[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.
____________________