[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14353-14356]
[From the U.S. 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.

  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 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

[[Page 14354]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 14355]]

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.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5912. This is 
a misguided bill that repeals public financing of our national 
political conventions and allows moneyed special-interests to complete 
their corporate buyout of America's electoral process.
  Public financing of both Democratic and Republican conventions, 
created in 1976 following the Watergate scandal, was designed to 
establish a safeguard against corruption in the political system by 
reducing the emphasis on fundraising in presidential campaigns and 
diminishing the influence of wealthy special interests. In recent 
years, the need to modernize the system for today's campaign 
environment has become evident, but the system remains as critical as 
ever to the integrity of our democracy--especially in the wake of the 
Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. FEC ruling.
  The disastrous Citizens United decision that unleashed nearly a 
billion dollars of corporate funding into the Presidential race has 
demonstrated how essential it is to restore and uphold the integrity of 
our elections. Passage of H.R. 5912 would only serve to further 
undermine this integrity by enabling secretive Super PACs and 
billionaires to take full control of our political conventions, a 
critical component of America's electoral process. Furthermore, public 
financing plays a vital role in helping state and local governments 
offset the costs associated with hosting national political 
conventions. These costs may include property taxes, parking 
accommodations, and local law enforcement funding. H.R. 5912 is unfair 
to the municipalities that have the honor of hosting these important 
national events.
  The financing system for political conventions must be repaired, not 
repealed, to better serve the interests of the American people and 
protect against corruption.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  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.

[[Page 14356]]



                          ____________________