[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H483-H499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        ELIMINATING TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 359, which terminates the taxpayer 
financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions.
  At the outset, I just want to mention in response to something that 
was said by the other side, this has absolutely nothing to do with the 
Citizens United case decided by the Supreme Court. That changed not one 
iota of campaign finance law. Corporations still cannot make 
contributions to campaigns or candidates. It does not change that.
  Citizens United had to do with the question of whether or not one 
loses his or her First Amendment protections of free speech, 
particularly with respect to expressions of political nature, merely 
because they associate with another person. The Supreme Court told us 
that you do not in fact lose your First Amendment rights because you 
happen to say it jointly with someone else. As a matter of fact, they 
pointed out that some people with the least amount of influence in a 
society actually expand their influence in the political debate by 
joining with others. And then the question that the Supreme Court 
answered was, if that association happens to be corporate in nature, 
happens to be a union, happens to be a for-profit, happens to be a not-
for-profit, whether that changes the dynamic as contemplated by the 
First Amendment protections, and they told us it did not. So let's get 
rid of that canard here on the floor right away. This has absolutely 
nothing to do with that. This has absolutely nothing to do with 
corporate contributions to campaigns or foreign contributions to 
campaigns, both of which remain illegal, with criminal sanctions, under 
the law.
  So let's get that out of the way to begin with so we don't have a lot 
of debate here that has nothing to do with the bill before us.
  Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves at a unique juncture in the 
longstanding debate over this issue; but, frankly, in reality, it is a 
juncture no longer. Taxpayer financing of Presidential elections and 
party conventions of the two major parties is simply no longer 
defensible.
  The first tax liability contributions from American taxpayers to be 
diverted toward the funding of Presidential elections began 35 years 
ago in 1976. This new practice was, as we were told by the other side, 
supposed to raise the public's trust in their government as well as 
increase both the number of candidates and, thus, electoral competition 
and the financial footing between parties. I believe, Mr. Chairman, it 
has failed on all accounts.
  It did allow us to have Lyndon LaRouche be a participant in the 
Presidential elections. I am not sure when we have had someone who had 
been subjected to a criminal conviction and actually conducted part of 
his campaign while still incarcerated, but that was brought to us by 
way of this fine law.
  Since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on this system. 
As we speak, there is a balance of $195 million sitting in the 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund at the U.S. Treasury Department. 
And yet this system of electoral subsidization has not changed the 
public's perception of our Presidential elections or our politics. 
According to one survey after another, Americans continue to harbor 
deep distrust of their elected officials. So does anyone think that our 
Presidential elections over the past 35 years have shown a virtuous 
progression toward more accuracy and more honesty?
  Mr. Chairman, prominent Presidential candidates, candidates who even 
supposedly believe in this system, have opted out of this taxpayer 
financing scheme in recent years. In 2004 and 2008, several candidates 
declined public financing for their primary campaigns.
  And as was mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois, during the most 
recent Presidential election, for the first time, a nominee of one of 
our two major political parties withdrew from the public financing 
during the general election and instead went on to raise record amounts 
of money for his campaign. And I recall when I thought we heard a 
pledge to participate in this program because of the virtuous nature of 
the program. Somehow that was lost along the campaign trail.
  One of the things I would like to point out is this: There is this 
idea that somehow we are going to be able to suppress money that goes 
into politics. The fact of the matter is it is like a balloon, a water 
balloon. If you squeeze it on one side, it comes out on the other side. 
The question is: How do we get it within the system?
  We should be talking about the idea of this silly demarcation between 
our parties and our candidates where we limit in extreme fashion the 
amount of money that can be transferred or coordinated, as if somehow 
that corrupts the candidate to have him or her identified with the very 
party they represent. We ought to be working towards those kinds of 
changes that will allow a greater responsibility on the party and the 
candidates to express their positions and to hold to their positions, 
be responsible for their positions. But no, we talk about these ways of 
how we are going to somehow reduce the impact of money in campaigns. It 
hasn't worked under this system. It hasn't worked.

                              {time}  1150

  In addition to Presidential primaries and general elections, if there 
is anything the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing, I would 
say--as much as I enjoy them--it is the week-long Presidential 
conventions. On our side of the aisle, in our party, I think we've had 
some indications of what I consider to be wasteful spending in 
preparation for our upcoming convention; and to say to the taxpayer 
that, in light of that, we ought to continue to subsidize the 
production of our Presidential conventions by the two major parties, it 
is very difficult to articulate and even to understand.
  They are, as I say, grand fun, wonderful occasions--week-long party 
gatherings that are, unfortunately, in this day and age, largely 
symbolic. One can't even argue something important is being decided 
because, unfortunately, they ceased to have real significance sometime 
ago, and that was part of our effort to try and cleanse the system.
  Rather than having people selected by these delegates that come to 
these conventions, we should move more and more to the primary 
operation and, of course, then earlier and earlier in the season so 
that somehow it becomes a 2-year event. I guess we're already in

[[Page H484]]

that. Taxpayers would be shocked, if not outraged, to discover that 
they have been funding these extravagant photo ops.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion 
has been spent on publicly funding our Presidential primaries, our 
Presidential general elections, and our Presidential party conventions. 
The American taxpayer has paid enough for this unwise experiment. I 
think it should be ended and the balance in the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account 
returned to the Treasury to be used for deficit reduction. I think we'd 
actually have the American people cheering us for that. According to a 
2010 Congressional Budget Office estimate, the elimination of this 
program will save American taxpayers $617 million over the next 10 
years.
  Now, some could say, Well, that's your opinion. We have our opinion. 
Why change things?
  Well, why don't we look to the opinion of the American people. Not a 
bad idea in this House. Simply put, this program does not have the 
support of the American people.
  Taxpayer support has declined precipitously over time. I remember, 
years ago, I thought it was a good experiment. I thought it was a good 
idea. I checked off for some of my taxes to go to this program. I was 
in hopes that it would actually prove to be a good change. I, like most 
Americans, though, who contributed to that in the past, have given up 
on the program. We don't believe it gave us what we thought it might.
  In 1980, for instance, the percentage of taxpayers participating 
through their tax form checkoffs was 28.7 percent. It was so popular 
that in 1985 it was 23 percent. It proved so successful that in 1990 it 
was 19.5 percent. Boy, it really proved itself by the year 1995, 
because then 12.9 percent of the American taxpayers decided they'd 
participate. In the year 2000, it dropped to 11.5 percent. In 2005, it 
was 9.1 percent. According to the IRS data obtained from the FEC, the 
checkoff rate in 2010 was 7.3 percent.
  In other words, on a direct vote, a plebiscite taken by the taxpayers 
of America, 92.7 percent reject the notion. Now, where I come from, 
that's a landslide. I think even in Chicago it would be a landslide--
even if you paid your taxes only once.
  Mr. Chairman, this candidate and convention subsidy is obviously 
unpopular. To paraphrase one former member of the Federal Election 
Commission, ``Any system of public financing must have popular support 
to succeed. Today's low taxpayer checkoff rates cast serious doubt on 
whether the public financing system has this support. When only one in 
13 taxpayers are participating, it is very difficult to conclude that 
the public financing system has broad popular support.''
  Mr. Chairman, as we promised in the Pledge to America and as we have 
promised here on the floor during these initial weeks of the 112th 
Congress and as we have verified by our transparency-enhancing rules 
package, our bipartisan votes to trim Congress' budget and end 
excessive congressional printing, by our determination to return 
discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less and now 
through this bill, the Republican majority is committed to fiscal 
stewardship, to having a relentless eye on waste and inefficiency, and 
to a continued commitment through this 112th Congress to reduce 
spending, to create private sector jobs, and to produce meaningful 
legislation that makes long-lasting reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, if we, in fact, mean what we say when we say we are 
willing to look at those programs that already exist and to judge 
whether or not they have proven to be efficacious, or efficient or 
successful, in promoting the principles that underlie their passage in 
the first place, we ought to start with this. This is a program that 
almost 93 percent of the American people who pay taxes reject, and 
we're asking them to participate. Maybe we ought to listen to what they 
are saying and, instead, allow the savings garnered by this particular 
bill to go toward deficit reduction.
  This bill, introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, should garner 
overwhelming bipartisan support. We should thank him for introducing 
it--and I do--and for his commitment to a more responsible and 
efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars. I would urge my colleagues 
to understand what this bill is and understand what it is not and to 
support H.R. 359.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a 
distinguished member of the Committee on House Administration.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 359.
  This bill will unnecessarily eliminate the $3 checkoff box--it's 
voluntary--on tax returns to fund Presidential elections, and it could 
increase the influence of special interests in the funding of 
Presidential campaigns.
  Now, the bill has been fast-tracked by the Republican leadership--
without any hearings, no markups, no respect for the committee process. 
As a member of the House Administration Committee and as a former chair 
of the Subcommittee on Elections, I am very concerned by the end run 
around our committee and the lack of deference shown to the committee 
and its members.
  Speaker Boehner promised 2 weeks ago, when he took the Speaker's 
gavel, more transparency in the legislative process and to focus on job 
creation. Last week, the new majority fast-tracked a health care reform 
repeal bill. This week, they expedite the repeal of this voluntary 
program without the proper process. So I think the Speaker may need to 
revisit his statement about process and transparency.
  In addition to the process concerns, I question the need for Congress 
to pass this bill at all. I was here as a young staffer when the 
Judiciary Committee took up the impeachment of President Nixon. It is 
worth remembering that the public finance system was created as a 
direct result of the Watergate scandal.
  Remember Phillips Petroleum, which illegally contributed $498,000 to 
the Nixon campaign; or Ruth Farkas, who told the Watergate grand jury 
that she gave $300,000 to the Nixon campaign as an explicit exchange 
for an ambassadorship to Luxembourg; or the Nixon tapes that revealed 
that Secretary John Connally shook down dairy farmers for $600,000 in 
contributions in exchange for raising milk price supports--to the 
detriment of children who needed milk around the country.
  These incidents eroded public confidence, not only in the Nixon 
administration, but in the entire system. In response, pursuant to the 
General Welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress passed 
sweeping election reforms, including the Presidential checkoff system.
  Now, I would not argue that this system is perfect at this time. I 
think it does need reform.

                              {time}  1200

  But I think mere elimination without a committee process is a huge 
mistake.
  I would hope that the committee could convene, that we could sort 
through what the problems are with this current system and how do we 
fix them, work in a bipartisan way to create the fixes, and then come 
to this House for the solution.
  I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, the author of the bill, Mr. Cole.
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I would 
just urge them to read the bill. It's only three pages long.
  Frankly, most of the things I've heard so far don't have anything to 
do with this legislation. This legislation doesn't raise the legal 
contribution limit for anybody. This legislation doesn't allow 
corporate contributions. This legislation keeps in place all the 
disclosure requirements for Presidential campaigns that we currently 
have. So those of you that are concerned about those things don't need 
to be concerned about this bill.
  H.R. 359 is really a very simple piece of legislation. It does two 
things: It removes taxpayer funding for Presidential campaigns, and it 
eliminates

[[Page H485]]

taxpayer funding for political party conventions by the two major 
parties.
  Now, I have to say, if you look at whether or not these ideas have 
been popular, historically they, frankly, haven't. When this was put in 
in the 1970s, the idea was that it would spread. It hasn't. We don't 
fund any of our elections with taxpayer dollars, our colleagues in the 
other body with taxpayer dollars; and, frankly, as my friend Mr. 
Lungren pointed out, popular participation in this program has declined 
for almost 30 consecutive years, from a high of 28 percent in 1980 to 
barely 7 percent today. So there is not much indication that it's 
popular.
  I need to say, for the record, that I philosophically have always 
been opposed to taxpayer dollars being used for political advocacy of 
any kind. Some of my friends on the other side have a very different 
point of view, and I respect that. We just have a philosophical 
difference. I think this is an inappropriate use of public money.
  Having said that, as I think even my friends on the other side at 
least tactically acknowledge, this is a program that is broken beyond 
belief. And the current system didn't just begin to break down in 2008. 
I'd go back to 2000. President Bush didn't use this system during the 
primary campaign. He only used the public system during the general 
election. Four years later, neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry 
chose to use this system in the primary portion of the campaign.
  Fast-forward another 4 years to 2008, neither President Obama nor 
now-Secretary Clinton chose to use this in the primary campaign. And 
the President, having committed to use it in the general, then chose 
not to use it in the general--certainly his right--but said at the time 
he still thought it was a great idea and that some day we ought to go 
back and fix it.
  Now, I will say this for the President. Having said that, we haven't 
seen any action on that front. He has been in office for 2 years. There 
has not been a proposal from the White House to fix this system. In 
fact, as my friends on the other side of the aisle know, currently he 
is planning to run for reelection; he is setting up a campaign. There 
has been a lot of thought on how to raise the money and how to put 
together a campaign, but no proposal from the administration to 
actually fix the system that they purport to support and that they said 
years ago they were going to try and fix. That's not true, by the way, 
of every Member on the other side. There have been some that have, I 
think, genuinely tried to fix things, but let's recognize this system 
has been in decline and decay for a long time.
  Now the estimates are that we could save $612 million over a 10-year 
period. We all know in this Chamber we have a $1.4 trillion deficit 
problem. Governing is choosing and prioritizing. This is $612 million 
that doesn't feed a single American, doesn't educate a single American, 
doesn't build a single mile of interstate highway or infrastructure, 
doesn't pay to defend the country; it simply goes to support a handful 
of politicians that want to run for President, many of whom are 
marginal.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. COLE. So in an era where we have to make genuinely hard 
decisions, to me, this is a no-brainer. This is a lot less important 
than a lot of the things that we need to consider and a lot of the 
decisions that we will have to make.
  There is leadership by lip service and there is leadership by 
example. If my friends on the other side think this is the appropriate 
thing--and certainly if the President thinks it, he ought to lead by 
example and participate in the system. If not, we ought to recognize 
it's broken, end it, save the money; and if somebody wants to rewrite a 
bill, then they ought to do that and let's introduce it and have that 
debate. But right now, this is money we can't afford to waste and this 
is a system that's broken.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 359. Let's get rid of this 
outdated system.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The short title of this bill ought to be ``The White Flag of the 
United States Congress on Campaign Finance.'' My distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma says, if it's broke, why don't we write a bill. 
That's exactly what the point is. There weren't very many people on 
this floor who were involved in politics when this whole thing blew up. 
You've forgotten 1972. We wrote a bill in the Congress--we didn't, but 
the Congress wrote a bill. Interestingly enough, they left themselves 
out of it, but they tried to control how much money went into a 
Presidential campaign. Now, if you don't index it for inflation or do 
some kind of mechanism, it's pretty clear that a law written with the 
limits of 1972 is going to be pretty out of date by 2012.
  There are some things we could do to change this process and make it 
more in sync with what's going on in society financially. But by saying 
you repeal it with nothing to replace it, you simply are saying we 
don't care how much money is spent in the election of the President of 
the United States; it is of no concern to the Republican Party 
whatsoever.
  It fits very nicely with the Citizens United lawsuit that allows 
corporate money to come in in a variety of other ways. And the system 
is now so corrupt that what you heard my colleague from California say, 
that is, all the things that were uncovered as a result of Watergate 
and the investigation that followed and led to the ejection of the 
President from the White House, was because we didn't have any controls 
on anything.
  Now, did we put the perfect controls in? No. Should we be amending 
this bill? Yes. Because I don't know what 2012 is going to cost--maybe 
$1 billion on either side. Sarah Palin will have $1 billion and Barack 
Obama will have $1 billion, and that will be all right with everybody. 
But the problem with that is that the ordinary folks in this country 
don't have any opportunity to participate.
  They also know that people don't give $1 billion with no expectation 
of something coming back. That's what happened in 1972. People gave 
money and they expected something back. And that's where the real 
fallacy here is in simply wiping this out without trying to fix it. 
It's an admission that you do not care how much money gets spent in a 
Presidential campaign. And if that's your view of how the democracy 
works, I think we are in serious trouble.
  I'm one of those who think there should be publicly financed 
campaigns. I think even my opponents against me--I get 84 percent, but 
I think my opponent ought to have an equal shot at me. But the Congress 
didn't put that in this bill because they didn't want that. Neither did 
the Senate want that. They wanted to put it on the President and say, 
well, we fixed it over there. We really need it for this House and the 
Senate as well as what's going on in the Presidential election. And to 
simply repeal this is bad public policy and it is an admission that we 
don't care.
  I oppose the bill.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 359--Termination of Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns and 
                           Party Conventions

       (Rep. Cole, R-Oklahoma, and 18 cosponsors, Jan. 25, 2011)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     359 because it is critical that the Nation's Presidential 
     election public financing system be fixed rather than 
     dismantled.
       The Presidential election public financing system was 
     enacted in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal to free the 
     Nation's elections from the influence of corporations and 
     other wealthy special interests. Rather than candidates 
     having to rely on raising large sums of private money in 
     order to run, the system provides qualifying presidential 
     candidates with the option of accepting matching funds in the 
     primary and a public grant in the general election. It has 
     done so at minimal cost to taxpayers, who fund it by 
     voluntarily choosing to direct $3 of their Federal taxes to 
     this beneficial system. For many years, the system worked 
     well and attracted wide participation. In time, however, it 
     became clear that a system introduced in the 1970s was in 
     need of modernization and repair. Beginning in the 2000 
     Presidential campaign, candidates began to opt out. Since 
     that time, promising proposals for the strengthening of the 
     system have been made.
       H.R. 359 would kill the system, not strengthen it. Its 
     effect would be to expand the power of corporations and 
     special interests in the Nation's elections; to force many 
     candidates into an endless cycle of fundraising at the 
     expense of engagement with voters on the issues; and to place 
     a premium on access to large donor or special interest

[[Page H486]]

     support, narrowing the field of otherwise worthy candidates. 
     After a year in which the Citizens United decision rolled 
     back a century of law to allow corporate interests to spend 
     vast sums in the Nation's elections and to do so without 
     disclosing the true interests behind them, this is not the 
     time to further empower the special interests or to obstruct 
     the work of reform.

  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time 
be controlled by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1210

  The CHAIR. The Chair would advise that there is now a single manager 
on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 19\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman 
from Illinois has 7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from California has 
3 minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 359, a bill summarily repealing our system of public funding for 
Presidential elections.
  The process by which this bill has been brought to the floor--no 
hearings, no committee consideration, no markup, no deliberation--is 
the opposite of responsible legislating. It contradicts everything the 
Republican majority committed to a mere 3 weeks ago.
  The process is atrocious; the substance is even worse. This repeal 
bill would destroy one of the proudest and most successful examples of 
reform that followed the Watergate scandal. Have we forgotten what the 
Watergate scandal was about? The Committee to Re-Elect the President, 
fueled by huge quantities of corporate cash, paying for criminal acts 
and otherwise subverting the American electoral system.
  The hallmark of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974--enacted in 
response to Watergate at a time when public confidence in the 
government was dangerously low--the hallmark was our voluntary program 
of public financing for Presidential elections. To this day, this 
innovative reform stands as the flagship of public financing systems 
used in the United States and one of the greatest steps we have taken 
to bring transparency and accountability to our electoral system.
  The Supreme Court, in affirming the constitutionality of the system, 
noted its basic purposes: ``To reduce the deleterious influence of 
large contributions on our political process, to facilitate 
communication by candidates with the electorate, and to free candidates 
from the rigors of fundraising.''
  Presidential public financing has worked remarkably well--being 
utilized in the general election by every Republican and Democratic 
Presidential nominee from 1976 through 2004 and by John McCain in 
2008--although in recent years the need for modernization has become 
evident.
  Perhaps the best example of this program's success is President 
Ronald Reagan, who participated in the Presidential public financing 
system in all three of his Presidential campaigns in 1976, 1980, and 
1984.
  In his 1976 primary campaign, Reagan had less than $44,000 in 
campaign money at the end of January of 1976 while his opponent, 
incumbent President Gerald Ford, had fifteen times more cash on hand. 
The $1 million in public funds that Reagan received in January and the 
$1.2 million that he received in February were essential in allowing 
him to continue his campaign.
  Reagan was once again short of cash at the end of March and was 
allowed to continue as a result of an infusion of public money, which 
matched small private contributions. This illuminates one way that 
public financing has worked in both parties. It has often benefited 
candidates who challenge the party establishment.
  In later elections, due to his broad base of supporters throughout 
the Nation, Reagan was able to capitalize on his small-donor fund-
raising capacity to accrue substantial amounts of public money. In 
fact, even in 1984 when he was seeking reelection without significant 
opposition from within his own party, President Reagan raised about 60 
percent of his campaign funds from small donors and as a result 
received $9.7 million in matching funds. This was the maximum amount of 
public money a primary candidate could receive in accordance with the 
law at that time. And to this day, President Reagan is the only 
candidate ever to reach that public funding primary campaign maximum.
  My colleagues, the Reagan case is merely illustrative of the positive 
effects that public financing has had in both parties at both the 
primary and general election stages. It also highlights the system's 
focus on small donations, rather than big bucks from large 
contributors. This is no free ride. This is no willy-nilly spending 
program. All primary candidates must seek the support of thousands of 
small donors, and only then do they receive matching public funds.
  Today one could wish not for this Republican juggernaut--flying in 
the face of the positive history of this program, flying in the face of 
prior Republican support, flying in the face of responsible 
legislating--but for a bipartisan effort to repair the system, to 
restore its effectiveness.
  I don't know of any policy challenge that exemplifies the maxim 
``mend it; don't end it'' better than this one.
  Yesterday, Congressman Van Hollen and I reintroduced a bill, H.R. 
414, that would do just that. The White House has cooperated in 
formulating this bill. It would modernize the Presidential public 
financing system and again make it an attractive and bill would bring 
available funds into line with the increased costs of campaigns, adjust 
the program to the front-loaded primary calendar, and enhance the role 
of small donors further. It also would remove public funding of 
political conventions, as their roles indeed have changed since the 
system was first instated. This bill has been carefully designed. It 
deserves deliberation and debate through the normal committee process 
in this body.
  At a time when confidence in government is low and assumptions of 
government corruption are high, why is the new majority trying to 
return us to the dark days that preceded Watergate? Why would we even 
want to contemplate such a thing?
  Let's, instead, restore and improve our public financing system and 
move on to real solutions to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Before I yield 1 minute to our 
majority leader, I'd like to take 15 seconds to say when I find myself 
on the floor listening to my colleagues on the other side declaring 
Ronald Reagan to be the patron saint of Democratic Party ideas, I am 
bemused a bit because I served here when Ronald Reagan was President, 
and I don't recall those same words at that time.
  However, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority 
leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 years, the legislative schedule of this 
House was dominated by spending money, not cutting spending. But after 
the people voiced their displeasure in November, the discussion in this 
town is now focused on rolling back the unchecked growth of government 
and Federal expenditures.
  Our majority is dedicated to cut and grow: cutting spending and job-
destroying regulations; growing private sector jobs and the economy.
  Yesterday, we directed the Budget Committee chairman to set spending 
levels so we return non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels 
or below.
  Today, the American public, through the YouCut program, has put on 
the chopping block an example of unnecessary government waste. 
Specifically, this bill would eliminate the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund, an outdated mechanism that provides Federal tax dollars 
to candidates in Presidential primaries in the form of matching funds 
and general elections and subsidies for the Democratic and Republican 
National Conventions.
  Eliminating this program would save taxpayers $617 million over 10 
years and would require candidates and political parties to rely on 
private contributions rather than tax dollars.
  In times when government has no choice but to do more with less, 
voting to end the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should be a no-
brainer. I

[[Page H487]]

urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).

                              {time}  1220

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that the Republicans 
will accomplish with this legislation to upend the Presidential 
campaign finance system is to drown out the voice of the people and to 
give more power, not less, to their well-heeled special interests. 
Actually, this repeal bill is the beginning of the end of any hope for 
a system of public financing for all elections in this country.
  So Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised. After all, the majority largely 
owe their unprecedented spending levels in the last election thanks to 
the Citizens United decision that turned on the spigot of anonymous, 
unaccountable corporate cash. And in keeping with the spirit of secrecy 
and lack of transparency, it's somehow fitting that this bill comes to 
the floor without any hearings, without any committee referral, without 
full debate or deliberation.
  We have a deeply corrupt campaign system, Mr. Chairman. Special 
interest money is having a corrosive effect on our democracy, eating 
away at the people's confidence in their government and their elected 
Representatives. The one beacon of light in this system is the public 
financing of Presidential campaigns. It is, I would remind everyone, a 
voluntary system. Americans must choose to opt in on their tax returns. 
It has served the country well, at limited expense. It needs updating. 
It does not need to be dismantled. We need more public financing, in 
all of our Federal elections, not less. H.R. 359 goes in exactly the 
wrong direction.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, earlier this month I read articles about 
President Obama's reelection campaign plans on raising upwards of 
three-quarters of a billion dollars. There is no system of public 
financing for our Presidential elections that can accommodate anywhere 
near that level of spending. That is why I believe the President's 
strong opposition to legislation abolishing a system the President 
himself found unworkable in reality is profoundly hypocritical.
  Putting out a statement of administration policy that states 
repealing the public financing system would, quote, ``force many 
candidates into an endless cycle of fundraising at the expense of 
engaging with the voters on the issues; and to place a premium on 
access to large donors or special interest support, narrowing the field 
of otherwise worthy candidates''--what incredible audacity. This is 
like the proverbial arsonist child who kills his parents by setting 
their house on fire and then appeals for sympathy by exclaiming he is 
an orphan.
  The President's statement is absolutely saying one thing while doing 
the opposite. A New York Times editorial on January 24 of this year 
said, ``Eric Cantor is targeting for extinction the publicly subsidized 
Presidential campaign finance system adopted in the wake of the 
Watergate scandals.'' Wrong. It was President Obama who killed it and 
made a mockery of public financing of Presidential campaigns with his 
arrogant pressing of self-advantage, his unprecedented move to decline 
public financing for the first and only time since the adoption of this 
system.
  In disparaging the majority leader, the Times went on to say that, 
``We suspect his real motive is to give an even bigger voice to big-
money contributors in Presidential campaigns.'' Once again, the record 
needs correcting. No campaign in American history had more maximum 
donors, at $30,400 per person, than Obama for America. Much has been 
made of that committee's legendary prowess in generating small donors 
over the Internet. But that committee also had a record-shattering haul 
among big donors, bundlers, and influence peddlers. But such is the 
right for Mr. Obama as a candidate in America.
  However, when he alone has refused to participate in public financing 
of a general election for a Presidential campaign, his protestations 
ring rather hollow. No one has made more of the system operationally 
obsolete than Barack Obama. Actions do speak louder than words. And 
Barack Obama alone has refused to participate on the level playing 
field that existed in publicly financed Presidential general election 
campaigns in history.
  It was not that the system was antiquated that forced Barack Obama to 
break a very sanctimonious campaign promise to participate in public 
financing. It was his decision to put expediency over his expressed 
support for the Democrat mantra of public financing. It was all about a 
ruthless pressing of self-advantage, despite a core campaign theme of 
promising to rise above self-interested politics.
  Today, we will hear about on the floor measures to address the 
inadequacies of the system and the need to repair the system. First, I 
want to note an earlier New York Times editorial on June 20, 2008, 
which stated, ``Senator Russ Feingold, the ranking authority on 
campaign finance reform, rightly points out that while the primary 
cycle's public matching subsidies are `broken' and need updating for 
inflation, 'the system for the general election is not'.''
  Secondly, I ask my Democratic colleagues this: Have any of you 
received the specifics of what it would take to change the law that 
would cause President Barack Obama's campaign to abide by public 
spending limits in the general election for 2012? Because without those 
specifics, this debate is not grounded in the reality that the 
incumbent President has zero intention of giving up his gargantuan 
financial advantage in his reelection campaign by opting out of one of 
the most perfect systems of public financing we could possibly adopt.
  I ask the supporters of public financing for Presidential campaigns, 
are you willing to adopt a system that makes it mandatory for all 
candidates to participate in the system? And can you unequivocally 
pledge that the President's reelection committee will agree to be bound 
by your new system? And if not, I would suggest you are preaching at 
the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  The CHAIR. The Chair would advise Members that the gentleman from 
Illinois has 2\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from California 1\3/4\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair would further advise that ascribing unworthy motivations or 
intentions to the President of the United States or another Member of 
the United States Congress is inappropriate.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 1 
minute to our Democratic leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Brady, and participating in this 
important discussion, as fundamental as our democracy, on the floor 
today.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge this Congress to focus on our number 
one priority, the creation of jobs. This is a priority for the American 
people and for this Congress. We should be focusing on it. That was the 
message we heard last night from President Obama on this floor, who 
called on us to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build the rest of 
the world.
  But instead of talking about job creation, this legislation we debate 
today will not create jobs, will not reduce the deficit, and will not 
strengthen the middle class. And those are the standards we should 
apply to any legislation that comes to the floor. Instead, it will put 
American elections more squarely into the hands of special interests.
  One year ago, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United opened 
the floodgates to unlimited, uninhibited, undisclosed special interest 
spending in our elections and unlimited special interest influence over 
our public policy debate. In response to the Citizens United ruling, 
Democrats worked to restore transparency, fairness, and accountability 
to our political process. Last Congress, with bipartisan support, the 
House passed the DISCLOSE Act to require corporations and donors to 
stand by your ad. Why are you running and hiding? And to keep foreign-
owned entities from participating in our elections.
  But Senate Republicans blocked DISCLOSE. Even though it came out of 
the

[[Page H488]]

House with bipartisan support, Senate Republicans blocked DISCLOSE from 
even receiving an up-or-down vote, and now House Republicans are 
perpetuating a sneak attack on campaign finance reform.
  The result was clear in the last election. Special interest groups 
spent tens of millions of dollars more in the 2010 election than ever 
before. Again, undisclosed, without identification. There is a reason 
they don't want it disclosed. First of all, if the public knew who was 
paying for those ads, they would realize that their own personal 
interests were not being served, but the special interests. That's our 
experience in California, where we had a special interest initiative 
placed on the ballot by outside oil companies. And the strongest 
statement against the initiative was to see the disclosure at the 
bottom of the ad as to who was funding it. That spoke more eloquently 
to the fact that it was not in the people's interest. And the 
initiative was defeated.

                              {time}  1230

  Eliminating the Presidential Election Fund, as this election would 
do, opens the door for foreign-owned entities and large corporations to 
enjoy an even greater role in the funding of political campaigns.
  In the past, Members from both sides of the aisle have supported 
legislation to reform, not eliminate, the public financing system. We 
should come together to ensure that the American people are heard and 
that they are not drowned out by special interest dollars.
  In our democracy--and God bless our Founders for establishing it--
voters determine the outcome of our elections. That's the way it should 
be. Special interests should not be determining the outcome of our 
elections. One year after the Supreme Court's decision undermined that 
fundamental American value, let's come together to fight on behalf of 
the public interest, to preserve the integrity of our political 
campaigns; and, therefore, to strengthen our democracy. And maybe we 
could, instead of undermining it here today, strengthen our country by 
creating jobs, by reducing the deficit, by strengthening the middle 
class, none of which is being done by this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to further empower the 
special interests over the people's interest.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, last night just a few seats down from where I stand, I 
listened to our President say that he would offer his support to 
eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. I stand here 
today in this House Chamber feeling a little less like a freshman 
representative of the United States Congress and more like a guy 
presiding over the people's choice awards. There is no better program 
in my judgment that is tailor-made for elimination than this program.
  In overwhelming fashion, the people of Arkansas and indeed the people 
of America spoke loud and clear last year about the need to reduce 
spending in this country. The gentleman from Oklahoma talked about the 
fact that this program does not educate anyone; it doesn't feed anyone; 
it doesn't produce a mile of interstate highway. The gentleman from 
California articulated the declining participation in this checkoff 
program. I don't think there's a better barometer out there for the 
overwhelming support that the people have for this particular measure.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today and vote in favor of H.R. 359.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 359. Adopted in the 
shadow of the Watergate scandal, the public financing of Presidential 
elections eases the burden of fund-raising campaigns and lessens the 
impact of private donations by a small number of wealthy donors.
  Since 1976, candidates from across the political spectrum have used 
the public financing program to run for President. Is the system 
perfect? Absolutely not. The system needs to be reformed, not repealed. 
I heard one of my colleagues on the floor mention that our President, 
President Obama, opted out of this program. That was his choice. I do 
not think we should be in a position to legislate the American people's 
choice. That's their choice, to opt out or to check that box. I don't 
think we have the right to do that, nor should we do that.
  With the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United little over a 
year ago, we are already well on our way to elections brought to the 
American people by the highest corporate bidder. If this bill passes, 
there will be even more incentive for foreign controlled companies to 
secretly invest in political causes that could help move American jobs 
overseas. Companies that outsource jobs will have a very simple message 
to Presidential candidates--support our agenda, or face the 
consequences. This bill takes secret corporate dominance of our 
elections to the next level.
  This bill is also being considered at the wrong time and under the 
wrong circumstances. Less than 3 weeks ago, the American people were 
promised an open Congress, a Congress that allowed for open debate, one 
that allows for open rules. The American people are still waiting. In 
consideration of this matter, the committee process was completely 
disregarded. There have been no hearings. No testimony from witnesses 
either for or against. No markup. No refining in the committee or input 
from experts. Zero. None. When we did the DISCLOSE Act, we had three 
hearings and 17 witnesses. We learned from our witnesses. They gave us 
their opinion and they gave us their education on what they thought, 
pro and con. To bypass that, which we have never done before in our 
committee, I think is wrong. We should have had our hearings and let it 
happen.
  There's no reason why we have to rush this thing over to the Senate. 
I would doubt very much if they're sitting there waiting for it. And we 
could have taken our time, done our hearings, which we do in a complete 
and nonpartisan way; and we could have had this thing thrashed out, we 
could have aired it out, people could have put their amendments in, 
they could have offered amendments at our committee level, we could 
have aired it out perfectly and gotten much more education and maybe 
had a chance to reform it for the better.
  While reforming the Presidential financing system is an important 
effort which I support, the next Presidential election is 2 years away. 
This bill does not create or save a single job. Zero. None.
  There is a time and a place for campaign reform. While here might be 
the place, now is certainly not the time. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill and to get back to the important task of putting the 
American people back to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania still has 8\1/2\ minutes. The majority side has a combined 
3\1/4\ minutes. The gentleman from Illinois is reserving; the gentleman 
from California is reserving.
  The order of closing that the Chair would prefer in this instance 
would be that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would exhaust time on the 
minority side; we will then move to the gentlemen on the majority side 
for conclusion.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 
as much time as he may consume to, in my opinion, an expert on this 
matter, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
  I am pleased to close for our side with a plea to our colleagues that 
they not dismantle, in an irresponsible and summary fashion, one of the 
proudest achievements of post-Watergate political reform in this 
country.
  I also can't let pass what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock) 
said about our President. Of course we want President Obama, we want 
all Presidential candidates, to opt into this system. We've made it 
about as clear as we possibly could that the bill that the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I have introduced is designed to 
make it feasible once again for candidates to participate in the public 
financing system.
  But the gentleman from Illinois--talk about having it both ways--
comes

[[Page H489]]

onto this floor to condemn President Obama for opting out of the 
system, and then he proposes to abolish the system so that everybody 
has to opt out! Neither President Obama nor anyone else could 
participate. The logic of that is way beyond me.
  Of course we want a system that works. We know the system needs to be 
adjusted. And we have constructive efforts under way to do just that. 
What we should be doing, instead of having this up-or-down exercise on 
the floor today, with no committee consideration, is actually 
undertaking that kind of discussion, that kind of reform, that kind of 
improvement.
  There is a bipartisan history here. There is a bipartisan history of 
supporting this program; a bipartisan history of participating in the 
program. I assume that is out of fashion now for our Republican 
colleagues.
  But under the pretense of achieving fiscal responsibility, to come to 
this chamber and abolish one of the proudest and most successful of our 
reform efforts--that does a disservice to the new majority and to this 
House. It also violates all the pledges we had 3 weeks ago--of 
hearings, committee consideration, markups. None of that has been done. 
This is simply an up-or-down vote, as I say, flying under the false 
colors of fiscal responsibility.
  We have a chance to take on this challenge--to mend it, not end it--
to make certain that we preserve this reform, but to adjust it to the 
realities of modern campaigning.

                              {time}  1240

  To simply abolish this, to once again turn over Presidential 
financing to big private and corporate interests, to overlook the 
abuses, the problems that led to this system in the first place, falls 
far short of what we should be about as responsible legislators looking 
out for our country's best interests.
  I ask for Members to look at our legislation, to repair and 
rejuvenate the public funding system and in the meantime to reject this 
summary attempt to destroy one of the proudest achievements of reform.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 1\3/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the 
ranking member of our committee has been very fair in the proceedings 
that he had with us over the last number of years, and I appreciate 
that. We will continue that tradition.
  We were unable to have any hearings or consideration of this matter 
before our committee until yesterday when we finally were told by the 
minority party as to who they wish to have on our committee.
  We could not meet as a full committee until we had a complement of 
both Democrats and Republicans. We established our side several weeks 
ago.
  I am sorry that happened. We will have plenty of hearings in the 
future on this and other issues.
  What is the current system that we are hearing the other side defend? 
What has it given us? It has given us Lyndon LaRouche, but it would 
prevent Eugene McCarthy from being a successful Presidential candidate. 
That's what we don't hear.
  The system works against some people like a Eugene McCarthy, who was 
a poor fundraiser but managed to have a number of people who supported 
him, who gave him large contributions.
  And yet he was able to change the course of history, bringing down a 
sitting President and allow for--well, he was called the Pied Piper of 
the youth vote.
  So let's understand the complexity of the history of this law. The 
fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, this law has failed us. It has 
failed the American people.
  The American people have rendered their judgment. Nearly 93 percent 
of the American people who paid taxes have voted ``no'' to this system. 
That ought to give us good guidance as to where we could find savings 
to bring down our national debt.
  As I understand it, we are going to have an amendment from the 
Democratic side of the aisle which causes any money saved here to go to 
bringing down the debt. I hope that it comes forward, and I will 
support it.
  I hope we have the support of our colleagues for this bill.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, the minority leader was on the floor a 
couple of minutes ago--and I know the weather is urgent, I didn't want 
to prolong this drama--but it seemed to me to make the argument that 
this doesn't do anything as it relates to economic growth is just an 
incredible overstatement.
  One of the things that we continue to hear, and the President's own 
debt commission spoke eloquently about the nature of debt and the 
stifling nature of debt on the economy and the stifling nature of 
spending on the economy. Here the Congressional Budget Office says, 
without ambiguity, the Congressional Budget Office says H.R. 359 would 
reduce direct spending by $617 million over the 2011-2021 period.
  This is an opportunity for us to take the admonition of the minority 
leader, to take the admonition of the President, to take the admonition 
of what the electorate told us in November and that is to concentrate 
on ways that we can trim this government, the burden on the taxpayer 
that adds absolutely no value.
  There is not one Member on this House floor, Mr. Chairman, that has 
defended the results of this system. I urge passage of this bill.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 359.
  This deeply flawed legislation would do away with a voluntary program 
that helps ensure transparency in our elections.
  Created in the wake of Watergate, the presidential election public 
financing system--which this bill would eliminate--has helped stop 
corporate interests from buying elections with large anonymous 
donations.
  While I'm disappointed that Republicans are playing political games 
with our election safeguards, I can't say that I'm surprised. H.R. 359 
is just the latest effort by the new Majority to undermine our campaign 
finance laws in favor of Wall Street Banks and foreign corporations.
  This political gimmick comes one year after the catastrophic Citizens 
United Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates to unlimited and 
anonymous special interest spending in our elections.
  Last year my Democratic colleagues tried to repair some of the damage 
done by passing the DISCLOSE Act--a bill that would require 
corporations to stand by their advertisements and to keep foreign-owned 
entities from funding our elections.
  Virtually all Republicans voted against this bill in the House, and 
their colleagues in the Senate blocked it from consideration.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on 
transparency in our elections that does absolutely nothing to create 
American jobs or encourage economic growth. In fact, by shifting our 
election system to favor big business, this legislation could 
strengthen the power of companies that ship American jobs overseas.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for an open and transparent election 
process, and vote no on this deeply flawed legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 359, which 
repeals nearly 40 years of reforms in how our Presidential election 
campaigns are funded. It is a great disservice to our democracy and to 
fundamental democratic processes.
  As with the House vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, this 
sweeping measure has been brought up for a vote without any hearing, 
without any testimony, without any documentation, and without any 
opportunity for those who support current law to state their case 
before the American people. The new Republican leadership pledged to be 
open, transparent, and fair in the workings of the House. These good 
principles are simply being ignored, once again.
  I don't believe the American electorate wants to have even more 
corporate influence in Presidential elections. During the midterm 
election season, there was no call to scrap our public finance system, 
but there was a real sense of concern and a vigorous debate about the 
huge amounts of corporate funds that entered the campaign season as a 
result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United last year.
  H.R. 359 would undermine processes that have been an essential part 
of our electoral system since the Federal Election Campaign Act 
Amendments of 1974 were enacted in the wake of the greatest corruption 
scandal in modern American history, Watergate. Watergate was marked, in 
significant measure, by revelations of massive amounts of cash from

[[Page H490]]

undisclosed sources being funneled into our presidential election 
campaigns and expended without proper accountability. Congress 
responded with significant reforms that restored the integrity of our 
Presidential elections.
  For decades there has been a consensus that public funding of 
Presidential campaigns is preferable to special interest funding. Every 
Republican and Democratic Presidential nominee from 1976 through 2008, 
except for Barack Obama, used the public finance system for their 
general election campaigns. The system is contingent on support from 
private donors; there is a match of public funds, which are donated on 
a purely voluntary basis by Americans who want to promote honest 
elections. The system makes campaigns possible for candidates who 
initially do not have access to substantial funding. It encourages the 
broadest participation by candidates across the political spectrum. 
This strengthens our democracy and the vibrancy of political campaigns, 
thereby serving the interest of the American people.
  Proposals have been introduced in recent Congresses to strengthen and 
improve the public finance system, which has had difficulty providing 
sufficient funding to meet the almost uncontrollable escalation in the 
costs of running for President. We should be considering legislation 
today to update and improve it, not to destroy it.
  Although the public finance system runs on voluntary contributions, 
the Republican leadership has promised that getting rid of it will 
control the deficit. In reality it will only further lard Presidential 
campaigns with special interest money.
  Like our vote on the Affordable Care Act last week, the Republicans 
can vote to repeal our landmark post-Watergate reforms without offering 
anything to replace them. Their indifference toward the public interest 
is a threat to the integrity of future elections.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 359, 
which would eliminate the presidential public campaign financing 
system. A year ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of its most 
devastating decisions in recent memory, ruling in Citizens United vs. 
the FEC that corporations could spend unlimited amounts in elections to 
argue for the election or defeat of a candidate. The ruling indeed 
opened the floodgates: corporate and special interests spent nearly 
$300 million in the 2010 midterm elections, four times what was spent 
during the 2006 midterms.
  Citizens United provided corporations like Exxon Mobile and Goldman 
Sachs the same free speech rights under the First Amendment as 
teachers, factory workers, and janitors. And yet, at a time when most 
Americans are fed up with the amount of special interest money flowing 
in Washington, the Republican party wants to make it easier for 
corporate voices to be heard. Moreover, these corporate donations can 
be funneled to tax-exempt organizations that do not have to disclose 
their donors, decreasing transparency when Americans want more of it.
  Last year, the House passed a bipartisan bill to increase disclosure 
and transparency in federal elections. Unfortunately, the legislation 
died in the Senate. The last thing we need to counteract the harmful 
Citizens United decision is to eliminate the public campaign finance 
system established by Congress in the wake of Watergate which has 
helped candidates whose voices would not otherwise be heard to 
participate in federal elections.
  Mr. Chair, we were promised more transparency and regular order from 
the new Republican majority. But we are considering this legislation 
six days after it was introduced, bypassing the committee process of 
hearings and mark-ups. I applaud the majority for allowing amendments; 
but, the truth is, this bill is so tightly written that few amendments 
are germane. And in the height of hypocrisy, the majority is using an 
estimate provided by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to 
justify savings to taxpayers, the same agency which the majority party 
was decrying just last week when it reported that repeal of the health 
care reform law would add to the deficit.
  Unlike my friends across the aisle, I will not dismiss the CBO's 
score of this legislation as somehow deceptive. However, the bill's 
savings over 10 years amounts to less money than is spent in 1 month on 
the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Chair, I agree that we need to find 
solutions to our deficit problems but this is not one of them. Rather, 
eliminating the public--financing system will cost us much more in the 
long term, requiring our elected officials to spend more time raising 
money to keep up with the corporate spending in elections than 
legislating.
  Everyone agree that the presidential public campaign financing system 
must be fixed. Fewer Americans are checking the box on their tax forms 
to contribute to it. President Obama eschewed it in 2008 in favor of 
receiving small dollar donations via the Internet. Let us work 
together, in a bipartisan fashion, to reform the system and make it 
work for the 21st century. As the Washington Post editorial said, ``fix 
the system--don't junk it.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 359. This bill 
terminates the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provides 
grants and matching funds during a presidential campaign for primary 
candidates, general election nominees, and party conventions.
  Elections are not the problem in America. Our troubles don't stem 
from a case of too much non-special interest money.
  Every year, nearly 40 million Americans voluntarily choose to support 
the public financing system by directing $3 of their Federal taxes to 
the fund. This program, with little expense to the taxpayer, has played 
an important role of increasing transparency, ensuring that campaigns 
are funded at an appropriate and sustainable level, and strengthened 
the voice of small-donor Americans.
  While I appreciate that this bill has been brought to the floor under 
a modified open rule, that does not excuse the fact H.R. 359 bypassed 
committee hearings, silencing a much-needed debate. In an era of half-
a-billion dollar--and growing--presidential campaigns, public financing 
needs reform, not repeal.
  This system was first used 35 years ago in the wake of Watergate to 
ease pressure on political candidates, enabling them to spend more time 
connecting with voters and less time securing large contributions.
  Before costs outstripped financing, the system helped every candidate 
from 1976 to 2008, increased the number of viable contenders, and 
promoted competition in an otherwise restrictive two-party dominated 
system. The system is broken and has not kept pace with the new 
campaign environment, but on the anniversary of Citizens United, a 
decision that upended a century of law that had brought transparency to 
our electoral process, the last thing we need are presidential 
campaigns more beholden to private donations.
  This piecemeal approach of addressing this nation's fiscal woes is 
wrong and insufficient. You can't right-size the deficit through 
spending cuts alone. We must change the way we do business by 
addressing defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Until this 
happens, we will have a very long and unproductive Congress that fails 
to address the long-term stability of our economy.
  H.R. 359 will eliminate the system when we need--more than ever--to 
strengthen it. Getting rid of the public financing option in 
Presidential elections would close the path that leads back towards a 
better, more transparent democracy where the candidate can more clearly 
hear the voters, not large corporate interests.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 359, a 
bill that would terminate the public financing system for presidential 
election campaigns. The vast majority of Americans oppose the damage 
done to the integrity of the electoral system by the Citizens United v. 
FEC, which opened the floodgates for corporate spending in elections. 
According to a Washington Post poll, 80 percent of Americans oppose the 
ruling, with little difference reflected by party affiliation (85 
percent of Democrats oppose it, 76 percent of Republicans, and 81 
percent of independents). Yet, inexplicably, the majority is 
celebrating the one-year anniversary of that disastrous and poorly-
reasoned decision by offering a bill that would make that damage vastly 
worse.
  Frankly, I believe we would be moving just plain backwards if, 
instead of building upon the public financing system for presidential 
elections by updating it and adding to it a system of public financing 
for House and Senate races, instead, we remove the public financing 
system for presidential elections. So far, the new majority seem 
focused on undoing landmark legislative achievements rather than 
strengthening them.
  I find two aspects of this bill particularly puzzling. First, it is 
being offered to ``reduce Federal spending and the deficit by 
terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and 
party conventions.'' But nothing in the bill would specifically reduce 
either federal spending or federal borrowing. The Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund is funded exclusively by a check-off box on Americans' 
tax returns, stating that they want $3 ($6 for joint returns) of their 
tax liability to be deposited in the Fund. If that check-off box were 
removed, their tax liability would be the same, but the $3 or $6 would 
simply be allocated to something else. That is, the size of the revenue 
pie would be the same but the slice that would have been spent on 
presidential election campaigns would simply be spent on something 
else, and nothing in the bill would prevent additional borrowing to 
increase the size of the pie.
  In addition, even if the entire existing balance of the fund were 
transferred to the Treasury, as called for by the bill, according to 
the fiscal year 2011 budget the unobligated

[[Page H491]]

balance in the fund is approximately $200 million. The national debt is 
more than $14 trillion. So transferring $200 million to the Treasury 
for the express purpose of debt reduction would only reduce the debt by 
one one-thousandth of one percent. The majority argue that this bill 
would save hundreds of millions of dollars in mandatory funding over 
the next decade, but the only thing it seems to do is keep those 
hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund.
  That is how little would be gained. But what would be lost? That 
brings me to the second aspect of this bill that is puzzling. The 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund is a completely voluntary program. 
It only exists because people volunteer to participate in it. Although 
tax-payer designations have decreased in recent years, the American 
people voluntarily contributed the more than $1.3 billion that 
presidential candidates and party committees have received under the 
program between 1976 and 2004. Why would the American people 
voluntarily contribute that much money to the program if they didn't 
prefer the neutrality of public money being used to finance elections 
to the bias and manipulative potential of private money being used for 
that purpose?
  Similarly, virtually all American presidential candidates have 
voluntarily participated in the program since it was founded. With the 
exception of President Obama, every single Republican and Democratic 
presidential nominee since 1976 has used the public financing system to 
fund their general election campaigns. Why would the majority--with no 
real fiscal benefit ensured by this bill--terminate a program that both 
the citizens and the candidates have voluntarily supported for decades?
  The Citizens United decision is drowning out the voice of the average 
citizen under a tidal wave of corporate spending. The Presidential 
Election Campaign Fund amplifies the voice of the average American as 
against the voice of corporate America. It is a critical and valuable 
program that we should be updating, enhancing and expanding, as a 
number of Members of this body have been seeking to do. For example, 
Representative Price of North Carolina and Representative Van Hollen 
championed in the prior Congress, and reintroduced yesterday with my 
support, legislation that would increase the role of small donors and 
decrease the role of corporate spenders and other big donors in 
presidential campaigns. It would also eliminate spending limits, 
freeing up candidates to compete with the onslaught of corporate 
spending resulting from Citizens United. And it would increase the 
amount available in the fund by increasing the tax return check-off 
amount from $3 to $10 (and from $6 to $20 for joint filers). 
Representative Larson and Representative Jones also championed 
legislation that would establish a program of public financing for 
House elections. I think these efforts are the ones we should be 
devoting our time to.
  I want to reiterate--the check-off box for the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund is a strictly voluntary funding mechanism. Keeping it 
does not constitute an appropriation. Eliminating it does not, in and 
of itself, reduce spending or borrowing. Eliminating it in this case 
would simply take away the only national program American citizens and 
presidential candidates have been able to use to help ensure that 
elections are as free as possible from the manipulative force of 
wealthy and powerful special interests.
  I strongly oppose this bill and, for the sake of preserving the voice 
of the American people in elections, I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 359, terminating voluntary taxpayer financing of presidential 
elections. This legislation seeks to end a 35-year-old program that 
uses money taxpayers choose to help pay for presidential campaigns and 
political conventions. The impetus for creating this public-financing 
system was the 1970s Watergate scandal and the desire to make 
fundraising for presidential elections more transparent. This bill 
would terminate the taxpayer option to designate a mere $3 of income 
taxes to the financing of presidential campaigns, thereby also 
eliminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the 
Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account.
  Currently, taxpayers can designate a $3 contribution to the public-
financing system by checking a box on their federal income tax form. 
The money comes from taxes paid to the U.S. Treasury and does not 
affect a person's tax refund or payment. Passing this legislation would 
do irreparable harm to our presidential election system by preventing 
everyday Americans from having their voices heard while opening the 
door for special interests and large corporations to dominate 
presidential elections even more. This legislation would prevent 
patriotic, tax-paying grandmothers who may not be technologically savvy 
enough to go to the Web site of a presidential campaign but who have 
for years and decades checked this box from expressing their civic 
right to support a presidential campaign. I think we should all stand 
up for grandmothers throughout this great Nation and oppose this 
legislation.
  Furthermore, this attempt to fast-track a bill that will destroy the 
presidential public finance system and privatize election fundraising 
is highly irresponsible. This violates recent pledges by the GOP's 
leadership of increased transparency, accountability and debate in 
Congress. Not one hearing has been held on the legislation, nor has a 
single committee debated its merits at a markup. If it passes, this 
legislation will roll back more than 30 years of law born out of the 
Watergate scandal, eviscerating one of the few remaining protections 
stopping corporations from heavily influencing American elections even 
more. The Supreme Court already opened the floodgates to unrestricted 
special interest spending in our elections and over our public policy 
debate in the Citizens United case; this legislation would pave the way 
for special interest groups, large corporations, and other large donors 
to dominate the political landscape even more at the expense of 
everyday, hard-working, tax-paying Americans.
  House Republicans' much-touted ``Pledge to America'' criticized 
Democrats for ``limiting openness and debate'' during the legislative 
process and vowed to ``ensure that bills are debated and discussed in 
the public square.'' The pledge says the GOP ``will fight to ensure 
transparency and accountability in Congress and throughout 
government.'' And in Speaker John Boehner's first remarks after taking 
control of the House, he spoke of a greater emphasis on ``real 
transparency'' and ``greater accountability.'' He went on, ``Above all 
else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in 
it--openly, honestly, and respectfully.'' Bringing forth such sweeping 
legislation without committee hearings and markups completely 
contradicts these promises.

  Public financing of presidential campaigns provides matching tax 
dollars to the small donations received by candidates who agree to 
publicly finance their campaigns, instead of relying on private 
donations. The intent is to encourage small donations and the burden on 
taxpayers is not much: Americans can voluntarily contribute $3 to the 
fund on their federal tax filings. The public finance system was 
created in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the mid-1970s. 
After President Richard Nixon's re-election campaign was found to have 
illegally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from big 
corporations, Congress created a public financing system so that 
candidates would not have to rely on corporations and deep pocketed 
donors to finance their campaigns.
  Legislation to make presidential public financing more competitive 
has won support from both parties in the past. In 2003, Senators Russ 
Feingold and John McCain introduced a bill that would reform the public 
financing system; Reps. Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan filed a 
companion bill in the House. ``The public financing system for 
presidential elections, which aims to allow candidates to run 
competitive campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private 
donors, is a system worth improving and preserving,'' the lawmakers 
said in a joint statement.
  More recently, Rep. David Price  introduced the Presidential Fund 
Act, which would notably increase the funds available to candidates who 
opt in to public financing. In 2007, when Price introduced his bill, 
cosponsors included three Republicans--Reps. Mike Castle of Delaware, 
Todd Platts of Pennsylvania, and Shays. Rep. Price has offered the bill 
again in the 112th Congress with Rep. Van Hollen.
  Since 1976, every Democratic and Republican presidential candidate 
has used the public financing system except Barack Obama's 2008 
campaign. The way reformers see it, the presidential public financing 
system needs repair, not repeal. This legislation has drawn sharp 
criticism from campaign- finance watchdog groups who argue that the 
program should be expanded, not eliminated, to reduce special-interest 
money in elections.
  Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, says 
the amount of public funds currently available to candidates is too 
small to be competitive in modern presidential races. She says 
lawmakers need to update the system to better emphasize small donations 
to candidates and raise the total amount of public funding available. 
``Imagine if you didn't make any changes to the tax code since 1976. Of 
course public financing is outdated. The issue, then, is not to get rid 
of, but how to fix.''
  Craig Holman from the public interest group Public Citizen says his 
organization and others like it will urge lawmakers to oppose the GOP's 
bill because it violates the GOP's transparency promises, both on the 
2010 campaign trail and now as the House majority. ``This just came out 
of the blue, has had no deliberation and no discussion within the 
Republican and Democratic conferences,'' Holman says. ``They have just 
been seated and

[[Page H492]]

they're already breaking the ground rules on how they'll do business.''
  This legislation is strongly opposed by Americans for Campaign 
Reform, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the 
League of Women Voters, People for the American Way, and U.S. PIRG, to 
name a few.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, which would be 
damaging to our democracy.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, this past Thursday marked the one year 
anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's ruling on the case 
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
  That is the day the liberty of the American Republic want on sale to 
the highest bidder.
  And today, the House gathers to remove one of the few remaining tools 
the average American has to voluntarily participate in a presidential 
election--let me remind those in support of H.R. 359 that the average 
American is not a multi-national corporation with hundreds of millions 
of dollars at their disposal.
  My friends on the other side have said that this bill has nothing to 
do with the Citizens United case; I respectfully disagree.
  Because of the overreaching ruling in Citizens United, not only are 
large corporations now allowed to reach into their deep pockets to 
spend unlimited funds in support of those running for office. But they 
can pay for political advertisements in the days leading up to an 
election--a provision previously banned by the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act.
  The winner in this case was not Citizens United and the loser was not 
the Federal Elections Commission. The winners are multi-national 
corporations and Wall Street. The loser is the liberty of the American 
people. For if money = free speech, then lack of money = lack of free 
speech.
  Corporations have always had heavy influence in the U.S. government. 
But today, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision one year ago, we 
have entered a new era in the corporate ownership of America.
  In this past mid-term election, the fallout of Citizens United v. FEC 
saw close to $4 billion poured into the mid-term cycle. This was an 
all-time record.
  It is frightening to imagine how much money will be spent during a 
presidential election year if public financing is stripped.
  Four billion dollars--a record-breaking amount of money--was spent at 
a time when our country's unemployment hovers near 10 percent.
  That gross amount of cash came from big business and Wall Street. To 
claim the Citizens United made no difference in the billions spent is 
absurd.
  A few justices on the Supreme Court curiously decided that giant 
banks--which have already taken so much from the American people--are 
deserving of the same protection under the First Amendment of the 
Constitution as the very people they hurt.
  Wall Street has stripped the average American of their retirement 
funds, their homes, and drown our society in debt; now the Supreme 
Court has stripped them clean of their Constitutional right to a free 
democracy.
  This is unacceptable.
  Those who benefit from the big money that is injected into elections 
by big business and Wall Street banks have tried to stop legislative 
fixes. The Supreme Court has shown its willingness to overturn a 
century's worth of legislation designed to protect our electoral 
system. Now this Congress is about to vote to remove the voluntary 
public financing system put in place in the wake of the Watergate 
Scandal.
  My friends in the new majority say that the system is broken, and I 
agree.
  That is why I have introduced, year after year, a Constitutional 
amendment, H.J. Res. 6, to ensure that no corporation, no Wall Street 
bank, no big oil company, no deep pocket interest will be able to buy 
elections.
  I believe, the only long-term solution is to amend the United States 
Constitution.
  America's founders had the wisdom to know that as our young Republic 
matured, changes would need to be made.
  That is why they wrote Article V of the United States Constitution, 
which allows for amendments to the Constitution.
  The time has come to exercise this Constitutional right and 
fundamentally protect American liberty.
  Additonally, H.J. Res. 8, another amendment I have introduced, will 
amend the Constitution to give Congress the authority to set limits on 
the amount of contributions that may be accepted by a candidate.
  Congress cannot allow a tidal wave of big money to drown the 
integrity of our electoral system. Citizens United v. Federal Elections 
Commission was not a question of First Amendment rights; instead, it 
was an opportunity to protect the voices of average Americans who have 
been silenced by hugh corporate bank accounts.
  One year ago this free Republic suffered a staggering blow.
  Today, we must be firm and resolute in our response.
  I urge my colleagues to protect public funding, to vote in favor of 
the Polis amendment, and to vote NO on H.R. 359.
  The freedom and liberty our founders envisioned truly is at stake.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 5 hours and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 359

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

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL 
                   ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

       (a) Termination of Designation of Income Tax Payments.--
     Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2009.''.
       (b) Termination of Fund and Account.--
       (1) Termination of presidential election campaign fund.--
       (A) In general.--Chapter 95 of subtitle H of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 9014. TERMINATION.

       ``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with 
     respect to any presidential election (or any presidential 
     nominating convention) after the date of the enactment of 
     this section, or to any candidate in such an election.''.
       (B) Transfer of excess funds to general fund.--Section 9006 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Transfer of Funds Remaining After Termination.--The 
     Secretary shall transfer all amounts in the fund after the 
     date of the enactment of this section to the general fund of 
     the Treasury.''.
       (2) Termination of account.--Chapter 96 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 9043. TERMINATION.

       ``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any 
     candidate with respect to any presidential election after the 
     date of the enactment of this section.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 9014. Termination.''.

       (2) The table of sections for chapter 96 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 9043. Termination.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate.
  The Chair would advise, in light of the gentleman from New York's 
parliamentary inquiry earlier, that the printed Record is available.
  Each amendment printed may be offered only by the Member who caused 
it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Peters

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 23, strike ``Treasury.'' and insert 
     ``Treasury, to be used only for reducing the deficit.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, there is a strong bipartisan agreement that 
the long-term health of our economy necessitates confronting persistent 
budget deficits and the growing national debt.
  Democrats and Republicans were able to work together to create 
balanced budgets in the 1990s and a similar attempt is needed now.
  While I appreciate the efforts of the Republican leadership to put 
forward a specific budget cut, I have serious concerns with eliminating 
the public campaign financing system. However, if the House is going to 
vote on this, we owe it to the American people to ensure that the funds 
are actually used for deficit reduction and not for additional 
spending.
  When I was reading the text of this legislation, I was surprised to 
find that the bill does not make specific provisions for using the 
remaining money in

[[Page H493]]

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to reduce the deficit. This is 
why I am putting forward my amendment that will ensure that the $194 
million in tax dollars currently sitting in the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund will be used to reduce the deficit should this 
legislation become law.
  As introduced, H.R. 359 would transfer this money to the Treasury's 
general fund where it could be dedicated to new spending or lent to 
government trust funds. My amendment would simply specify that upon 
transfer to the Treasury, these funds are to be used only, to be used 
only, for reducing the deficit.
  This is about sending a message to taxpayers. If we are going to put 
deficit reduction in a bill's title, then we should make sure the 
deficit reduction is in the statutory language as well.
  It is a matter of fact that the bill, as introduced, simply returns 
the $194 million in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to the 
Treasury's general fund and it is from this fund that most expenditures 
are made, as well as loans to a number of government trust funds. If we 
are going to pass a bill to reduce the deficit, let's make sure it 
actually does that.
  It is not uncommon or unprecedented to specify funds being returned 
to the Treasury to be used for deficit reduction. In fact, I am proud 
to be a bipartisan cosponsor of two Republican bills introduced this 
session, one by my colleague from Michigan, Chairman Camp, and 
Representative Gingrey, that would codify the requirements that unspent 
funds from the Members' representational allowances be used 
specifically for deficit reduction.
  This amendment basically uses the same language as in both of those 
bills by Mr. Camp and Mr. Gingrey. If Congress is going to send a 
message to taxpayers that cutting spending is a top priority, then 
let's make sure those recovered funds are actually used to reduce the 
deficit.
  My amendment is a commonsense change that ensures that the stated 
purpose of this bill, deficit reduction, will actually be carried out.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I wholeheartedly agree and ask that it be passed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, amend line 21 to read as follows: ``to the Office 
     of Justice Programs for local law enforcement for costs of 
     providing security at Presidential nominating conventions.''.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Castor amendment to safeguard the local government security funds that 
come from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. I know a lot of the 
debate has been focused on public campaign financing of Presidential 
campaigns, but another important portion of that fund goes to local 
communities to help them with local security and local law enforcement 
costs when they host a political party convention.
  And we're very proud in my hometown of Tampa to be the host of the 
2012 Republican convention. It's no wonder that the Republicans 
selected Tampa; it's a wonderful place. We have beautiful beaches. We 
need the business and the jobs. So we're going to be a very welcoming 
community. We do conventions very well. And we're very happy that we're 
going to play host to the Republican convention.
  But here are great warning flags going off because what I hear from 
my local law enforcement community is that the security costs, 
especially in the post-9/11 world, are very daunting. They are very 
concerned with the cost of providing security for the Republican 
convention, just like, I think, any host community would be for any 
party convention.
  So what this amendment does is it says that, rather than completely 
do away with this fund, we will retain the portion that will cover 
local law enforcement security costs. We're going to need this help.
  What I understand from my colleagues in Minneapolis after the last 
convention is that they received over $16 million from this fund to 
help them cover the costs of security, yet that wasn't enough to fully 
cover all the cost. And let me tell you, in this economy right now, in 
an area where we were hard hit by the recession in 2007, early 2007, 
our local governments simply don't have the wherewithal to go this 
extra mile and cover all of these security costs.
  So what I'm asking through this amendment, as we come together in a 
bipartisan way to cover those local law enforcement costs, is let's not 
throw out the entire fund. Let's retain this amount, or what's left in 
the fund, to go to cover these local security costs.
  Let's face it, too, this is voluntary. This is the voluntary checkoff 
on your income tax form that taxpayers all across America can decide if 
they want to do this or not. This is not something that is mandatory 
upon all taxpayers across the country. And if folks around the country, 
if taxpayers want to say, voluntarily, We want to help keep big money 
out of campaigns and we want to help cover local security issues, then 
we should be following through with that commitment and not eliminating 
it, not giving them any choice at all.
  Overall, if the majority will not accept this amendment, since you 
have raised the point of order, and it seems like you don't want to 
bring it up to a vote, I would urge everyone to vote ``no'' on H.R. 359 
because it puts in danger dollars that can be used by the City of 
Tampa, the Tampa Bay area, and other communities for security, 
transportation, preparation, and other allowable purposes.
  This amendment intends to replace the $100 million we spend for 
security every 4 years with funding from this voluntary fund. If we 
kill this fund, we're going to be hurting many local communities such 
as my hometown of Tampa. The host committee will be way behind the 
eight ball. They're doing a good job but, boy, this was a commitment, 
this is the law, and you're going to really stick it to them by taking 
these security funds away.
  So let's vote on making our communities safe when we rally a 
democracy under our political conventions.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point, since the majority party has offered a 
point of order, it appears that they are not going to allow this 
amendment and probably the next one to come up for a vote. So because 
the majority has raised a point of order to prevent a vote on my 
amendment, I reluctantly ask unanimous consent to withdraw both of my 
amendments, which would have safeguarded our security funds for local 
law enforcement.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR 
                   PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

       With respect to Federal funds received by an entity, other 
     than a natural person, it shall be unlawful for such entity 
     to--
       (1) use such funds to advocate the election or defeat of a 
     Presidential candidate;
       (2) use such funds to engage in any lobbying activity; or
       (3) donate such funds to any entity that advocates for the 
     election or defeat of a Presidential candidate or engages in 
     lobbying activities.

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.

[[Page H494]]

  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to withdraw, however 
reluctantly, the amendment. But I would like to thank my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle for giving me this opportunity to discuss 
what I believe is a critically important issue for our democracy.
  My amendment is straightforward. Entities that received Federal funds 
may not use those funds, be they bailouts, earmarks, grants, or 
payments for contracts, toward the election or defeat of a Presidential 
candidate.
  I understand what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hope 
to accomplish with the underlying bill today. They want to protect 
taxpayer dollars. Saving taxpayer dollars is a noble goal, particularly 
in these tough economic times.
  Unfortunately, this bill eliminates the voluntary fund that taxpayers 
elect to put toward campaign financing and does nothing about the much 
larger share of taxpayer dollars that can now go to campaign financing 
with no say from taxpayers. If we are truly serious about protecting 
taxpayer dollars, it is these dollars we should be concerned with. We 
should ensure that corporations and other entities receiving taxpayer 
money cannot turn around and use that same money to finance 
Presidential campaigns.
  The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, allowed corporations to have 
unlimited influence in elections. It removed longstanding protections 
that prevented corporations from making large contributions to 
candidates and drowning out the voices of everyday Americans trying to 
participate in our democracy. In the wake of Citizens United, public 
financing of Presidential elections is all the more important to ensure 
a level playing field for candidates running for office and to preserve 
the voice of the American taxpayer. By eliminating the Presidential 
Campaign Fund, my colleagues across the aisle would increase the 
influence of special interests in the elections, leaving Presidential 
candidates beholden to large, private contributions.
  If my colleagues insist on eliminating this important and completely 
voluntary fund, let us at least make sure that corporations receiving 
taxpayer money through bailouts, earmarks, and other Federal funds are 
not able to then use these taxpayer funds towards influencing 
Presidential elections. Let us level the playing field and protect all 
American voters by ensuring that these large, private contributions to 
political candidates aren't funded using taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Moore

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. TAXPAYER OPTION TO CONTRIBUTE OWN FUNDS TO 
                   PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6096. CONTRIBUTIONS OF OWN FUNDS BY INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Every taxpayer who makes a return of 
     the tax imposed by chapter 1 for any taxable year may 
     designate that $3 ($6 in the case of a joint return) in 
     addition to any payment of tax for such taxable year shall be 
     paid over to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 9006(a).
       ``(b) Manner and Time of Designation.--Any designation 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year--
       ``(1) shall be made at the time of filing the return of the 
     tax imposed by chapter 1 for such taxable year and in such 
     manner as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe, except 
     that such designation shall be made either on the first page 
     of the return or on the page bearing the taxpayer's 
     signature, and
       ``(2) shall be accompanied by a payment of the amount so 
     designated.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 6096 
     in the table of sections for part VIII of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 6096. Contributions of own funds by individuals.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes in support 
of her amendment.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United 
v. Federal Election Commission created an uninhibited voice for special 
interest spending in our elections and unlimited corporate speech in 
our public policy debate.
  Special interests were heard loud and clear this past election cycle 
to the tune of $281.6 million, almost five times greater than the 
previous midterm election of 2006. By eliminating the Presidential 
Election Campaign Fund where everyday Americans can have their voices 
heard, special interest groups will be able to shout from the top of 
the mountain and dominate Presidential elections even more.
  Currently, between 7 and 8 percent of Americans choose to direct $3 
of their tax liability to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. My 
amendment is simple. Instead of directing that amount, that $3 of their 
tax liability by checking that box, citizens would be able to check 
that box and voluntarily make a donation in the same amount to the 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
  What's important here is not whether a President uses the fund or 
doesn't use the fund. What's important is to preserve the opportunity 
for the average American to have that speech and the opportunity to say 
loud and clear that they support clean, good, and fair elections.

                              {time}  1300

  My amendment, instead of eliminating the entire program, lets 
Americans make a donation out of their own pockets. Good government 
groups are against the underlying bill, such as the League of Women 
Voters, Common Cause, Democracy 21, and Public Citizen. Rather than 
eliminating the public financing system, we should be working together 
in a bipartisan manner to reform it and improve it.
  Now, I understand that a point of order is being reserved against my 
amendment because CBO has scored my amendment as saving only $400 
million over 10 years, while the underlying bill saves $600 million. So 
I think given that my amendment does contribute to deficit reduction, 
we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
  Understanding, Mr. Chairman, that a point of order has been reserved, 
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. VOLUNTARY FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
                   CAMPAIGNS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6096. VOLUNTARY DESIGNATION BY INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Every taxpayer who makes a return of 
     the tax imposed by chapter 1 for any taxable year may 
     designate an amount shall be paid over to the Presidential 
     Election Campaign Fund in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 9006(a). The amount designated under the preceding 
     sentence--
       ``(1) may not be less than $1, and
       ``(2) shall be in addition to any payment of tax for the 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Manner and Time of Designation.--Any designation 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year--
       ``(1) shall be made at the time of filing the return of the 
     tax imposed by chapter 1 for such taxable year and in such 
     manner as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe, except 
     that such designation shall be made either on the first page 
     of the return or on the page bearing the taxpayer's 
     signature, and
       ``(2) shall be accompanied by a payment of the amount so 
     designated.

[[Page H495]]

       ``(c) Treatment of Amounts Designated.--For purposes of 
     this title, the amount designated by any taxpayer under 
     subsection (a) shall be treated as a contribution made by 
     such taxpayer to the United States on the last date 
     prescribed for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 
     (determined without regard to extensions) or, if later, the 
     date the return is filed.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 6096 
     in the table of sections for part VIII of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 6096. Voluntary designation by individuals.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an amendment that 
can maintain our commitment to true democracy and reduce the corrupting 
influence of Big Money in Presidential campaigns, but will also allow 
for fiscal responsibility and the savings that Members of both parties 
believe so strongly about.
  Rather than end the program, as has been proposed in the Republican 
bill to fund Presidential elections and reduce the influence of Big 
Money on our political system, this amendment would make the source of 
the voluntary individual donations to the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund. It can be structured in such a way where the same amount 
of money is saved because rather than, and when I looked into this 
matter, like many Americans, I thought and many people thought that the 
$3 check-off was actually additional money you pay. On the tax form, it 
looks like it is and you check it off. Most people think it is 
additional; it is not actually an additional $3. It comes out of the 
money you already pay.
  So what this amendment would do is say it would be an optional amount 
on top of the other amount that you pay. So it would be an additional 
$3 or $5 or $10. We actually leave it open and allow people themselves 
to designate how much money they would like to apply to fighting Big 
Money in politics.
  So with this approach, we can separate these two issues. One is an 
issue of fiscal responsibility with which I think there is strong 
bipartisan support for making cuts, even cuts of programs that we hold 
dear. Frankly, I am a supporter of public financing and am a cosponsor 
of the Fair Elections Act. I support more public financing, but I am 
also fiscally responsible, and I would make cuts elsewhere. Let's 
separate that out and say we can save the $520 million we need to save, 
but allow the program of public financing to continue as a program that 
individuals themselves can choose how much to fund when they are 
filling out their taxes. I think that is a very critical component with 
regard to this.
  By not capping the amount of voluntary donations, the amount of the 
fund could even be improved. It could remain solvent and strong because 
some taxpayers might dedicate $30, $100, or $500. We would make it easy 
by empowering taxpayers.
  I do have a technical fix for the amendment that I would like to 
offer. This is all happening so quickly, I will get that amendment to 
you in a moment. But effectively what this would do is, as you know, as 
it is now structured, all of the money you save going forward and the 
existing money from the fund is returned to Treasury.
  Certainly the intent of my amendment was to do the same thing, but 
there is some ambiguity about whether the existing money in the fund 
would be returned to Treasury, which is the intent of the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to modify for a technical correction the copy 
of the amendment I am sending to the desk.
  The CHAIR. If the gentleman would send the modification to the desk.
  Mr. POLIS. I withdraw the request to modify my amendment so I can 
continue with my time. How much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. So again, with regard to this amendment, it is designed to 
save the same amount of money because it does, obviously. It simply 
allocates the money both in the fund; and I offer in terms of a 
clarification on legislative intent that it is the intent. There is 
certainly nothing in the language of the amendment that precludes it, 
as well as any future funds that come in under the regular taxes that 
are paid. It allows the fund in the future to be funded out of 
voluntary contributions.
  I think if opponents of the Presidential campaign fund want to end 
the program for budgetary purposes, my amendment gives a reason to 
maintain the fund. We can, if you believe in the mission of public 
financing and fighting Big Money interests, also be fiscally 
responsible by maintaining the fund. Eliminating the fund would 
continue the trend of shutting out the public's voice in Federal 
campaigns.
  Again, I sympathize with the need to save $520 million, and I support 
the need to save $520 million; and that is a beginning. That is a small 
beginning for what we need to cut, but we can do so in a way that will 
allow this concept that was created in the wake of Watergate to 
continue to exist and work.
  I worry about the fate of our democracy with regard to the impact of 
Big Money on elections, and to get rid of public financing in 
Presidential campaigns would inflict greater damage on our campaigns 
and on our democracy.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on his point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order. I 
raise a point of order against the amendment because it violates clause 
10 of rule XXI, known as the CutGo rule. The amendment proposed 
increased mandatory spending without an equal or great reduction in 
existing mandatory spending relative to the underlying bill in 
violation of the rule.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. POLIS. Yes, I do.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized to be heard on 
the point of order.
  Mr. POLIS. The point of order is legitimate in the sense that there 
is an ambiguity with regard to what happens to the money. I would press 
the point that the legislative intent is to allow the money that exists 
in the fund to be returned to the Department of the Treasury. We would 
be happy to work with the gentleman on a technical fix to the amendment 
that would make that clear. I would argue that it is already clear 
enough in the sense that certainly nothing is prohibited in terms of 
returning that money. The formal scoring came back as saving at least, 
I believe, $422 million, which is all of the money going forward.
  So this is a question of the $100 million or so that is now in the 
fund. The legislative intent is to return that to the Treasury which 
would, therefore, result in identical savings. And we would be happy, 
to the gentleman's satisfaction and during the course of debate before 
the votes are called, to clarify that through a technical fix.
  The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California to be 
heard on the point of order.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. On the most recent clarification 
by the gentleman from Colorado, the intent of our legislation is to 
stop this program. Not only would the funds be returned that are 
already in there, but the program would not go forward.

                              {time}  1310

  So, therefore, the administrative costs to the IRS would be 
eliminated. The gentleman, by continuing the program, increases the net 
cost because you will continue having the administrative costs that 
otherwise would be no longer in effect as a result of the underlying 
bill; and therefore, the point of order would still be appropriate.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Illinois makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado violates clause 10 of rule XXI 
by proposing an increase in mandatory spending over a relevant period 
of time.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXI and clause 4 of rule XXIX, the 
Chair is authoritatively guided by estimates from the chair of the 
Committee on the Budget that the net effect of the provisions in the 
amendment would increase

[[Page H496]]

mandatory spending over a relevant period as compared to the bill.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment is 
not in order.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on the amendment on which further proceedings were postponed.
  The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters) on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes 7, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 23]

                               AYES--396

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harman
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NOES--7

     Clarke (NY)
     Edwards
     Holt
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Lee (CA)
     Nadler
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Baca
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Buchanan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carter
     Cooper
     Costa
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Engel
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Heinrich
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Larson (CT)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Ribble
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier

                              {time}  1335

  Messrs. HOLT, NADLER, Ms. WATERS, Ms. LEE of California, and Ms. 
CLARKE of New York changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 23 I was absent because I was 
having a root canal.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained on 
January 26, 2011 and missed rollcall vote No. 23 on the amendment to 
H.R. 359 offered by Representative Peters. If I had been present, I 
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 23.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 23, had I been present, I would 
have ``aye.''
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chair, earlier today I was unavoidably detained and 
missed rollcall vote No. 23. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
rollcall vote No. 23.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 359) to reduce 
Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of 
presidential election campaigns and party conventions, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 54, reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walz of Minnesota moves to recommit the bill H.R. 359 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
     report the same to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Disqualified Entity.--Section 9003 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Disqualified Entity.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `disqualified entity' means any 
     entity that has not entered into a campaign disclosure 
     agreement with the Department of the Treasury.
       ``(2) Campaign disclosure agreement.--The term `campaign 
     disclosure agreement'

[[Page H497]]

     means an agreement in which the entity agrees--
       ``(A) to file disclosure statements with the Internal 
     Revenue Service at such times, and covering such periods, as 
     are required under section 527(j)(2),
       ``(B) with respect to its receipt of payment for 
     electioneering communications from covered persons on or 
     after January 1, 2013, to include within those disclosure 
     statements--
       ``(i) the amount, date, and purpose of each payment and the 
     name and address of the covered person making the payment, 
     and
       ``(ii) the name and address of each disqualified 
     contributor making a payment on or after January 1, 2013, to 
     the covered person (including the occupation and name of 
     employer of such individual) and the amount and date of each 
     payment, and
       ``(C) to pay damages to the Secretary for failure to comply 
     with these disclosure requirements in an amount equal to 35 
     percent of the amount that was required to be disclosed.
       ``(3) Disqualified contributor.--The term `disqualified 
     contributor' means--
       ``(A) any person who makes payments (directly or 
     indirectly) of more than $100,000 to the covered person 
     during the calendar year, and
       ``(B) any foreign individual, foreign corporation, or 
     foreign country who makes any payment (directly or 
     indirectly) to the covered person during the calendar year.

     A payment that is deposited into an account of a covered 
     person that is not available for electioneering 
     communications shall not be taken into account for purposes 
     of the preceding sentence.
       ``(4) Electioneering communication.--The term 
     `electioneering communication' means a communication that--
       ``(A) refers to a clearly identified candidate for any 
     Federal public office,
       ``(B) reflects a view on such candidate or on the record of 
     such candidate, and
       ``(C) is made within 30 days of a general election or a 
     primary election.
       ``(5) Covered person.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `covered person' means any of 
     the following persons:
       ``(i) Any foreign individual, corporation, partnership, 
     limited liability company, limited liability partnership, 
     trust or similar entity or foreign country.
       ``(ii) Any domestic corporation, partnership, limited 
     liability company, limited liability partnership, trust or 
     similar entity.
       ``(iii) Any person described in section 501(c) and exempt 
     from tax under section 501(a).
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
     person if the aggregate payments for electioneering 
     communications during the calendar year by such person does 
     not exceed $25,000.''.
       (b) Condition.--Subsection (a) of section 9003 of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), 
     by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after paragraph (3) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) agree to not make any payment to a disqualified 
     entity for print, broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communications.''.
       (c) Preservation of Funds for Presidential Candidates.--
     Subsection (b) of section 9006 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Payments From the Fund.--Amounts in the Presidential 
     Election Campaign Fund shall be available, as provided by 
     appropriation Acts, solely for making expenditures to 
     eligible candidates of a political party. No expenditures may 
     be made from such fund unless the Secretary of the Treasury 
     has receipt of a certification from the Commission under 
     section 9005.''.
       (d) Preservation of Fund for Presidential Primaries.--
     Subsection (b) of section 9037 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Payments From the Matching Payment Account.--Amounts 
     in the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account shall be 
     available, as provided by appropriation Acts, solely for 
     making transfers to the candidate. No amount may be 
     transferred from the account unless the Secretary has receipt 
     of a certification from the Commission under section 9036, 
     but not before the beginning of the matching payment period. 
     In making such transfers to candidates of the same political 
     party, the Secretary shall seek to achieve an equitable 
     distribution of funds available under subsection (a), and the 
     Secretary shall take into account, in seeking to achieve an 
     equitable distribution, the sequence in which such 
     certifications are received.''.
       (e) Preservation of Funds for National Committee.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 9008(b) of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(3) Payments.--Amounts in the appropriate account 
     maintained under subsection (a) shall be available, as 
     provided by appropriation Acts, solely for making 
     expenditures to the national committee of a major party or 
     minor party which elects to receive its entitlement under 
     this subsection. Such payments shall be available for use by 
     such committee in accordance with the provisions of 
     subsection (c). No expenditures may be made from such fund 
     unless the Secretary of the Treasury has receipt of a 
     certification from the Commission under subsection (g).''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  Mr. ROSKAM. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. ROSKAM (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a true champion of transparency and openness 
in government and our elections.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague and thank him for offering this 
motion because it's very simple. What this does is allow the American 
public to finally know who is funding the political ads that they're 
watching financed by a lot of these shadowy groups.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today our Republican colleagues rejected the 
idea of having broad transparency by adopting the DISCLOSE Act. What 
this does is target it in one very important area, an area that the 
American public deserves to know, and that is when commercials, TV 
commercials, are paid for by special interests, Big Money special 
interests, including foreign corporations, and corporations that are 
owned or controlled by foreign governments, whether they be China, 
Iran, Venezuela, whoever it may be, that the American public has a 
right to know who is paying for those ads.
  It's simple, it's transparent, and in fact our Republican colleagues 
even recently said they were in favor of more transparency. Speaker 
Boehner said on Meet the Press, and I quote: ``I think what we ought to 
do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the 
money we raise and how it is spent. I think sunlight is the best 
disinfectant.'' I would hope that would also be true about foreign-
controlled corporations trying to secretly finance ads in this country.
  Majority Leader Cantor told Newsweek, and I quote: ``Anything that 
moves us back toward the notion of transparency, real-time reporting of 
donations and contributions would be helpful toward restoring 
confidence of the voters.''
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is very simple. Let's let the American 
public know when you have these Big Money special interests, including 
foreign-controlled corporations, spending this money to influence their 
vote. Eighty percent of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, 
and independents, say they want to know. A vote against this motion is 
a vote to keep the American public in the dark, to continue to allow 
those shadowy groups, including those controlled by foreign interests, 
to continue to try and influence the elections in this country without 
telling a single person. That's wrong. It violates the kind of pledge 
towards transparency and greater accountability that we heard a lot in 
this last election.
  So I urge my colleagues to act on a bipartisan basis to simply give 
the public the right to know when those kinds of organizations, 
including foreign-controlled corporations, are spending gobs of money 
on TV and not telling the American people who they are or who is 
financing them.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman. And on the morning 
after the night we sat here together and listened to the President talk 
about us working together, we have got a motion to recommit that I 
think we can all agree upon. As the gentleman spoke about something 
very uniquely American in our election process, it is that humble idea 
of someone like myself, a school teacher, football coach, and soldier, 
with no political connections and no personal wealth, can actually get 
their friends together and win elections to Congress.
  The idea that we should have our elections be influenced by 
undisclosed foreign money runs counter to everything in this Nation's 
history. This piece of legislation was a bipartisan piece of 
legislation that was meant to

[[Page H498]]

curb the excesses in the post-Watergate era. It has been used by every 
President, including Ronald Reagan, to make sure that our election 
processes were fair.
  So we offer this motion to recommit in the spirit of last night's 
speech, something we can agree upon together, that foreign corporations 
should not buy our elections, that any American wishing to run for 
office should do so on merit and should do so with transparency and the 
knowledge of the American public.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this 
very simple motion to recommit to keep our elections fair, to keep the 
American people informed, and to keep this democracy in our hands, not 
foreign corporations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, there is really no sense of irony here, is 
there, that the proponents, the self-described proponents of 
transparency and openness, in the twinkling of an eye before a vote on 
an adjournment day come over and say there's your motion to recommit?
  This was posted online, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week. The 
proponents--and this is a modified open rule--the proponents had an 
opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on Friday to file an amendment, on Monday to 
file an amendment, on Tuesday to file an amendment. But the very 
described people who are now cloaking themselves in a mantle of 
openness and transparency say, ``There you go''--moments ago. Okay, 
that's the program. I get the program.
  What is this ultimately all about? There is a sincere effort on the 
part of this majority, and I think some folks on the minority as well, 
to take the President up. There is a real attempt on the part of the 
proponents of this bill, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, to try and save money, 
to look out over the entire course of this budget and all of these 
challenges. And Mr. Cole and the folks that are behind H.R. 359, the 
underlying bill, are ultimately saying we can save $617 million over a 
10-year period. Mr. Speaker, that's according to the CBO.
  So it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to save the 
money, you defeat the amendment. If you want to play games on the day 
that we're all heading out, trying to act like you are full of 
transparency and openness, support the amendment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Does the underlying bill cut spending? Does 
the motion cut spending?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to inquiries 
regarding the content of a pending proposition.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. 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 passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 173, 
nays 228, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 24]

                               YEAS--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     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
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--228

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     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
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     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 (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Baca
     Boswell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cooper
     Costa
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Heinrich
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Loebsack
     Lummis
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     Miller, Gary
     Nunes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Speier
     Tipton
     Welch
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1406

  Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H499]]

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 24, I missed 
the vote inadvertantly due to a constituent meeting in my office. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 24, because I was having a 
root canal, had I been present, I would nave voted ``no.''
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 24, I was with a Medal of 
Honor winner. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 160, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 25]

                               YEAS--239

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--160

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
      

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Baca
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cooper
     Costa
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     King (IA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Loebsack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     Miller, Gary
     Nunes
     Owens
     Peterson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Speier
     Welch

                              {time}  1412

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 25, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I regret missing a floor vote on Wednesday, 
January 26, 2011 due to a ceremony honoring Staff Sergeant Salvatore 
Guinta. Had I registered my vote, I would have voted: ``nay'' on 
rollcall 25, on final passage of H.R. 359--To reduce Federal spending 
and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential 
election campaigns and party conventions.

                          ____________________