[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 906-907]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        ELIMINATING TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 54 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 359.

                              {time}  1134


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 359) to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating 
taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party 
conventions, with Mr. LaTourette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
House Administration.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel 
E. Lungren), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last night, the President in this very Chamber issued 
us an invitation. In that invitation, there were several opportunities, 
but two of them I would like to highlight. One is, he said this: He 
said he is willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do 
without. I take the President at face value that he's interested in 
doing that.
  The other thing that the President issued was an invitation where he 
said this: He said, in fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for 
all Americans is to simplify the Tax Code.
  Well, the law governing the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and 
the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account is located in the 
Internal Revenue Code, which really inherently makes no sense.
  And I think during the course of this debate, Mr. Chairman, we're 
going to lay out the argument as to why the President's first point can 
be greeted and agreed to, that first goal that this is simply something 
that we can do without.
  Let me make a couple of quick points. I think it's important to 
recognize the irony of the Statement of Administration Policy that was 
published on January 25, and I'm reading in the third paragraph--the 
administration, in criticism of this effort, says, ``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.''
  How can that be, Mr. Chairman? President Obama, when he was a 
candidate in 2008 for the United States Presidency, declined to 
participate in this fund, both in his primary and in his general 
election. And if President Obama has been able to rise above that, I 
think other Americans can rise above that.
  Also, I would just like to bring your attention to that same 
argument, and that is, a ``Dear colleague'' that was sent criticizing 
this bill said basically the same thing: By creating a viable 
alternative to private fundraising, the public financing system was 
designed to level the electoral playing field and ensure that 
candidates remain accountable to voters, not special interests.
  So does that mean, implicitly, Mr. Chairman, that candidates who 
didn't participate in the program are somehow not accountable to 
voters? I think President Obama would say he's really accountable to 
voters.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this measure, which, 
along with the Supreme Court's radical decision in Citizens United, 
takes our Nation's campaign finance system in precisely the wrong 
direction: less transparency and less information for the voters.
  Americans from across the political spectrum--Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents--want less special interest money in politics, not more. 
They want clean, transparent, and competitive elections; and campaigns 
where candidates--those of us in this room and Presidential 
candidates--rise and fall based on the quality of their ideas, the 
strength of their arguments, and their ability to attract support from 
the voters that they seek to represent.
  What they don't want are campaigns decided by how much secret money 
flows into an election from secret outside groups. And they will no 
longer tolerate, I believe, those politicians turning around and saying 
to those citizens: You have no right to know who is paying for what in 
our political campaigns; you have no right to know

[[Page 907]]

who is paying for those TV advertisements you're watching.
  Let's remember what we are talking about here. The current 
Presidential financing system that this bill would eliminate arose from 
public outrage in the post-Watergate period. Rather than Presidential 
candidates trafficking in secret slush funds, our Nation decided that 
our democracy would be better served by a system of public disclosure, 
contribution limits, and emphasis on smaller-dollar contributions 
matched by the Presidential financing fund.
  The system is voluntary, one line on our Tax Code, not complicated; 
and while not perfect, for most of its 36 years in existence, it has 
served this Nation well. Candidates from across the political spectrum, 
from Ronald Reagan to Jesse Jackson, have voluntarily participated in 
the Presidential financing system.
  As my colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned there is no 
doubt that the current law needs to be modernized; it needs to be 
fixed. We saw that in the last Presidential election. But rather than 
throw out something that has served the country and the electorate well 
for 36 years, let's fix it. And the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price) and I and others have introduced legislation to do exactly that.
  So rather than shielding an avalanche of unlimited special interest 
money from public view, we should shine a light on it. We should do it 
by modernizing the Presidential system, and we should also pass the 
DISCLOSE Act, which we could have brought up and voted on except for 
the previous question was just defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, our Nation's democracy doesn't 
belong to Presidents or Members of Congress; it belongs to the voters 
who send us here, and we have a solemn responsibility to safeguard it 
on their behalf and protect it for future generations from the lessons 
in corruption in history. Let's mend it. Let's fix it. Let's not throw 
it out.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________