manufacture our response to the
    realities of the First Amendment in a way that we thought would
    make it more equal and would help candidates who are not
    wealthy, the Court told us that we could not. And that is one
    of the realities that we have to deal with. I just don't think
    this bill brings us in the right direction. But even if it did,
    let's at least make sure that we don't add to the burden of the
    taxpayers in the process.
        And so that is what my amendment would simply do. So long
    as we still have a deficit, the funding in this bill would go
    towards getting rid of that deficit for that year as opposed to
    funding this. And in those years when we actually have a
    balanced budget for a year, then we could look at other things,
    and this would be one of the things that we would seriously
    look at.
        So I would yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any additional debate
    on the amendment?
        Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, the concept of addressing the
    deficit, I totally agree with. As a matter of fact, I would
    like to point out that the last time we had no deficit was in
    2002. It was a rollcall, November 14, rollcall No. 482, to keep
    the only rule that this Congress ever had that kept us in line
    relative to addressing the deficit was the old PAYGO rules. Not
    the new ones. The old ones. And only 19 Members voted to keep
    those PAYGO rules, because they were tough to do. They applied
    across the board to all programs.
        That is the problem I have with this amendment. It targets
    one program to deal with the deficit.
        I happen to have been one of those 19 people to vote to
    keep the PAYGO rules. I thought it was a huge mistake then. I
    think it is a huge mistake we haven't re-implemented them. And
    I hope we do as we go forward. We have done some, but not tough
    enough for me. I agree that the deficit is a major, major
    problem, and we do need to deal with it, but not on the basis
    of one item at a time. If we are going to do it, which we
    should, we should do it across the board. All programs.
        This is less important than anything else in the entire
    Federal budget. This is the only program we are going to
    target, I can't accept that. I agree all programs should be on
    the table to address the deficit. I may have different
    priorities than this but I am sure we could find different
    compromises where there must be some common ground. We could
    find the programs we can get rid of. Other programs could take
    cuts. We did it before. The country had a surplus before. And
    we can do it again. But we can't do it on the basis of one
    program at a time. And this program, if never funded, won't
    even come close to addressing the deficit problems we have.
        So the concept, in my opinion, is right. The execution is
    too narrow and inappropriate. So I have to oppose the
    amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any additional debate
    on the amendment? Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Well, I need to oppose. And I guess maybe the
    best way to respond to that basic principle, which is a good
    one, but it would appear that the deficit and the national debt
    somehow are attributed to the Democratic Party, the President
    of the United States, and so on.
        So I think I will just quote a Republican instead, David
    Stockman, ``The debt explosion has resulted not from big
    spending by the Democrats but instead the Republican Party's
    embrace about three decades ago of the insidious doctrine that
    deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts. By fiscal
    year 2009, the tax cutters had reduced Federal revenues to 15
    percent of Gross Domestic Product, lower than they had been
    since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and
    engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George
    W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too, signing
    into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65
    percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years
    earlier.''
        So let us join forces and voices and be true to the
    objective. I really don't see that this particular amendment
    gets us anywhere close to that, especially when you think in
    terms of the funding sources, the potential impact on deficits,
    and such. And not only that, it would frustrate the whole
    purpose in initiating the intent and goal of the bill.
        So I stand in opposition to Mr. Lungren's amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any additional debate?
    Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly think we
    can get into a long debate on the history and the issues of tax
    cuts. I think it is important to note that if you look at the
    study done on the current deficit, only 14 percent of that is
    attributable to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and 50 percent or
    more is attributable to new spending and interest on that new
    spending.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Would you yield on that?
        The Chairman. I yield to Mr. Lungren first.
        Mr. Lungren. I thank the gentleman. I happened to have been
    here serving with Dave Stockman so I may have a different
    interpretation of what the gentleman says. But that is looking
    backward. My amendment establishes a simple principle. Stop
    digging. We can look back and say, it is your fault, it is my
    fault, it is this administration, that administration. I didn't
    say anything about that here.
        The principle I am extending here is that maybe we ought to
    establish a rule that says before we start a new program we
    make sure that it doesn't add to deficit. That is all I am
    saying here.
        The difference between what the gentleman from Texas spoke
    about and what I am speaking about is that this is a new
    program. When you are in debt for your family, the least
    prudent thing that you can do is stop spending on new things
    before you even try and figure out how you take care of your
    old debts. And that is the only principle I have got here.
        So I am not looking backwards. I haven't cast a stone at
    anybody here, Democrats, Republicans. All I know is the problem
    we have got right now, and it just seemed to me to be a fairly
    common sense approach. Before you start paying for a new
    program, make sure you pay for everything else you already
    have. Maybe go back and look at the programs you already have
    and see where you can cut there. But don't add to the problem.
    And that is all I am saying. Quit digging.
        I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Harper. I certainly will yield to you, Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. You may consider it spending. Sometimes you
    just have to invest in your democracy. And it is a good
    investment. And it pays dividends like any good investment. So
    I guess it really is your perspective on the faith that you
    have in the democratic process in extending as much opportunity
    to those that want to serve. That is why I am looking at it.
    And if I thought this was a deficit buster and got us deep or
    deeper--and we could go into a debate, and I would with Mr.
    Harper; this is not the time to do it. But I think we have got
    the facts and figures to demonstrate how we got to where we are
    today and the results of the recession. You may say, Well,
    things are bad. As compared to what and where we have been?
        So I don't want to get into that with you guys, but by the
    same token I can't say that we have got the holy grail of
    saying we are not going to do anything new when we know that it
    is a sound investment in our country and its future. And that
    is why I would oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
        And I yield back. And thank you, Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Any additional debate on the
    amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment. All those
    in favor signify by saying aye. All those against, no. In the
    opinion of the Chair the noes have it.
        Mr. Lungren. I would like a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman. A rollcall, please.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        According to the rollcall votes, the ayes are 2 and the
    nays are 6. The amendment fails.
        Are there any other amendments?
        Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes,
    and the amendment is read.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this
    amendment raises an issue that I believe I raised several times
    at previous hearings and other occasions. Though I support the
    concept of the proposal, my problem is I want to make sure to
    the best of my ability that we are not simply taking the power
    of ability to select candidates and shifting that to organized
    groups. I believe that with the current limits of $5 and 1,500
    names, that that simply means that everybody who wants to
    qualify for this has to go and beg for the support of
    preexisting organizations, either party organizations or unions
    or business groups or Internet groups, or whoever it might be,
    we have to beg them for their support. And I say that out of
    personal experience.
        It is hard to do these numbers, it is impossible to do
    them, because Federal law doesn't require us to list who
    donates below $200. So therefore I can't tell exactly how many
    people actually would have gotten 1,500 donations. I can only
    tell what I got. I have--well, I have once. I have never had
    1,500 donations in a given year. And it is because I am not
    beholden to my own party. Different places are different.
    Different candidates are different. I have actually never had
    the support of my party when I needed it. Now they love me when
    I am in, but they have never helped me when I have needed them.
        I have never had the support of organized labor in any real
    serious way--a handful of labor unions--when I have needed
    them. I have never had the support of business groups--well,
    almost never--when I needed them. They all love me when I am
    in, but when I need them, the only people I have gotten support
    from is average, disorganized, regular people who just want a
    change. And I think that they should not be shut out because
    people like me might have trouble getting out to 1,500 people
    at $5 a pop.
        Now I don't know what the number is. My proposal is 500
    people at $50. I also think $5 donations--the best campaign
    donations I have every gotten in my life, and I have been doing
    this now nor over 30 years, were the small donations because
    they mean the most. But they are also not, except for a handful
    of people--in this case it encourages these large organizations
    to get less committed $5 donations from their 1,500 members
    simply so that their hand-selected candidates can qualify.
        I think, and, again, for me, it is a compromise at $50; $50
    says we are truly committed to this individual. And there are
    only a few people who can get $50 donations to 10 different
    candidates in a State so their hand-selected 10 candidates can
    get in. At the same time this amendment says those $5 donations
    are recognized toward the $50,000 limit. Try not do devalue
    them.
        The intent is to say yes, there has to be limits; yes,
    there has to be broad-based support to qualify. I totally agree
    with that concept. The question is where the line should be.
    Without the ability to really look at every candidate--I tried
    and you can't do it because of that $200 nonreporting
    requirement--but trying to get an idea, there would be a lot of
    people, especially in their first campaign, who run for this
    office who would not qualify. And that being the case, I would
    fear that having it at 1,500 people we are simply turning to
    the MoveOns and the unions and the Chamber of Commerce and
    saying, You pick all the candidates. Not the people, you do it.
        Now I think that running around crazy trying to raise money
    is limiting. I would love to find a way to get the self-funders
    limited. We can't do it. I agree. This is another way. I don't
    think it would be a good idea to simply hand the keys over to
    any organization. Though I work well with most of them and I am
    proud to have their support, I don't think we should be putting
    not just ourselves, more importantly our successors in the
    position of having to beg the organized parties or the
    organized labor unions, or the organized Internet groups, or
    whoever it might be, the preexisting ones, by the way,
    otherwise, people like me, I have never joined an organized
    group. And I consider the Democratic Party completely
    disorganized.
        So everybody is different. There are some people who are a
    creation of any one of those groups, Chamber of Commerce,
    union. And that is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. But
    you shouldn't have to be. So that is what this amendment is an
    attempt to do. It is simply trying to say there are people--and
    I think it is a good idea, if we are going to do this, to allow
    the vast majority of people who are not part, or at least not
    beholden, to any organized group to also participate in
    deciding who qualifies and who doesn't. And that is what this
    amendment is intended to do.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any additional debate
    on the amendment? Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point being
    made and I am not sure I am prepared to support this amendment
    today because I am also trying to think on the other side,
    which is that if you are a candidate you can't just be a self-
    promoter. It is a group sport.
        I remember when I ran for Congress, I was certainly not
    expected to win. There were big headlines in the San Jose
    Mercury. The day after, everybody was so surprised. How did we
    do it? It was other parents at the school. You can't just put
    your name out there.
        Part of this is getting voters and other people who agree
    to try and change their country. And so it is a balance. You
    don't want someone who really is just looking for a job and
    doesn't have support in his own community or her own community.
    I don't want to say fringe candidates because sometimes fringe
    is in the eye of the beholder. But I would just talk about the
    need if you are going to be a candidate, that you should have
    almost a requirement to go out and connect with the people who
    live in the district that you are offering to represent.
        And whether 1,500 is the magic number, I don't know, 500. I
    would like to discuss this further between now and the floor,
    Mr. Capuano, whether it is $5 or $50. I understand what you are
    saying about Internet groups. But because of the Internet, it
    is so much easier now to reach out through Facebook or through
    e-mails, to touch people and dialogue with them.
        I am not sure that the amendment gets it right. I am not
    certain that the underlying text gets it right. But I am not
    prepared to support the change at this point. But maybe we
    could have some more discussion between now and the floor. And
    I appreciate the gentlemen's comments because they are
    thoughtful ones.
        Mr. Capuano. Would the lady yield?
        Ms. Lofgren. Of course.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Again, I am
    not stuck on a magic number. But I will tell you unequivocally,
    that there is no way I will vote for this bill when it comes to
    the floor if it is 1,500. And I will do it because I know how
    many people donated to me in 1998, 752. 752 inspired by me. And
    I did take the trouble to do the best I could to check all the
    people that came into my class and none of them, none of them
    listed 1,500 donors and very few of them listed a whole lot of
    money under the 200, because you have to put in the general
    category. You can guess, but very few of them. I am willing to
    bet, if we could get all the individual documents, you would
    find one or two people who got elected in my class of 1998 who
    actually had 1,500 donors or more. I am not saying 500 is a
    magic number. It is just a number, just like 1,500 is just a
    number.
        As far as the Internet goes, I have just been through the
    Internet. And it is fine, it is great. But it is better for
    incumbents that it is for challengers. When you are an unknown
    person entering a race like I presume you were or others were,
    we are not the only ones who weren't supposed to win, you don't
    have--the great Internet world doesn't just stop because you
    put your name on a Website, send me money. It didn't happen. My
    name is not Barack Obama, I am not running for President, I am
    running for Congress in one small district in Massachusetts.
    The concept is fine and I wish it happened. I did use the
    Internet a lot in my most recent election and it was good.
    Everything said and done, I got a few dollars from people who I
    didn't know. It mostly made it easier for people who were going
    to donate anyway.
        I am not going to push this today because I am not trying
    to be difficult on the issue. But I will be clear as I can that
    1,500 is an unobtainable number for most unassociated,
    unaffiliated. Now, some people think I am a wacko and that is
    fine. Maybe I am a fringe candidate. So be it. And I don't want
    30 people on the ballot either. But there is somewhere between
    being someone who is not beholden to the preexisting groups and
    having to be somebody who has to lay prostate on the ground
    begging them to send me $5 each because they are the ones with
    the e-mail list. They are the ones with people who will send $5
    checks to people they don't know. I wouldn't do it. I will not
    subject America to doing it.
        I am happy to work on this between now and the time it gets
    to the floor. But if it gets to the floor, a person who
    supports this bill will not vote for it because I think with
    these numbers, it makes it worse.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Capuano. I certainly do. It is not my time. It is the
    lady's time.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I will be brief. The first thing I
    want to say, Mr. Capuano, is if you remember the 752 who gave
    to you, you probably remember the 752 who did not too. So I do
    not want to be on your bad side.
        On the more serious point that Mr. Capuano makes, this is a
    very important exchange for the many people in the audience who
    care deeply about this issue. There is a myth sometimes,
    particularly on our side of the political world, the
    Democratic-progressive side, that grassroots techniques means
    grassroots results and the grassroots techniques means more
    accessibility, more openness to excluded people. Sometimes
    grassroots techniques means you simply got a big fat mailing
    list that you paid a lot of money for.
        I am 100 percent confident that Mr. Capuano's point is
    correct, that if you enact a campaign finance regime which
    requires a certain number of donors on the theory that that
    creates a more diverse, more representative candidate, what you
    will get is interest group-based politics with large mailing
    lists who go out and who use that to tinker with politics, in
    this case to manipulate and to gather public financing. And it
    makes the obvious point. Every campaign financing reform in the
    history of this country has had unintended consequences,
    whether it is the proliferation of minor candidates who don't
    truly have public support, whether it is political action
    committees that didn't exist in the 1960s and 1950s and today
    pollute politics in many ways, whether it is McCain-Feingold, a
    good piece of legislation leading to all of the unregulated
    independent expenditures that still exist. Every campaign
    finance reform that has been enacted by the Congress in its
    wisdom creates unintended consequences that close circles that
    were thought to be opened up in the system.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other debate on
    the amendment? It is my understanding that, Mr. Capuano, you
    are withdrawing the amendment now?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to withdraw--I
    am not happy, but I am willing. To be seen at a later time.
        The Chairman. Just one note, Mr. Capuano. You may be a
    wacko, but you are our wacko.
        The chair now moves to report H.R. 6116 favorably to the
    House. All those in favor signal by saying aye. Any opposed.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes
    have it and the bill is ordered reported favorably to the
    House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on
    the table.
        I ask unanimous consent to place certain documents in the
    record. Without objection, it is so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. All members have 2 additional days provided
    under the rules to file views. Without objection, staff will be
    authorized to make any necessary technical and conforming
    changes in the bill considered today.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have 5 items I would like to
    introduce for the record. I think we worked it out with your
    staff and I would ask your permission to enter them en bloc.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. With that, the committee now stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]