[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H475-H482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 359, ELIMINATING TAXPAYER FINANCING
OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 54 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 54
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 359) to reduce Federal spending and the
deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential
election campaigns and party conventions. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a
period not to exceed five hours. The bill shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill
are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and
except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each
amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who
caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered
as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 54 provides for a modified
open rule for consideration of H.R. 359, which is a bill to reduce
Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of
Presidential election campaigns and party conventions.
Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to stand before you in a House
dominated by new a Republican majority focused on changing the
direction from the failed liberal policies that have dominated
Washington for the past 4 years. Although there remains some obstacles
to realizing the full breadth of a Republican agenda so desperately
needed to pull our economy out of the doldrums, it is indeed a new day.
This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 359, legislation
authored by my friend, Mr. Cole, that I have cosponsored as it
represents a small step towards a brighter future for our country.
Instead of considering legislation providing perpetual spending
increases as the solution for all that ails us, in a departure from
Washington groupthink, H.R. 359 would actually reduce Federal spending,
Mr. Speaker.
Although this concept may be foreign to many liberals and many
Washington Beltway insiders, it's what the Americans expect out of the
new Republican majority they recently sent to represent them here in
the people's House. Instead, H.R. 359, which CBO estimates would save
$617 million over 10 years, eliminates an expensive Federal program
that wastes taxpayer money funding Presidential campaigns and national
party conventions.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the proposed rule to H.R. 359 to terminate
the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the ability for taxpayers
to designate $3 of their Federal tax liability for financing of
Presidential election campaign.
This week, Republicans have engaged in what amounts to a shifty
attack on a program that successfully limited the influence of
corporations and special interests in our Presidential campaigns,
tilting the playing field further in favor of multimillionaires who
can, and often do, spend their own money.
Just as poll taxes and literacy tests prevented poor people and
minorities from voting, eliminating this program will place those
without the multimillion-dollar political clout yet another step away
from having their day in a Presidential race.
{time} 1020
This program allows every taxpaying American to voluntarily check a
box--and I think I should reiterate here the individual ``opts in'' to
this program--on their 1040 to put $3 in the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund. A married couple has the option of $6 if filing jointly.
Checking the ``yes'' box does not increase the amount of taxes an
individual owes, nor does it decrease any refund to which he or she is
entitled.
In establishing the checkoff program, Congress left the single most
important decision to the taxpayer. The taxpayer, not the House
Republican leadership, decides whether he or she wants $3 of their
taxes to be used for the Presidential funding program. The choice is
theirs to voluntarily check ``yes'' or ``no.'' And I might add, during
our hearing in the Rules Committee yesterday, several of us, including
some of my Republican colleagues, indicated that they had at one time
or another participated in this program. And yet now they want to
eliminate it. Yes, this program does need improvement, but it is far
from ineffective or obsolete.
Since the fund's inception in 1976, every Presidential candidate
before 2008 has used the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the
general election,
[[Page H476]]
and Republicans' own 2008 Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain,
used it to fund his election.
During the 2008 election cycle, nearly $17 million of public funds
were spent for the Republican convention, and an equivalent amount for
Democrats; $84 million to Republicans for general election grants; and
a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for parties'
candidate nominations.
House Republican leaders have promised to bring reform and
accountability to Congress, and I quote from the Republican Pledge to
America: ``We are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the
process.'' Is this the kind of reform and sunlight that you pledge to
the American people?
YouCut gives Americans a choice? Really? A Web site where you only
have the opportunity to vote ``yes'' for cutting--that is, either you
support the Republican agenda, or we do not care what you think. A Web
site where saying ``yes'' to meaningful programs, such as the National
Endowment For the Arts, Legal Services Corporation, the Community
Development Program, and a fund that was created specifically to
empower Presidential candidates to participate in the political system
regardless of their socioeconomic status or their relationship with
special interest influence, is not welcome.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: A more fitting name
for the ``YouCut'' program would be ``CutYou'' because it hurts
everyday Americans while doing little to cut the Federal deficit.
Simply put, YouCut undercuts our democracy. The summary's headline
for the legislation we are considering today is: End the Presidential
Election Fund--Savings of $520 million over 10 years.
The biased paragraph goes on to say: ``In short, it provides taxpayer
subsidies to political candidates and parties.'' Not only are the
summaries provided on YouCut inaccurate, they are written to elicit a
specific response.
We know that use of the fund has declined in recent years. President
Obama was the first candidate since the fund's inception to opt out of
the public financing in the general election, and other candidates have
opted out of public financing in primary elections. If candidates from
major parties continue to decline public financing, then the savings
from eliminating the fund could and likely will be substantially lower.
Confusing YouCut voters with one-sided jargon and eliminating
programs like the Presidential Election Campaign Fund are not the
answers; fixing the public financing system and paying attention to
what the American people really want are the answers.
What Republicans fail to mention is that the YouCut program is
inherently selective, and therefore biased. Neither online nor cell
phone voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it.
Furthermore, the YouCut program conveniently targets only those who
have Internet access and cell phones, which disproportionately leaves
out a lot of the poor and elderly. The last time I checked, an
undisclosed number of votes on a partisan Web site does not constitute
the will of the American people.
Republicans seem to think that this online gimmick is an effective
substitute for good governance. Now, the Republicans have promised over
and over again that the 112th Congress would be a new wave of
accountability and transparency. And yet this, like every other major
bill that has been considered thus far, is lacking in both. The
Republican leadership has held no hearings or markups, failed to
consider alternatives, and crafted a bill so narrow that very few
amendments can even be considered germane.
Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates rather than repairs the
Presidential public financing system, which is, in my judgment,
irresponsible and will move our Nation in the wrong direction. I
suggest that the next campaign more than likely on either side,
Republican or Democrat, will cost as much as $1 billion each.
The House Republican leadership has touted that they are going to
change the permissive culture of Congress. Today's consideration of
this legislation is evidence that the only thing House Republicans want
to do is glorify the permissive culture of their own party.
I urge my colleagues to instead focus on repairing the system and
maintain the focus on increasing the roles of average citizens in our
Presidential election process.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chair of the
Rules Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation
to my good friend from Grandfather Community for doing her typically
wonderful job of managing the rule. I also want to say to my friend
from Fort Lauderdale that I appreciate his thoughtful remarks. I am
somewhat dumbfounded, though, that for the first time since April 8,
2008--it has been 4 years, April 4, 2008, it was a beach bill that was
being considered here--we had a modified open rule. We now are going to
allow Members of this House to engage in a free-flowing debate. Our
Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Polis, came up to me last night right
before the State of the Union message saying that he was looking
forward to offering an amendment that he told me he submitted for the
Record last night. So we are going to, for the first time in a long
time, allow for free-flowing debate. So I can understand why my friend
might want to oppose the underlying legislation. I disagree with him,
but I can't understand why in the world they would conceive of opposing
for the first time since April 8, 2008, having the kind of free-flowing
debate that both Democrats and Republicans and the American people
deserve to see their representatives have in this institution.
And what is this legislation all about? This legislation is all about
job creation and economic growth. Job creation and economic growth. And
one might say, when you are talking about the Presidential checkoff,
how is that about job creation and economic growth?
Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Last night the President time and
time again talked about the importance of creating jobs. And as I said
during my 1-minute presentation here, the President made it very clear
that we need to make sure that we live within our means. Now, what is
it that living within our means will do?
{time} 1030
We need to send a message to those potential job creators out there
that the United States Government is getting its fiscal house in order
so that there can be a level of confidence for those businesses to
create jobs. Right now, when you look at the fact that we have this $14
trillion debt, when you look at the fact that we have deficits as far
as the eye can see, it's not sending a very positive signal for those
people who want to create jobs.
So you ask, Why is it we're taking on a new program like this? Well,
the new estimate has it from $520 million to $617 million. This is
based on the new estimates.
Now, is it a small amount of money? Of course it's a small amount of
money.
Why is this chosen? Well, I think that there is a reason. It's the
fact that it has failed.
President Obama chose to cast aside and not utilize this system when
he was running for President, and John McCain did use it, as my friend
from Fort Lauderdale said in the Rules Committee yesterday. We've
already had the President of the United States announce that his plan
is to raise $1 billion for his reelection campaign. That would lead me
to conclude that President Obama, assuming he runs for reelection, is
not planning to use this fund.
Let's also look at the fact that, since 1980, when it was in effect,
28.7 percent of the American people utilized that checkoff; and today,
about 7.3 percent--or something like that--of the American people are
using that checkoff system that is there.
Now, I listened to the remarks of my friend from Fort Lauderdale in
which he said that the notion of getting rid of this would allow
corporations to be involved in a much greater way, and he implied that
there would be all kinds of corruption.
[[Page H477]]
No one--no one, Mr. Speaker--is advocating that we go back to the way
the campaign finance law was before 1974 and Watergate. I mean, it was
a horrible, horrible time. Disclosure and accountability are very
important, and we have in place today, under the Federal election law,
limitations that exist. No corporate contributions are allowed to be
made to Federal advocates. No corporate contributions are allowed to be
made to Federal candidates.
There is the notion of somehow claiming that, by saving $617 million,
the idea of taking that amount of money off the table and allowing
people to voluntarily support the candidates of their choice is somehow
going to encourage greater corporate contributions. It's against the
law. This does nothing to change that, and I think that it's a very
specious argument to propound something other than the case here.
Mr. Speaker, I will say again we are going to have a rigorous debate
on this, and Members are going to have an opportunity to participate.
If Members do want to oppose the underlying legislation, I think they
should be welcomed to do that, but I still find it very hard to believe
that for the first time in the history of our Republic, now approaching
222 years this spring, we saw an entire Congress have not a single bill
considered under an open amendment process; and while this is not an
open rule--and I'm not claiming it's an open rule--it is a modified
open rule that does allow for the kind of free-flowing debate that we
haven't seen in a long period of time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with Ms. Foxx in
support of this rule. Then let's have the free-flowing debate and
allow, as Speaker Boehner regularly says, the House to work its will.
Then we'll have a vote, and people can vote however they'd like at the
end of the debate.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, that free-flowing debate consists of six preprinted
amendments. Five of those amendments are not in order. So we're going
to have a free-flowing debate on six matters that are offered; and if
what he just said is going to give the American public the impression
that we're having a free-flowing debate, then I must have missed
something.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that, obviously, this is a very positive
step in the direction for allowing for that debate. If we had 100
amendments filed that were germane, we'd have the outside time limit
and an opportunity for a debate to take place on those amendments.
So, again, any Member had the chance--Democrat or Republican alike--
to file amendments last night so that we could consider them on the
House floor, and I think it's a great thing.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reclaim my time merely to point out that I
don't consider five matters that are not in order and one that's going
to be ultimately debated to be a free-flowing debate.
We'll get there. Perhaps we'll get there after we listen to my good
friend, the former chair of this committee and the distinguished
ranking member from New York.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
You know, it's rather ironic that we are having this debate today,
because it is almost exactly 1 year from the day the Supreme Court
decided the Citizens United case. That decision opened the floodgates
for anonymous special interests and corporations to dump unlimited
amounts of cash into our political system. Predictably, the result of
this awful judgment was to set loose a torrent of secret money to
influence the midterm elections this past November.
Now my Republican colleagues propose to further erode whatever
protections our government has left against a state of ``democracy for
the highest bidder'' by attempting to undo our system of Presidential
public financing.
Let's remember where this system came from. It was a direct response
to the Wild West--unregulated, freewheeling campaigns that led up to
the Watergate scandal. The atmosphere of that time was described by
campaign finance expert Fred Wertheimer as so bad that contributors to
Richard Nixon's reelection campaign were ``literally flying into
Washington with satchels of cash.'' Hidden, unregulated, private money
ruled.
In response to that, Congress acted as much as it could to clean up
that system, and we have done fairly well with that.
Our democracy will not be able to afford a return to that corruption,
but that is what we start today with this bill. This bill will result
in even more corporate and special interest money in our campaigns than
we have today--and that's really saying something. We don't even know
how much money comes in from foreign money.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is the one place in our
Federal electoral system where we take some of the pressure off of
candidates who otherwise have to raise bushels of private money. For
the life of me, I can't see how this bill does anything other than add
insult to the injury of the terrible Citizens United decision last
year. This bill will also take away from American taxpayers the freedom
to choose to support good government, to choose to support the public
financing of campaigns.
Republicans cite the low participation rate as a reason to scrap the
entire program. I don't see the sense of that argument. The amount of
money that goes into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is
directly proportional to how many people check the box on the tax form.
Apparently, there is enough support for the program for American
taxpayers to designate a projected $617 million, since that's the
number being thrown around here today, to be saved over the next 10
years. That sounds to me like enough support to keep the program
around. Now, that is certainly not to say that this current system is
perfect. It has not really been changed since the seventies. On the
contrary, our current system is one in dire need of reform.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. As the Washington Post said yesterday in an editorial
opposing this bill: We have a great need to rehab it. Let's fix it.
Don't junk it.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I'd like to see an honest attempt to reform our campaign finance
system to provide for openness, transparency and good government. I
hope that the other side will join me in supporting such an effort.
There are already two bills introduced last Congress and being
circulated now that will do just that. The House's very own campaign
finance policy expert, Mr. Price of North Carolina, introduced a bill
last year, H.R. 6061, the Presidential Funding Act of 2010, which would
strengthen and expand the system the Republicans want to dismantle, to
bring the system into line with the reality of today's campaigns and
boost participation rates.
Also, H.R. 5175 in the last Congress, the DISCLOSE Act, which this
House passed last year. The DISCLOSE Act would make sure we know where
the money flooding our campaigns is coming from.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no''
on the rule, and ``no'' on the bill. Instead of this anti-small-d-
democratic bill the Republicans have brought to the floor without any
public input, without any committee hearings and markups, let's debate
a serious plan to improve our campaign finance system and strengthen
our democracy.
{time} 1040
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to our colleagues
across the aisle who are complaining about some of the proposed
amendments being declared not germane that it is not the Republicans
who decide whether amendments are germane or not germane; it is the
Parliamentarian's office that decides that. They can do the same thing
to our amendments as well as to the Democrats' amendments.
I now yield such time as he may consume to my colleague on the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I could not get over here to the floor fast
enough when I saw this rule come up for debate, and I rise in strong
support of this rule today and in strong support of the underlying
legislation.
[[Page H478]]
I am pleased to be joined on this day after the State of the Union
not just by my colleagues but with so many young people in the gallery
today, because that is exactly what this debate is about.
We've heard much talk on the floor of this House over the past week
about the upcoming CBO baseline report. Well, if it arrived in your
email boxes this morning like it did mine, you saw that CBO's most
recent score predicts a $6.9 trillion, 10-year operating deficit.
That's not the $14 trillion in debt that these young people are going
to have to pay back, it's the actual operating deficit, the additional
debt that we're going to add over the next 10 years. This proposal
today is one small step towards attacking that operating deficit.
Now we're talking about big numbers here today. Somewhere between
$500 million and $600 million will be saved with the elimination of
this proposal. But folks, $6.9 trillion is where we have to go over the
next 10 years. So if you think that this underlying proposal, the
public financing proposal, has some merit, I look forward to debating
that when the time comes, when we get our operating deficit under
control. But we don't just need to pass this provision today; we need
to pass this provision and 10,000 more just like it to get to a
balanced budget.
Now, I want you to think about that. All of the discussion, all of
the gnashing of teeth, the handwringing about eliminating this
provision today, folks, this is just the beginning. This proposal and
10,000 more just like it are what we need to pass in this House. The
question isn't why are we bringing up this proposal today; the question
is why don't we have three or four or five more just like it.
I look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to talk about those provisions, talk about those spending items
in our budget that we can get rid of. But folks, I am absolutely
certain, as the YouCut site pointed out when America voted, that public
financing is one of the top 10,000 things that we can get rid of. We
don't have to decide today whether this is number one of the 10,000
most wasteful programs in government or number 10,000 of the 10,000
most wasteful programs in government; we only have to decide if it's
somewhere on that spectrum. I tell you that it is, and I rise in strong
support of this rule.
The second reason I had to rush over here to the floor is I'm brand
new. I've been in this House less than 1 month, and I'm down here
speaking on a rule that offers an open amendment process.
Now, if anybody has been watching the House floor, as I have, over
the past 2 years, you might wonder what an open amendment process is,
and you would be right to wonder because you've never seen one. I may
be a freshman in this body, but folks who came 2 years before me, the
sophomores in this body, they don't have any more experience in this
process than I do, because this is the first open amendment process
that we've seen on the floor of the House. Why are we seeing it?
Because it's the right thing to do for the institution.
Speaker Boehner has made a point of saying the House is going to work
its will. I come from a very conservative district in the northeastern
suburbs of Atlanta. And I tell you, when the House works its will,
we're not always going to get what we want in the northeastern suburbs
of Atlanta, because the House sits kind of here in the middle, and I'm
a little further over here on the right-hand side of the spectrum. But
in order for this Congress to work, in order for this House to work, in
order to restore the dignity of this House, we have to allow the House
to work its will.
I am just so pleased, in my very first month in Congress, that we not
only have seen very narrowly focused pieces of legislation come to the
floor, but we're seeing them come to the floor under an open amendment
process.
And let me just say one thing about that open amendment process,
particularly for folks, again, who haven't seen one before, folks who
are in the gallery or watching on TV who have not seen an open
amendment process before. Just because it's open doesn't mean you can
do whatever you want to do on the House floor. We're talking about the
public financing of elections today. So if you have an amendment that's
going to change the way we finance education, that amendment is not
going to be germane. If you have an amendment about what you want to do
with the health care system, that amendment is not going to be germane.
When you bring narrowly crafted pieces of legislation to the floor,
the amendments that are germane are narrowly crafted amendments. And
folks, I love that. For too long we have had 2,000-page bills, 1,000-
page bills that folks can't read and can't understand and that can't be
amended. And I am so pleased today to be standing here in strong
support of my colleague from North Carolina's resolution. I will be
voting in favor of the rule, and I will be voting in favor of the
underlying legislation.
I thank the gentlelady for the time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair and not to occupants of the gallery.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my
good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to
speak on the rule.
I rise in opposition today to the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, first it was repealing patients' rights; then it was a
budget resolution with no budget. Every one of us in this Chamber was
elected to Congress with a goal of creating jobs and growing our
economy, yet there hasn't been any talk about that.
Today, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor another
piece of political posturing that takes us away from that goal of
creating jobs for millions of Americans and establishing economic
stability and growth. Rather than wasting time bringing these bills to
the floor, we should be working to develop innovative, bipartisan
solutions that will create jobs, reduce the deficit, and put our
economy back on track.
We can all agree that our campaign finance system is broken. In every
election, more and more dollars are spent by wealthy corporations and
special interests on campaigns, inflicting great damage on the American
people's trust in government. I know a lot of my friends wanted to turn
the television off by the end of the last campaign. But ending the
Presidential Campaign Fund would only further breach that trust.
Recent polls have found that the public overwhelmingly believes that
money buys elections--by 5 to 1 in some polls. And it's no surprise,
because election spending has gone up fourfold between the 2006 and
2010 congressional elections. With a voluntary $3 individual
contribution, the Presidential Campaign Fund is a modest part of the
answer to the Nation's campaign finance needs, not the problem. It is a
way to include the people's voice in our government by honoring small
donations and helping restore the people's faith in democracy.
Nearly all Presidential candidates from both parties over the past 35
years have used this fund as a way to reduce the emphasis on
fundraising and special interests. Our democracy in its current form
would cease to exist if only the rich and powerful could influence
public officials.
I ask you today, when the middle class is suffering and job creation
is our number one goal, why do we continue to talk about giving more
power to big money contributors for Presidential campaigns? After the
Supreme Court's terrible decision on Citizens United, we need the exact
opposite of this bill--true, reasonable campaign finance reform. That's
how democracy is restored and people are empowered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. POLIS. The people's House should not be spending its time cutting
off the connection of the people of this country to the White House.
Yes, our Presidential campaign finance system is broken. It needs to be
repaired, not eliminated, so we can have a fair way of electing our
leaders.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague from
Colorado,
[[Page H479]]
this is not cutting off access of our citizens to the White House. Our
citizens have voted in lots of different ways to express their opinions
in this country in the last year or so. In November, they voted to
replace our spendthrift colleagues on the other side of the aisle with
people on our side of the aisle who want to cut government spending.
They voted on this program by reducing their involvement in this
program to a very small number. If they wanted this program, they could
have continued to participate in it. They participated in the YouCut
program, which singled out this program as something that needed to be
cut.
We are listening to the American people, Mr. Speaker--we are doing
that in many different ways; this is one of the ways--because they've
told us at least in three different ways that they want a different
kind of working going on in Washington, D.C. They don't want a lot of
spending; they want us to cut back spending. And they've told us this
on this program three different ways. So I would like to point that
out.
Mr. Speaker, according to Congressional Quarterly, nearly $139
million in public funds were spent during the 2008 election cycle,
including $17 million each for the Democratic and Republican
conventions, $84 million to Republicans for general elections grants,
and a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for candidates
for the nominations of Democrats, Republicans, and other parties.
{time} 1050
As is the case with so many other actions, the Federal Government has
no business funding political campaigns, particularly while the
troubled economy demands fiscal restraint. And let me point out that
the way the Federal Government gets its money is, again, by taxing the
American people or, in this case, by using funds that the people have
said that it could be used for.
The proposal embodied by H.R. 359 first received attention as a
result of then-Republican Minority Whip Cantor's initiative dubbed
``YouCut.'' Majority Leader Cantor is continuing this innovative effort
which encourages public participation in our wonderful American
democracy.
The Web site, located at majorityleader.gov/YouCut, for the first
time enables Americans to make their voices heard by voting weekly on
various proposals to shrink, rather than grow, Federal spending. As I
said in my earlier remarks, this is one of the ways the American people
can tell us what they think.
According to the official YouCut Web site, ``The Presidential
Election Campaign Fund provides Federal tax dollars in the form of
matching funds to candidates in Presidential primaries provided the
candidates qualify and agree to abide by certain spending and
contribution limits. It provides grants to qualifying Presidential
candidates in general elections, if they agree not to accept other
contributions. The program also provides grants to sponsor national
party conventions.
``In short, it provides taxpayer subsidies to political candidates
and parties. Since 2000, some major candidates have chosen to forgo
public financing. While some have argued that providing even more
taxpayer funding for this program might entice more candidates to
participate, eliminating the program altogether . . . would require
candidates and political parties to rely on private donations rather
than tax dollars. The amount of funding for the public financing system
is determined by checkoffs on income tax returns, and taxpayer
participation via the checkoffs has declined,'' Mr. Speaker, ``from
28.7 percent in 1980 to 7.3 percent in 2009.'' And that's the end of
the quote from the Web site.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the American people are telling us how they feel
about this program because they're not using the checkoff.
As the program grows increasingly less popular, its purpose is
accordingly muddled. For example, while on the campaign trail, then-
candidate Barack Obama, who portrayed himself as a longtime supporter
of public financing, ultimately broke his pledge to participate in the
presidential public financing system. If public financing isn't good
enough for such a vehement supporter, why should taxpayers finance
partisan political campaigns?
That's why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, my good friend,
Gerry Connolly.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, we just heard a reference to YouCut and that this was
one of the most popular cuts suggested by people on this Republican
blog. Well, Mr. Speaker, 10 million Americans want to participate in
public financing of Presidential campaigns. And I would dare say that
dwarfs anything we've heard from YouCut. So if we're going to get in
the business of what the American people want and how they've expressed
themselves, 10 million voices are in threat of being silenced today by
this rule and the underlying legislation.
The idea that we're going to save money and solve the deficit by
eliminating public financing in presidential campaigns is fallacious.
But I will give the other side credit: It is intellectually honest.
When you have a Supreme Court ruling like Citizens United that fosters
anonymous financing of campaigns, no wonder you want to delete public
financing of campaigns.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my friend of longstanding, the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I don't like to reference the Republican
chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, because he did leave the
floor. But he made a couple of statements that I have to comment on.
First of all, he said that this Republican initiative is about
creating jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion.
I've watched as the Republicans have been in the majority now for about
3 or 4 weeks, and they're not doing anything to create jobs. And this
certainly doesn't create jobs.
And then Mr. Dreier said that there can be no corporate contributions
under the current law. Well, the Citizens United case clearly says that
there are unlimited corporate contributions, and that's the problem.
Rather than having public financing of campaigns--which this
legislation would eliminate--we're going to have more and more
corporations just spending millions and millions of dollars to finance
campaigns. And that's what this is all about.
This is the Republicans basically catering to special interests and
the large corporations who will spend unlimited amounts of corporate
money on campaigns, and not having in this case a public financing
component through voluntary largely small donations.
Now, I have to say this is a system that we have now that's been in
place since Watergate. It was a reform that Democrats and Republicans
used, a reform of a very bad system that the Watergate scandal showed
was not the way we should go. And I agree that the system needs to be
updated, but it should be changed to meet the needs of today's
elections that are costing more, and more primaries, and the focus
should be on small donations, not getting rid of small donations.
But what we see instead is the Republican majority eliminating the
system altogether and making Presidential campaigns more susceptible to
what I call outside influence.
We saw the effect of the Citizens United case in the past election,
where corporations and special interests poured money to sway the
elections in their favor. With disclosure requirements almost
nonexistent, we have no way of knowing whether foreign corporations or
entities were contributing to the elections. And we have to question
whose side the new Republican House majority is on.
Unfortunately, it appears that this is just another attempt by the
Republicans to support their special interest friends and big
corporations who have an unfair and undue influence on our electoral
process.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the American people are
buying these tired arguments that our colleagues across the aisle are
using
[[Page H480]]
about us wanting to be the tools of corporate interest. That is not the
issue here.
The issue here is that the public has said in at least three
different ways, as I said before, that this program is not worth
continuing.
My colleague from Virginia said that we're denying 10 million
Americans the opportunity to participate in donating to campaigns. That
isn't true. Individuals can donate to any campaign they want to. So
these American people who are now doing the checkoff can easily write a
$3 check to the candidates of their choice. We're not stopping that in
any way whatsoever.
What we are doing is saying we don't need to be supporting political
conventions, primarily, and candidates. They're perfectly capable of
raising the money directly from the American people. And what we are
doing, though, is saying that $617 million is real money. Our
colleagues across the aisle don't think $617 million will put a dent in
our deficit? That shows you how far away from the American people they
are. They don't think of $617 million as significant.
Mr. Speaker, the American people think that $617 million is
significant. They want us to cut spending wherever we can, and this is
a program that has long ago outlived its usefulness.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am one of those
people among the 10 million that did do the checkoff of $3 for
publicly-financed Presidential campaigns and to support the national
parties' conventions. I feel very strongly that my $3 now is directed
in a way that I did not wish that it should be directed.
I do urge my friend from North Carolina to understand that at least
one Member on this side clearly understands that $617 million is a
whole whale of a lot of money. To some of us, $617 or $67 is a whole
lot of money. That said, what is balanced here is whether or not we
should try in this institution to eliminate the kind of corruption that
comes by virtue of a flood of dollars going into campaigns.
To correct my colleague from California--and I wish he were here; I
would yield to him to respond--when he cites the fact that no corporate
dollars can be contributed to the respective candidates who are on the
ballot, he is absolutely correct. That is the law. But under the aegis
of the Citizens United decision, corporations and individuals can
contribute anonymously to any campaign. And we saw evidence of that on
both sides.
Now, I have seen every iteration of reform during the last 50 years
in the United States of America. Some of it was good and some of it
didn't achieve its mark. This particular measure had some limitations
and at the very same time did permit people like Eugene McCarthy, Jimmy
Carter, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Sr.,
just to mention a few, and more recently my good friend Dr. Ron Paul--
it gave them an opportunity to put forward their ideas. And the
argument that they can go out there and raise the kind of money that
would allow for that to happen I think is specious at best.
For most candidates, public funding from the Presidential election
campaign fund has been the source of sorely needed funds at crucial
points in Presidential races. To make matters worse, as has been
pointed out by Ms. Slaughter and myself and others, the legislation we
are considering today is a repeat of the disastrous Citizens United
decision, which on January 21, 2010, unleashed massive corporate
influence-buying expenditures in our national elections. In the face of
the first anniversary of Citizens United, we know for a fact how
essential it is to repair the Presidential public financing system and
provide Presidential candidates with a viable alternative for financing
their elections, as opposed to having to depend on influence-seeking
big donors, lobbyists, bundlers, and corporate spenders. We cannot
eliminate the corruption of our political system when we are
eliminating a program that was created to try to do that.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for this legislation is a vote for big
corporations and big private money to fund the election of their
desired candidates. The Presidential public financing system needs
repairs, but eliminating a program that works, that is voluntary, and
that gives a voice to the American people is not the answer.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House
adopts this rule it will bring up the DISCLOSE Act, with the same text
as H.R. 5175 from the 111th Congress, as it passed the House on June
24, 2010. This Republican proposal to eliminate voluntary public
financing for Presidential elections is, in my view, a step in the
wrong direction.
When Presidential campaigns stop receiving this clean money, they'll
have to go after private contributions instead. That's going to mean
more time spent talking to special interests and the powerful and less
time spent talking with the voters and communities and groups that have
good ideas and real problems to discuss but don't have multi-million
dollars to donate to a campaign.
Is that really what we want for our constituents? I am confident that
the answer is a resounding ``no.'' Make no mistake, this will affect
the quality of our campaigns and it will affect our democratic process.
We should be considering real campaign finance reform like the
DISCLOSE Act. That bill would establish disclosure requirements for
election-related spending by corporations, unions, and other
organizations. And I might add, Mr. Speaker, it was a measure, as
offered in the previous Congress, that did go through regular order,
did have substantial committee hearings, and was presented to the Rules
Committee, as opposed to this measure that has had absolutely no
hearings and just comes here direct to the floor under the rubric of a
modified open rule. And it would require, this DISCLOSE measure, any
person or organization making so-called ``independent expenditures''
over $10,000 to disclose them within 24 hours. That's what we need
after Citizens United, not politicians spending more time and energy to
raise big money.
The DISCLOSE Act would put a check on donations by Federal
contractors and prohibit contributions and expenditures by foreign-
controlled domestic corporations. And among its other provisions, for
example, is a prohibition on recipients of TARP funds from making
contributions or expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real
campaign finance reform today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 54 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting
only of the text of H.R. 5175 of the 111th Congress as passed
by the House. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
[[Page H481]]
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous
question, rule, and underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 178, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 22]
YEAS--234
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--178
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Black
Broun (GA)
Capuano
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Emerson
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Giffords
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Larson (CT)
Mica
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Young (AK)
[[Page H482]]
{time} 1131
Messrs. HOLT, GEORGE MILLER of California, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 22, I was detained in
committee. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 22, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 22 on H.R. 54, the
button did not record my ``no'' vote as the gavel fell.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________