Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States waiving the application of the first article of amendment to the political speech of corporations and other business organizations with respect to the disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and granting Congress and the States the power to establish limits on contributions and expenditures in elections for public office.

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.

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

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.

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. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 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

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.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

I withdraw the request to modify my amendment so I can continue with my time. How much time do I have remaining?

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.

Yes, I do.

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.