[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6113-H6115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PARTY
CONVENTIONS
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5912) to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party
conventions, and to provide for the return of previously distributed
funds for deficit reduction, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5912
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN
FUNDS FOR PARTY CONVENTIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking section 9008.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter
95 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to
section 9008.
SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Availability of Payments to Candidates.--The third
sentence of section 9006(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``, section 9008(b)(3),''.
(b) Reports by Federal Election Commission.--Section
9009(a) of such Code is amended--
(1) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (3)
and inserting a period; and
(3) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6).
(c) Penalties.--Section 9012 of such Code is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking the second sentence;
and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(d) Availability of Payments From Presidential Primary
Matching Payment Account.--The second sentence of section
9037(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``and for
payments under section 9008(b)(3)''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
elections occurring after December 31, 2012.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public
funds for political party conventions.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Fudge) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5912, which would
terminate taxpayer financing of party conventions.
Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to say that party conventions today are by and
large week-long televised movie sets and almost entirely symbolic.
Although conventions do provide important insight into party platforms
and Presidential candidates, spending millions of taxpayer dollars to
fund them, particularly in today's environment, is simply untenable.
American taxpayers should not be subsidizing political party
conventions. With our historic levels of deficit spending and our
national debt over $16 trillion and climbing, this Congress and this
President need to be thinking very differently about how we use
taxpayer dollars.
{time} 1740
Since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on publicly
funding our Presidential primaries, our Presidential general elections,
and our Presidential party conventions. Each party's national
convention this year received almost $18 million in taxpayer funding.
While I believe we should be getting rid of public funding of
Presidential campaigns as well, at a minimum we should pass this
commonsense measure to stop financing our parties with taxpayers'
dollars. The American taxpayer has paid enough for this unwise
experiment. It should be ended.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, I
would hope would garner overwhelming bipartisan support. I thank him
for introducing it and for his commitment to a responsible and
efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This should stop funding
going to all party conventions. It is a bipartisan solution to a
bipartisan problem.
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5912, Mr. Speaker, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5912. H.R. 5912 terminates the
public financing of nominating conventions. The Presidential Election
Campaign Fund was created and designed to restore public confidence in
the political process in a post-Watergate world. Since 1976, both
parties have requested and received public funds to finance their
nominating conventions, including as recently as this year. The aim of
H.R. 5912 is to inject more private influence over elections, even
though the current level is already appallingly high. This bill turns
over another electoral function to private interests. It invites the
very corruption the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was created to
combat. This system needs to be reformed, not repealed, and we ought to
be having a serious debate about the outsized role money plays in our
politics.
Because the majority has failed to act, the ranking member of the
House Administration Committee, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, was forced
to have his own forum on the poisoning effect of money in politics. We
have not considered the DISCLOSE Act or any legislation of substance to
deal with the secret money influencing our politics. The Voter
Empowerment Act was introduced months ago. Yet absolutely nothing has
been done to address the threat of millions of voters being
disenfranchised this November. Most appalling, Mr. Speaker, is the fact
that
[[Page H6114]]
this Congress is making its own history as the least productive
Congress in a generation.
This Congress has already considered the substance of the measure
before us--at least twice--in November, 2011, and again this past
January. To be blunt, Mr. Speaker, this is simply a waste of time.
Unemployment insurance and Medicare physician payment rates need to be
tackled. Middle class tax cuts are set to expire and we need to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This bill does nothing to
address deficit reduction, but here we are considering it while
ignoring the looming sequester. We voted to repeal ObamaCare more than
30 times without voting on a serious jobs bill once. This piece of
legislation further intertwines our political process with the private
interests while pleas from the middle class are blatantly ignored and
the economic future of this country hangs in the balance.
For almost 2 years now, serious issues have been ignored in favor of
politically convenient empty gestures. And this is more of the same. It
is time to get serious and it is time to get to work. We can start by
opposing this legislation and urging the majority to address the real
issues facing this country.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15
seconds.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame we've come to a point where it can be said
on the floor of the House attempting to save the taxpayers of America
$36 million is a waste of time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations and
the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Cole is the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding.
H.R. 5912 is a bipartisan bill to end public financing for political
conventions. And that's all it is.
I want to begin by thanking my friend, Mr. Loebsack from Iowa. We
belong to different parties. I have no doubt we'll be voting for
different Presidential candidates. But we both agree that it's wrong to
use taxpayer dollars to finance partisan political events. And I
appreciate his support in helping push this legislation.
Let me make it clear to everybody. I'm not opposed to political party
conventions. I've gone to 10 of them. I actually had the privilege of
helping stage one in 2000, when I was chief of staff of the Republican
National Committee. And I can assure you that experience taught me that
the parties are more than capable of putting on their conventions. They
essentially do that now. The Federal component of the cost to the
convention is about 23 percent of the total cost. So the idea that they
can't find the resources to do this for themselves I think simply falls
flat on its face.
This year, at a time when we're going to be running trillion-dollar
deficits for the fourth year in a row, we wrote checks to the
Democratic Party and to the Republican Party, as my friend Mr. Lungren
mentioned, for almost $18 million each. For what? Was it really
necessary? Does anybody really believe that was the best use of public
money? Is there no program that's more important? I can give you a list
of better places for that money to go that we would probably agree on
on both sides of the aisle.
It's remarkable to me that we've reached a point in this body that
this becomes an issue of some degree of partisan contention. The United
States Senate passed, essentially, this legislation by 95-5 in an
amendment by my friend, Mr. Coburn, to a larger piece of legislation.
So there's broad agreement in the Senate, which Democrats control, that
this is a Federal expense that we no longer need to incur.
This bill is a small step, but it's a stall step in the right
direction. It's a step to save taxpayer dollars for things that people
need as opposed to things that politicians and political parties want.
We ought to take this opportunity, work together, save the money,
reduce the deficit by at least a modest amount, spend money in places
where it's necessary, and pass this bill. It's a quite simple piece of
legislation. Those folks that have a different point of view, bring
your legislation to the floor, we'll deal with that. But there's no
reason to pay for the Democratic and the Republican national
conventions with taxpayer funds.
One last point, if I may, Mr. Speaker. We don't do this for anybody
else. There are other political groups and parties in America that I'm
sure would like to have their conventions paid for. We don't give them
a single dime. So this actually perpetuates a bipartisan monopoly, if
you will. There's no public purpose in spending this money.
So I urge the passage. I urge some bipartisan cooperation.
Ms. FUDGE. Just to be clear, let me first say it will not reduce the
deficit. This is a voluntary checkoff. This does not come from
taxpayers' dollars. It will not reduce the deficit. So let's be clear.
Secondly, when he talked about the Senate having passed this on a 95-
5 vote, he doesn't say it was an amendment to the farm bill. It was not
a standalone bill for this purpose.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Workforce and the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding, and I do rise in support of this bill.
As we struggle to recover from the worst recession since the Great
Depression, Congress must be good stewards of taxpayer funding and
ensure that as families cut back and save, the government cuts back and
saves as well.
I have been pleased to work with Congressman Cole to promote this
legislation. And as the only Democratic cosponsor, I do want to thank
him for his work on this bill. I'm also pleased that Senator Coburn's
identical amendment passed with huge bipartisan support in the Senate.
And I do expect similar support in the House, as I think we can all
agree on this commonsense way to ensure the prudent use of taxpayer
funds.
This bill will prohibit the use of public funding for political party
conventions like the recent ones in Tampa and Charlotte. It will also
put any leftover funding toward deficit reduction. And while I did not
attend the convention this year so I could focus on the needs of
Iowans, I know there is an important role some convention activities
play for the political parties and for the country, and indeed for the
political process in America. However, I do not believe that taxpayer
dollars need to be used to fund them, especially when public funding,
as was mentioned, only makes up 23 percent of the cost of the
conventions, is far outweighed by private donations, and is used for
purposes not necessarily critical to the continuance of our stable
democracy.
{time} 1750
While Iowa families are struggling each day just to pay the bills,
Washington should as well be focused on ensuring proper use of taxpayer
resources. While I certainly appreciate the concerns of those opposed
to this bill, I nonetheless hope that the House agrees that parties at
political conventions are not a proper purpose or use of funds,
taxpayer dollars.
I do hope that my colleagues will support Congressman Cole's
legislation to ensure taxpayer funds are not being used for either
Republican or Democratic Parties, and that in the future, I would like
to see us be much more thoughtful regarding where we apply public funds
in the political process. I think there is an important role for that.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me be clear again: This is a voluntary checkoff. They check the
box because they want the money to go to conventions and/or political
activity. It is not something that we require them to do. It is
voluntary. So if, in fact, we are going to stop and give the money
back, the money should go back to the American people, not to reduce
the deficit, because that is the purpose for which the money was sent
to us in the first place.
With that, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
[[Page H6115]]
Mr. Speaker, it may be a voluntary checkoff, but the money is not
voluntary. It is part of the income tax you are required to pay. While
we all do support government, I would wonder, if you made the income
tax entirely voluntary, whether we could get anything close to what we
do now. It is, in fact, the tax that you must pay. So that part is not
voluntary.
Secondly, I'm surprised that one would not want to attribute this to
reducing the deficit even though it's only $36 million, as suggested by
the other side. If we can't even do this here, what confidence can the
American people have that we would deal with the tougher issues and
larger amounts? If $36 million is too difficult for us to use to
somehow reduce the deficit, what hope is there that we can do anything
seriously in this Congress or Congresses in the future?
I must respond to the repeated suggestion that we have done nothing
in this Congress.
The Obama administration would be surprised, since they said that the
FISA amendments, which we passed on this floor with 301 positive votes,
were the number one priority for the administration in the area of
intelligence. In the aftermath of what happened just a couple of weeks
ago, one would think that we would understand the seriousness of
intelligence. And that which is the greatest tool, according to the DNI
currently and previous DNIs, that tool, which got strong bipartisan
support, was indeed an important thing for us to do here.
We had three free trade agreements that we finally approved. They
have been waiting around for a number of years. The consensus is they
create jobs in this economy and give us a fair playing field in which
our workers can compete.
We had a transportation bill that we passed. We dealt with the
interest paid on student loans. And I would just say, for 2 years in a
row, we have, in fact, spent less on discretionary spending than we did
the preceding year. I think that's the first time we've done that in a
generation.
There are other things that I could talk about. It is a shame that
the other body has not acted on the nearly 30 bills we've sent over
there that deal with jobs.
Oh, yes, we also had my bill, H.R. 4, which repealed that section of
the President's health care bill that placed an inordinate paperwork
burden on small business, and that was the number one priority of the
small business community in the country.
I wish we would do more. I wish we would have the cooperation of the
other body. It's very difficult to negotiate when the other party won't
come to the table or even articulate what their position is; but,
nonetheless, I would suggest that those things I have spoken about are
not unimportant.
But, of course, that's a digression because that's not talking about
the bill before us.
The bill before us is a simple bill. All it does is say that the
party's over. The taxpayer will no longer pay with taxpayer dollars for
the conventions of the two national parties. Doesn't stop them from
having their conventions, doesn't denigrate their conventions, doesn't
take them off television; it just says the American taxpayer will not
pay for it. We're going to save $36 million. Fairly straight forward,
fairly simple.
I would hope that we would have a strong bipartisan vote for this,
because it is truly a bipartisan problem and timely, because many of
our constituents, at least when I was home in the district, said, Why
are you in the Congress voting to put taxpayer dollars for these
conventions?
That was a tough question to answer. We can answer that question here
in a very bipartisan way by passing this bill.
With that, I would ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5912, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to H.R. 5912. This bill is flawed in substance and comes to the floor
without serious deliberation or debate.
I want to make clear, however, that my colleague from Oklahoma and I
agree that paying for presidential nominating conventions is not a wise
use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the main provisions of Mr. Cole's
bill are included nearly verbatim in my Presidential Funding Act H.R.
414. However, H.R. 5912 excludes a critical prohibition on the use of
``soft money'' to fund conventions, keeping the door open for unlimited
soft money donations from corporations and high-dollar special
interests. Allowing conventions to accept millions of dollars in these
unregulated contributions could threaten the credibility of the
nominating process and further erode the principle of one voice, one
vote.
I also take issue with the closed process under which this bill has
been brought to the floor. H.R. 5912 is being considered under
suspension of the rules, without amendments, committee markup, or
serious deliberation. The Committee on House Administration has not
even held hearings on this bill. But that should come as no surprise--
the Majority has not held a single hearing on the issue of campaign
finance in the 112th Congress, a period that has seen the House pass
bills dismantling many of the common-sense campaign reforms of the
post-Watergate era. I have opposed repeated floor votes that would
repeal the presidential public financing system as a whole. This bill
is merely the latest cynical attempt to attack the system with no
effort to replace it.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's thoroughly misguided Citizens
United decision, we should be working to strengthen--not to weaken--the
rules that ensure our elections are free and fair. That is why Mr. Van
Hollen, other colleagues, and I will introduce a bill later this week
which will be an important first step toward the comprehensive reform
that our democratic elections need.
Our bill, the Empowering Citizens Act, will incorporate and improve
H.R. 414, reforming and strengthening the presidential public financing
system. In addition, it will establish a voluntary small-donor public
financing program for congressional campaigns. Finally, it will
establish strong rules forbidding coordination among candidate-specific
SuperPACs and political parties or campaigns, thereby lessening the
outsize influence of special interests and outside spending groups in
our elections.
I believe that we are at a tipping point in the short history of
campaign finance reform--we can either choose to stand by the common-
sense reforms that have restored America's faith in elections after the
Watergate scandal, or we can choose to cede control of political
campaigns entirely to wealthy corporations and interest groups. The
responsible choice is clear. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose
this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5912, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________