Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
SPEAKER, I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE NO AND DEFEAT THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION SO WE CAN DEBATE AND
PASS REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REFORM TODAY.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE GENTLEMAN'S
REQUEST IS HONORED.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
AS I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, RULE
AND UNDERLYING BILL, I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME AND
MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ON
THE RESOLUTION.
THE
QUESTION IS ON ORDERING THE
PREVIOUS QUESTION ON THE
RESOLUTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
AYES HAVE IT.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
MR. SPEAKER, ON
THAT I ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
DOES
THE GENTLEMAN REQUEST THE YEAS
AND NAYS?
I REQUEST THE YEAS
AND NAYS.
THOSE
FAVORING A VOTE BY THE YEAS AND
NAYS WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 233.
ON THIS
ARE 1 AM.
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 234, THE NAYS
A MAJORITY VOTING -- 178.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
ORDERED.
THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF
THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE RESOLUTION IS AGREED TO.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER IS LAID UPON THE
TABLE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM -- FOR WHAT
PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW YORK RISE?
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
MEMBERS, PLEASE CEASE
COFERINGSES.
MEMBERS ON THE AISLES, PLEASE
TAKE SEATS.
MEMBERS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM,
PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS
OFF THE FLOOR.
THOSE IN THE REAR OF THE
CHAMBER, PLEASE TAKE YOUR
CONVERSATIONS OFF THE FLOOR.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
PARLIAMENTARY
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK.
INQUIRY.
ON THE BILL WE'RE GOING TO BE
CONSIDERING SHORTLY, THE
PRESIDENTIAL CHECKOFF BILL,
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE
RULES THAT THE AMENDMENTS BE
PRINTED IN THE RECORD IS THAT
RECORD AVAILABLE?
-- PRINTED IN THE RECORD.
IS THAT RECORD AVAILABLE?
THE
CHAIR UNDERSTANDS THAT THE
PRINTED RECORD IS NOT YET
AVAILABLE.
FURTHER INQUIRY.
DOES THE CHAIR HAVE -- DOES THE
SPEAKER HAVE ANY GUIDANCE --
GUIDANCE ON WHEN THAT RECORD
WILL BE AVAILABLE?
THE
CHAIR DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE
THAT INFORMATION.
THE QUESTION WOULD BECOME RIPE
BEGINS.
WHEN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM FLORIDA RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY
HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS IN
WHICH TO REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR
REMARKS AND INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS
MATERIAL ON H.R. 359.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 54
AND RULE 18, THE CHAIR DELAIRS
THE HOUSE IN THE COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF
THE UNION FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 359.
THE CHAIR APPOINTS THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OHIO, MR. LATOURETTE, TO
PRESIDE OVER THE COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE.
THE HOUSE IS IN THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON
THE STATE OF THE UNION FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 359 WHICH
THE CLERK WILL REPORT BY TITLE.
A BILL TO REDUCE
FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE DEFICIT
BY TERMINATING TAXPAYER
FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND PARTY
CONVENTIONS.
THE GENTLEMAN'S
CORRECT.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES, CLEAR THE
AISLES, TAKE SEATS, REMOVE
CONVERSATIONS.
MEMBERS AT THE REAR OF THE
CHAMBER.
THE CLERK, DID YOU REPORT THE
TITLE OF THE BILL?
OK, EXCELLENT.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE BILL
IS CONSIDERED READ THE FIRST
TIME, GENERAL DEBATE SHALL NOT
EXCEED ONE HOUR EQUALLY DIVIDED
AND CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR AND
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AND
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.
LUNGREN, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
PENTAGON, MR. BRADY, WILL EACH
CONTROL 15 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR WILL AGAIN ASK FOR
ORDER.
SPECIFICALLY MEMBERS ON THE
CHAIR'S LEFT WILL PLEASE REMOVE
THEIR CONVERSATIONS FROM THE
FLOOR.
THE GENTLEMAN MAY PROCEED.
THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES --
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES
ROSKAM.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, MR.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I WILL YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS
I MAY CONSUME.
MR. CHAIRMAN, LAST NIGHT THE
PRESIDENT IN THIS VERY CHAMBER
ISSUED US AN INVITATION AND THAT
INVITATION, THERE WERE SEVERAL
OPPORTUNITIES, BUT TWO OF THEM
I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT.
ONE IS, HE SAID THIS, HE SAID
THAT HE'S WILLING TO ELIMINATE
WHATEVER WE CAN HONESTLY AFFORD
TO DO WITHOUT.
I TAKE THE PRESIDENT AT FACE
DOING THAT.
VALUE, THAT HE'S INTERESTED IN
THE GENTLEMAN WILL
SUSPEND.
MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY SIDE,
BEHIND THE RAIL, PLEASE ADJOURN
TO THE CLOAKROOM OR THE HALLWAY
SO WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE
DEBATE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS.
THE OTHER THING THAT
THE PRESIDENT ISSUED WAS AN
INVITATION WHERE HE SAID THIS,
HE SAID, IN FACT THE BEST THING
WE CAN DO ON TAXES FOR ALL
AMERICANS IS TO SIMPLIFY THE TAX
CODE.
WELL THE LAW GOVERNING
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN
FUNDS 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 WE CAN DO
WITHOUT.
LET ME TAKE A COUPLE OF QUICK --
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, HE SAYS,
THE ADMINISTRATION IN CRITICISM
OF THIS EFFORT SAID, 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 2000 FOR THE UNITED
STATES PRESIDENCY, DECLINED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE FUND, BOTH IN
HIS PRIMARY AND HIS GENERAL
ELECTION.
AND IF PRESIDENT OBAMA IS ABLE
TO RISE ABOVE THAT, I THINK
OTHER AMERICANS CAN RISE ABOVE
THAT.
ALSO, I'D JUST LIKE TO BRING TO
YOUR ATTENTION SORT OF THAT SAME
ARGUMENT AND THAT IS, IN A DEAR
COLLEAGUE THAT WAS SENT
CRITICIZING THIS BILL, SAID
BASICALLY THE SAME THING.
BY CREATING A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE
TO PRIVATE FUNDRAISING THE
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ORB THE --
OR THE PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM
WAS DESIGNED TO LEVEL THE
ELECTORAL PLAYING FIELD AND
ENSURE THAT CANDIDATES REMAIN
ACCOUNTABLE TO VOTERS AND NOT
SPECIAL INTERESTS.
DOES THAT MEAN, 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
THE VOTERS.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
--
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON,
MR. MCDERMOTT.
MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD THREE MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND, MR. VAN
HOLLEN.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND.
THANK YOU, MR.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE.
SPEAKER.
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,
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 VOTES THAT ARE THEY SEEK TO
REPRESENT.
WHAT THEY DON'T WANT, 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'S
PAYING FOR WHAT IN OUR POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHO IS
PAYING FOR THOSE TV
ADVERTISEMENTS THAT YOU'RE
WATCHING.
LET'S REMEMBER WHAT WE'RE
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
DECISIONS THAT -- 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 YOUR 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.
NOW, AS A COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER
SIDE 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, RATHER THAN THROW IT OUT
LET'S FIX IT.
AND MR. PRICE FROM NORTH
CAROLINA AND I AND OTHERS HAVE
INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO DO
EXACTLY THAT.
SO RATHER THAN SHIELDING AN
AVELAMPLING 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 ALSO
PASS THE DISCLOSE ACT WHICH WE
COULD HAVE BROUGHT UP AND VOTED
ON EXCEPT FOR THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION WAS JUST DEFEATED.
MR. SPEAKER, 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 OF CORRUPTION IN
HISTORY, LET'S MEND IT, LET'S
FIX IT, LET'S NOT THROW IT OUT.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE COMMITTEE WILL RISE
INFORMALLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
RECEIVING A MESSAGE.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA
KINDLY TAKE THE CHAIR?
THE
HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER AND THE
CHAIR WILL RECEIVE A MESSAGE.
THE MESSENGER: MR. SPEAKER, A
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.
THE SECRETARY: MR. SPEAKER.
MADAM
SECRETARY.
THE SECRETARY: I HAVE BEEN
DIRECTED BY THE SENATE TO INFORM
THE HOUSE THAT THE SENATE HAS
AGREED WITH S. 3, HONORING THE
SERVICE AND SACRIFICE OF STAFF
SERGEANT SALVATORE GIUNTA, A
NATIVE OF IOWA, IN THE FIRST
LIVING RECIPIENT OF THE MEDAL OF
HONOR SINCE THE VIETNAM WAR.
IN WHICH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
HOUSE IS REQUESTED.
THE
COMMITTEE WILL RESUME ITS
SITTING.
CHOIPT CHAIR SEES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ILLINOIS ON --
THE CHAIR SEES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS ON HIS
FEET.
ARE WE GOING TO GO -- IT WILL BE
THE CHAIR'S INCLINATION TO
REPRESENT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA AT THIS MOMENT IN
TIME IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT
ALL AT THE SAME TIME BUT THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR.
LUNGREN.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IF IT HASN'T BEEN REQUESTED
ALREADY, I WOULD ASK THAT ALL
MEMBERS HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE
DAYS TO REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR
REMARKS.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN
REQUESTED IN THE HOUSE.
WE CAN MOVE ON.
MR. CHAIRMAN, 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 WANT TO MENTION
IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING THAT
WAS SAID BY THE OTHER SIDE, THIS
IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE DECIDED
BY THE SUPREME COURT.
THAT CHANGED NOT ONE EYE OATA
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.
SO, 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
OTHERS.
POLITICAL DEBATE BY JOINING WITH
AND THEN THE QUESTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT, THAT THE SUPREME
COURT ANSWERED WAS THAT 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 OF
CONTEMPLATED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS AND THEY
TOLD US IT DID NOT. SO LET'S GET RID
OF THAT CANARRD RIGHT ABAY.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAMPAIGNS OR FOREIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS BOTH
OF WHICH REMAIN ILLEGAL WITH
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS UNDER THE
LAW.
LET'S GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY SO
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DEBATE
THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE BILL BEFORE US.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WE FIND OURSELVES
AT A UNIQUE JUNCTURE IN THE LONG
STANDING DEBATE OVER THIS ISSUE
BUT THE REALITY IT'S A JUNCTURE
NO LONGER.
TAXPAYER FINANCING OF
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND PARTY
CONVENTIONS, THE TWO MAJOR
DEFENSIBLE.
PARTIES IS SIMPLY NO LONGER
THE FIRST TAX LIABILITY
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR AMERICAN
TAXPAYERS TO BE DIVERTED TOWARD
THE FUNDING OF PRESIDENTIAL
1976.
ELECTIONS BEGAN 35 YEARS AGO IN
THIS NEW PRACTICE WAS AS WE WERE
TOLD BY THE OTHER SIDE, SUPPOSED
TO RAISE THE PUBLIC STRESS OF
THE GOVERNMENT AND INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF CANDIDATES AND THUS
ELECTORAL COMPETITION THE
FINANCIAL FOOTING BETWEEN
PARTIES.
I BELIEVE, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT HAS
FAILED ON ALL ACCOUNTS.
IT DID ALLOW US TO HAVE LYNDON
LAROUCHE TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.
I'M NOT SURE WHEN WE'VE HAD
SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN SUBJECTED
TO A CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND
CONDUCTED PART OF HIS CAMPAIGN
WHILE STILL INCARCERATED, BUT
THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US BY WAY OF
THIS FINE LAW.
IN 1976 APPROXIMATELY $1.5
BILLION -- 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 LEAK
TORLE SUBSIDIES 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 ELECT
OFFICIALS.
DOES ANYONE THINK OUR
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS HAVE
SHOWN A VIRTUAL PROGRESSION
TOWARDS MORE ACCURACY AND MORE
HONESTY?
MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW MANY
CANDIDATES, CANDIDATES WHO
SUPPOSEDLY BELIEVE IN THE
SYSTEM, HAVE OPTED OUT OF THIS
TAXPAYER FINANCING SCHEME IN
RECENT YEARS?
IN 2004 AND 2008 SEVERAL
CANDIDATES DECLINED PUBLIC
CAMPAIGNS.
FINANCING FOR THEIR PRIMARY
AND AS WAS MENTIONED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS, DURING
THE MOST RECENT PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION FOR THE FIRST TIME THE
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.
IN ADDITION TO PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARIES -- ONE OF THE THINGS I
WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THIS
-- THERE IS THIS IDEA SOMEHOW WE
ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPRESS
MONEY THAT GOES INTO POLITICS.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT'S
LIKE A BALLOON.
A WATER BALLOON.
IF YOU SQUEEZE IT ON ONE SIDE,
IT HAS -- 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'RE GOING TO SOMEHOW
CAMPAIGNS.
REDUCE THE IMPACT OF MONEY IN
IT HASN'T WORKED UNDER THIS
SYSTEM.
IT HASN'T WORKED.
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, THE WEAKLONG
PRESIDENTIAL CON VENGEDS.
ON OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE AND OUR
PARTY I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME
INDICATIONS 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 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
CEASE TO HAVE REAL SIGNIFICANCE
SOME TIME AGO.
THAT WAS PART OF OUR EFFORT TO
TRY AND CLEANSE THE SYSTEM
RATHER THAN HAVING PEOPLE
SELECTED BY DELEGATES THAT COME
TO CON VENGEDS, WE SHOULD MOVE
MORE AND MORE TO THE PRIMARY
OPERATIONS.
AND OF COURSE THEN EARLIER AND
EARLIER IN THE SEASON.
SO THAT SOMEHOW IT BECOMES A
TWO-YEAR EVENT.
I GUESS WE'RE ALREADY IN THAT.
TAXPAYERS WOULD BE SHOCKED IF
NOT OUTRAGED TO DISCOVER THEY
HAD BEEN FUNDING THESE
EXTRAVAGANT PHOTO OPS.
MR. CHAIR, AS I MENTIONED SINCE
1976 APPROXIMATELY $1.5 BILLION
HAS BEEN SPENT ON PUBLICLY
FUNDING OUR PRESIDENTIAL
PRIMARIES AND 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 OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND AND THE
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING
PAYMENT ACCOUNT RETURNED TO THE
REDUCTION.
TREASURY TO BE USED FOR DEFICIT
I THINK WE'D HAVE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE CHEER US FOR THAT.
ACCORDING TO THE 2010
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGE OFFICE
ESTIMATE THE ELIMINATION OF THIS
PROGRAM WOULD SAVE AMERICAN
TAXPAYERS $617 MILLION OVER THE
NEXT 10 YEARS.
NOW, SOME CAN SAY WELL, THAT'S
YOUR OPINION, WE HAVE OUR
OPINION, WHY CHANGE THINGS?
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 AS 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 CHECKOFF WAS 28.7%.
IT WAS 23%.
IT WAS SO POPULAR THAT IN 1985
IT PROVED SO ZPHELF 1990 IT WAS
19.5%.
IT -- BOY, IT PROVED ITSELF BY
THE YEAR 1995 BECAUSE THEN 12.9%
OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
DECIDED THEY'D PARTICIPATE.
IN THE YEAR 2000, IT DROPPED TO
11.5%.
IN 2005 IT WAS 9.1% AND
ACCORDING TO THE IRS DATA
OBTAINED, THE CHECKOFF RATE IN
2010 WAS 7.3%.
IN OTHER WORDS, ON A DIRECT
VOTE, A PLEBISCITE TAKEN BY THE
REJECT THE MOTION.
TAXPAYERS OF AMERICA, 92.7%
LANDSLIDE.
WHERE I COME FROM, THAT'S A
I THINK EVEN IN CHICAGO IT WOULD
BE A LANDSLIDE EVEN IF YOU 35EUD
YOUR TAXES ONLY ONCE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS CANDIDATE AND
CONVENTION SUBSIDY IS OBVIOUSLY
UNPOPULAR.
TO PARAPHRASE ONE FORMER MEMBER
OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION, QUOTE, 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 THE SUPPORT.
WHEN ONLY ONE IN 13 TAXPAYERS
ARE PARTICIPATING, IT'S 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
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 A DETERMINATION TO
RETURN TO SCR DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING TO FISCAL YEAR 2008
LEVELS OR LESS AND NOW THROUGH
THERE BILL THE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY IS COMMITTED TO FISCAL
STEWARDSHIP, TO HAVING A
RELENTLESS EYE ON WASTE WASTE
AND INEFFICIENCY AND REDUCE
SPENDING, TO CREATE PRIVATE
SECTOR JOBS AND PRODUCE
MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION THAT
MAKES LONG LASTING REFORMS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE IN FACT MEAN
WHAT WE SAY WHEN WE 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
UNDERLAY THEIR PASSAGE IN THE
FIRST PLAY, WE OUGHT TO START
WITH THIS.
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT ALMOST
93% 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
TOWARDS DEFICIT REDUCTION.
THIS BILL INTRODUCED BY OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM OKLAHOMA SHOULD
GARDENER BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, WE
SHOULD THANK HIM FOR INTRODUCING
IT AND I DO, AND TO HIS
COMMITMENT TO RESPONSIBLE
STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS,
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS BILL IS AND
WHAT IT IS NOT AND SUPPORT H.R.
359 AND WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN,
I WOULD RESERVE THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
BEFORE RECOGNIZING
THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA,
IT WAS THE CHAIR'S UNDERSTANDING
PERHAPS THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON WOULD LIKE TO CONSUME
SOME OF THE WAYS AND MEANS TIME
AND THEN ASK PERMISSION TO GIVE
THE REST OF HIS TIME TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
IF THAT UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT
THE CHAIR WOULD RECOGNIZE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE, THE RANKING MEMBER OF
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SUCH
TIME AS HE MAY WISH TO USE IN
ANSWERING MR. LUNGREN.
WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT
TO USE, YOUR TIME OR UNYOUR
TIME?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA
IS RECOGNIZED ON HIS OWN TIME.
THANK YOU.
IT'S MY PLEASURE TO DEAL TO THE
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, MS.
LOFGREN.
THE GENTLEWOMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO H.R. 359.
THIS WILL WILL UNNECESSARILY
ELIMINATE THE $3 CHECKOFF BOX
THAT'S VOLUNTARY ON RETURNS TO
FUND PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS.
THE BILL HAS BEEN FAST TRACKED
BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
WITHOUT ANY HEARINGS, NO MARKUP,
NO RESPECT FROM COMMITTEE
PROCESS.
AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE AND A
FORMER CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON ELECTIONS, I'M VERY CONCERNED
BY THE END RUN AROUND OUR
COMMITTEE AND THE LACK OF
DEFERENCE SHOWN TO THE COMMITTEE
AND ITS MEMBERS.
SPEAKER BOEHNER PROMISED TWO
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 THE 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'S WORTH REMEMBERING THAT THE
PUBLIC FINANCE SYSTEM WAS
CREATED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF
THE WATERGATE SCANDAL.
REMEMBER PHILLIPS PETROLEUM,
THEY LEGALLY CONTRIBUTED
$498,000 TO THE NIXON CAMPAIGN
OR LUTH RUTH FARKASS WHO GAVE
$300 TO THE NIXON CAMPAIGN IN
EXPLICIT EXCHANGE FOR AN
AMBASSADORSHIP TO LUXEMBOURG OR
THE TAPES THAT REVEALED JOHN
CONNOLLY SHIPPED DOWN DAIRY
FARMERS FOR $600,000 IN
CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR
RAISING PRICE SUPPORT TO THE
DETRIMENT OF CHILDREN WHO NEEDED
MILK AROUND THE COUNTRY.
THESE INCIDENTS ERODED PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE NOT ONLY IN THE NIXON
ADMINISTRATION BUT THIS THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM AND 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.
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 ARE THE
PROBLEMS WITH THIS CURRENT
SYSTEM, HOW DO WE FIX THEM, WORK
IN A BIPARTISAN WAY TO CREATE
THE FIXES AND THEN COME TO THIS
HOUSE FOR THE SOLUTION.
I YIELD BACK AND URGE OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ILLINOIS.
I YIELD FOUR MINUTES
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA,
COLE.
THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL, MR.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR YIELDING.
AS I LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE OFTHE AISLE I
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, DOESN'T ALLOW CORPORATE
CONTRIBUTIONS, KEEPS IN PLACE
ALL THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
TO PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS WE
CURRENTLY HAVE.
THOSE OF YOU 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 TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR
POLITICAL PARTY CONVENTIONS BY
THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES.
NOW, I HAVE TO SAY IF YOU LOOK
AT THE -- AT WHETHER OR NOT
THESE IDEAS HAVE BEEN POPULAR,
HISTORICALLY, THEY FRANKLY
HAVEN'T.
WHEN THIS WAS PUT IN IN THE
1970'S, THE IDEA WAS IT WOULD
SPREAD.
IT HASN'T.
WE DON'T FUND ANY OF YOUR
ELECTIONS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS,
OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE OTHER BODY
DON'T, AND AS MR. LUNGREN
POINTED OUT, POPULAR
PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROGRAM
HAS DECLINED FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE
YEAR FROM A HIGH OF 29% IN 1980
TO BARELY 7% TODAY.
I NEED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, 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 TAXPAYER MONEY.
HAVING SAID THAT, AS I THINK
EVEN MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE AT LEAST TACITLY
ACKNOWLEDGE, THIS IS A PROGRAM
THAT'S BROKEN BEYOND BELIEF.
THE SYSTEM DIDN'T JUST BEGIN TO
BREAK DOWN IN 2008.
I'D GO BACK TO 2000.
PRESIDENT BUSH DIDN'T USE THIS
SYSTEM IN THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN
HE ONLY USED IT, 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 TO 2008, NEITHER
PRESIDENT OBAMA NOR
NOW-SECRETARY CLINTON CHOSE TO
AND THE PRESIDENT, HAVING
USE THIS IN THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN
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
AND FIX IT.
THAT SOMEDAY WE OUGHT TO GO BACK
I'LL SAY THIS FOR THE PRESIDENT.
HAVING SAID THAT, WE HAVEN'T
SEEN ANY ACTION ON THAT FRONT.
HE'S BEEN IN ACTION -- IN OFFICE
FOR TWO YEARS.
THERE'S NOT BEEN A PROPOSAL TO
FIX THIS SYSTEM.
AS MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE KNOW, HE'S PLANNING
TO RUN FOR RE--ELECTION, HE'S
SETTING UP CAMPAIGN, THERE'S A
LOT OF THOUGHT OF HOW TO RAISE
THE MONEY AND PUT TOGETHER A
CAMPAIGN, BUT NO PROPOSAL TO
ACTUALLY FIX THE SYSTEM THEY
PURPORT TO SUPPORT AND THAT THEY
SAY -- 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 I
FIX THINGS.
THINK HAVE GENUINELY TRIED TO
THIS SYSTEM HAS BEEN IN DECLINE
AND DECAY FOR A LONG TIME.
$612 MILLION OVER A 10-YEAR
THE ESTIMATES ARE, WE COULD SAVE
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.
I ASK FOR AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
I YIELD THE GENTLEMAN AN
ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
IN AN ERA WHERE WE
HAVE TO MAKE GENUINELY HARD
DECISIONS,S THAT NO-BRAINER.
THIS IS A -- THIS IS A
NO-BRAINER.
THIS IS A LOT LESS IMPORTANT
THAN A LOT OF DECISIONS WE'LL
HAVE TO MAKE.
SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP BY
THERE'S LEADERSHIP BY LIP
EXAMPLE.
IF MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE
THING AND 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 WANT TO
REWRITE A BILL, THEY OUGHT TO DO
THAT AND LET'S INTRODUCE IT.
RIGHT NOW, THIS IS MONEY WE
CAN'T AFFORD TO WASTE.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
H.R. 359, LET'S GET RID OF THIS
OUTDATED SYSTEM.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON, MR. MCDERMOTT.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
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.
THAT'S WHY I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADD INTO THE RECORD A
LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
BILL.
OPPOSING THE REPEAL OF THIS
THE GENTLEMAN'S
REQUEST IS COVERED BY GENERAL
LEAVE GRANTED IN THE HOUSE.
THERE AREN'T 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 INDEX IT FOR
INFLATION OR DO SOME KIND OF
MECHANISM, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR
THAT A LAW WRITTEN WITH THE
LIMITS OF 1972 ARE GOING TO BE
PRETTY OUT OF DATE BY 2012.
SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE
COULD DO TO CHANGE THIS PROCESS
AND MAKE IT MORE IN SYNC WITH
WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS 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
UNITED CITIZENS 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 OF 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 2010
-- 2012 IS GOING TO COST.
MAYBE A BILLION DOLLARS ON
EITHER SIDE.
SARAH PALIN WILL HAVE A BILLION
AND BARACK OBAMA WILL HAVE A
BILLION.
THAT'LL 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 AND
THEY ALSO KNOW THAT PEOPLE DON'T
GIVE A BILLION DOLLARS WITH NO
BACK.
EXPECTATION OF SOMETHING COMING
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
IT.
THIS OUT WITHOUT TRYING TO FIX
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
CAMPAIGN.
I THINK EVEN MY OPPONENTS
AGAINST ME, I GET 84%, 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
OVER THERE.
PRESIDENT AND SAY, WE FIXED IT
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.
CARE.
IT IS AN ADMISSION THAT WE DON'T
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT, AND I OPPOSE THE BILL,
I GUESS YOU GET THAT, I ASK
REMAINDER OF MY TIME BE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
CONTROLLED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
PENNSYLVANIA, MR. BRADY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THE CHAIR WOULD ADVISE THAT
THERE'S NOW A SINGLE MANAGER ON