To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the proposed rule to H.R. 359 to terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the ability for taxpayers to designate $3 of their Federal tax liability for financing of Presidential election campaign.

This week, Republicans have engaged in what amounts to a shifty attack on a program that successfully limited the influence of corporations and special interests in our Presidential campaigns, tilting the playing field further in favor of multimillionaires who can, and often do, spend their own money.

Just as poll taxes and literacy tests prevented poor people and minorities from voting, eliminating this program will place those without the multimillion-dollar political clout yet another step away from having their day in a Presidential race.

This program allows every taxpaying American to voluntarily check a box--and I think I should reiterate here the individual ``opts in'' to this program--on their 1040 to put $3 in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. A married couple has the option of $6 if filing jointly.

Checking the ``yes'' box does not increase the amount of taxes an individual owes, nor does it decrease any refund to which he or she is entitled.

In establishing the checkoff program, Congress left the single most important decision to the taxpayer. The taxpayer, not the House Republican leadership, decides whether he or she wants $3 of their taxes to be used for the Presidential funding program. The choice is theirs to voluntarily check ``yes'' or ``no.'' And I might add, during our hearing in the Rules Committee yesterday, several of us, including some of my Republican colleagues, indicated that they had at one time or another participated in this program. And yet now they want to eliminate it. Yes, this program does need improvement, but it is far from ineffective or obsolete.

Since the fund's inception in 1976, every Presidential candidate before 2008 has used the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the general election,

and Republicans' own 2008 Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, used it to fund his election.

During the 2008 election cycle, nearly $17 million of public funds were spent for the Republican convention, and an equivalent amount for Democrats; $84 million to Republicans for general election grants; and a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for parties' candidate nominations.

House Republican leaders have promised to bring reform and accountability to Congress, and I quote from the Republican Pledge to America: ``We are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the process.'' Is this the kind of reform and sunlight that you pledge to the American people?

YouCut gives Americans a choice? Really? A Web site where you only have the opportunity to vote ``yes'' for cutting--that is, either you support the Republican agenda, or we do not care what you think. A Web site where saying ``yes'' to meaningful programs, such as the National Endowment For the Arts, Legal Services Corporation, the Community Development Program, and a fund that was created specifically to empower Presidential candidates to participate in the political system regardless of their socioeconomic status or their relationship with special interest influence, is not welcome.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: A more fitting name for the ``YouCut'' program would be ``CutYou'' because it hurts everyday Americans while doing little to cut the Federal deficit.

Simply put, YouCut undercuts our democracy. The summary's headline for the legislation we are considering today is: End the Presidential Election Fund--Savings of $520 million over 10 years.

The biased paragraph goes on to say: ``In short, it provides taxpayer subsidies to political candidates and parties.'' Not only are the summaries provided on YouCut inaccurate, they are written to elicit a specific response.

We know that use of the fund has declined in recent years. President Obama was the first candidate since the fund's inception to opt out of the public financing in the general election, and other candidates have opted out of public financing in primary elections. If candidates from major parties continue to decline public financing, then the savings from eliminating the fund could and likely will be substantially lower.

Confusing YouCut voters with one-sided jargon and eliminating programs like the Presidential Election Campaign Fund are not the answers; fixing the public financing system and paying attention to what the American people really want are the answers.

What Republicans fail to mention is that the YouCut program is inherently selective, and therefore biased. Neither online nor cell phone voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it. Furthermore, the YouCut program conveniently targets only those who have Internet access and cell phones, which disproportionately leaves out a lot of the poor and elderly. The last time I checked, an undisclosed number of votes on a partisan Web site does not constitute the will of the American people.

Republicans seem to think that this online gimmick is an effective substitute for good governance. Now, the Republicans have promised over and over again that the 112th Congress would be a new wave of accountability and transparency. And yet this, like every other major bill that has been considered thus far, is lacking in both. The Republican leadership has held no hearings or markups, failed to consider alternatives, and crafted a bill so narrow that very few amendments can even be considered germane.

Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates rather than repairs the Presidential public financing system, which is, in my judgment, irresponsible and will move our Nation in the wrong direction. I suggest that the next campaign more than likely on either side, Republican or Democrat, will cost as much as $1 billion each.

The House Republican leadership has touted that they are going to change the permissive culture of Congress. Today's consideration of this legislation is evidence that the only thing House Republicans want to do is glorify the permissive culture of their own party.

I urge my colleagues to instead focus on repairing the system and maintain the focus on increasing the roles of average citizens in our Presidential election process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, that free-flowing debate consists of six preprinted amendments. Five of those amendments are not in order. So we're going to have a free-flowing debate on six matters that are offered; and if what he just said is going to give the American public the impression that we're having a free-flowing debate, then I must have missed something.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reclaim my time merely to point out that I don't consider five matters that are not in order and one that's going to be ultimately debated to be a free-flowing debate.

We'll get there. Perhaps we'll get there after we listen to my good friend, the former chair of this committee and the distinguished ranking member from New York.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, my good friend, Gerry Connolly.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend of longstanding, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am one of those people among the 10 million that did do the checkoff of $3 for publicly-financed Presidential campaigns and to support the national parties' conventions. I feel very strongly that my $3 now is directed in a way that I did not wish that it should be directed.

I do urge my friend from North Carolina to understand that at least one Member on this side clearly understands that $617 million is a whole whale of a lot of money. To some of us, $617 or $67 is a whole lot of money. That said, what is balanced here is whether or not we should try in this institution to eliminate the kind of corruption that comes by virtue of a flood of dollars going into campaigns.

To correct my colleague from California--and I wish he were here; I would yield to him to respond--when he cites the fact that no corporate dollars can be contributed to the respective candidates who are on the ballot, he is absolutely correct. That is the law. But under the aegis of the Citizens United decision, corporations and individuals can contribute anonymously to any campaign. And we saw evidence of that on both sides.

Now, I have seen every iteration of reform during the last 50 years in the United States of America. Some of it was good and some of it didn't achieve its mark. This particular measure had some limitations and at the very same time did permit people like Eugene McCarthy, Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Sr., just to mention a few, and more recently my good friend Dr. Ron Paul-- it gave them an opportunity to put forward their ideas. And the argument that they can go out there and raise the kind of money that would allow for that to happen I think is specious at best.

For most candidates, public funding from the Presidential election campaign fund has been the source of sorely needed funds at crucial points in Presidential races. To make matters worse, as has been pointed out by Ms. Slaughter and myself and others, the legislation we are considering today is a repeat of the disastrous Citizens United decision, which on January 21, 2010, unleashed massive corporate influence-buying expenditures in our national elections. In the face of the first anniversary of Citizens United, we know for a fact how essential it is to repair the Presidential public financing system and provide Presidential candidates with a viable alternative for financing their elections, as opposed to having to depend on influence-seeking big donors, lobbyists, bundlers, and corporate spenders. We cannot eliminate the corruption of our political system when we are eliminating a program that was created to try to do that.

Mr. Speaker, a vote for this legislation is a vote for big corporations and big private money to fund the election of their desired candidates. The Presidential public financing system needs repairs, but eliminating a program that works, that is voluntary, and that gives a voice to the American people is not the answer.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring up the DISCLOSE Act, with the same text as H.R. 5175 from the 111th Congress, as it passed the House on June 24, 2010. This Republican proposal to eliminate voluntary public financing for Presidential elections is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction.

When Presidential campaigns stop receiving this clean money, they'll have to go after private contributions instead. That's going to mean more time spent talking to special interests and the powerful and less time spent talking with the voters and communities and groups that have good ideas and real problems to discuss but don't have multi-million dollars to donate to a campaign.

Is that really what we want for our constituents? I am confident that the answer is a resounding ``no.'' Make no mistake, this will affect the quality of our campaigns and it will affect our democratic process.

We should be considering real campaign finance reform like the DISCLOSE Act. That bill would establish disclosure requirements for election-related spending by corporations, unions, and other organizations. And I might add, Mr. Speaker, it was a measure, as offered in the previous Congress, that did go through regular order, did have substantial committee hearings, and was presented to the Rules Committee, as opposed to this measure that has had absolutely no hearings and just comes here direct to the floor under the rubric of a modified open rule. And it would require, this DISCLOSE measure, any person or organization making so-called ``independent expenditures'' over $10,000 to disclose them within 24 hours. That's what we need after Citizens United, not politicians spending more time and energy to raise big money.

The DISCLOSE Act would put a check on donations by Federal contractors and prohibit contributions and expenditures by foreign- controlled domestic corporations. And among its other provisions, for example, is a prohibition on recipients of TARP funds from making contributions or expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real campaign finance reform today.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 54 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting

only of the text of H.R. 5175 of the 111th Congress as passed

by the House. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on House Administration. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 54 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 54 provides for a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 359, which is a bill to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions.

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to stand before you in a House dominated by new a Republican majority focused on changing the direction from the failed liberal policies that have dominated Washington for the past 4 years. Although there remains some obstacles to realizing the full breadth of a Republican agenda so desperately needed to pull our economy out of the doldrums, it is indeed a new day.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 359, legislation authored by my friend, Mr. Cole, that I have cosponsored as it represents a small step towards a brighter future for our country. Instead of considering legislation providing perpetual spending increases as the solution for all that ails us, in a departure from Washington groupthink, H.R. 359 would actually reduce Federal spending, Mr. Speaker.

Although this concept may be foreign to many liberals and many Washington Beltway insiders, it's what the Americans expect out of the new Republican majority they recently sent to represent them here in the people's House. Instead, H.R. 359, which CBO estimates would save $617 million over 10 years, eliminates an expensive Federal program that wastes taxpayer money funding Presidential campaigns and national party conventions.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chair of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to our colleagues across the aisle who are complaining about some of the proposed amendments being declared not germane that it is not the Republicans who decide whether amendments are germane or not germane; it is the Parliamentarian's office that decides that. They can do the same thing to our amendments as well as to the Democrats' amendments.

I now yield such time as he may consume to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague from Colorado,

this is not cutting off access of our citizens to the White House. Our citizens have voted in lots of different ways to express their opinions in this country in the last year or so. In November, they voted to replace our spendthrift colleagues on the other side of the aisle with people on our side of the aisle who want to cut government spending. They voted on this program by reducing their involvement in this program to a very small number. If they wanted this program, they could have continued to participate in it. They participated in the YouCut program, which singled out this program as something that needed to be cut.

We are listening to the American people, Mr. Speaker--we are doing that in many different ways; this is one of the ways--because they've told us at least in three different ways that they want a different kind of working going on in Washington, D.C. They don't want a lot of spending; they want us to cut back spending. And they've told us this on this program three different ways. So I would like to point that out.

Mr. Speaker, according to Congressional Quarterly, nearly $139 million in public funds were spent during the 2008 election cycle, including $17 million each for the Democratic and Republican conventions, $84 million to Republicans for general elections grants, and a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for candidates for the nominations of Democrats, Republicans, and other parties.

As is the case with so many other actions, the Federal Government has no business funding political campaigns, particularly while the troubled economy demands fiscal restraint. And let me point out that the way the Federal Government gets its money is, again, by taxing the American people or, in this case, by using funds that the people have said that it could be used for.

The proposal embodied by H.R. 359 first received attention as a result of then-Republican Minority Whip Cantor's initiative dubbed ``YouCut.'' Majority Leader Cantor is continuing this innovative effort which encourages public participation in our wonderful American democracy.

The Web site, located at majorityleader.gov/YouCut, for the first time enables Americans to make their voices heard by voting weekly on various proposals to shrink, rather than grow, Federal spending. As I said in my earlier remarks, this is one of the ways the American people can tell us what they think.

According to the official YouCut Web site, ``The Presidential Election Campaign Fund provides Federal tax dollars in the form of matching funds to candidates in Presidential primaries provided the candidates qualify and agree to abide by certain spending and contribution limits. It provides grants to qualifying Presidential candidates in general elections, if they agree not to accept other contributions. The program also provides grants to sponsor national party conventions.

``In short, it provides taxpayer subsidies to political candidates and parties. Since 2000, some major candidates have chosen to forgo public financing. While some have argued that providing even more taxpayer funding for this program might entice more candidates to participate, eliminating the program altogether . . . would require candidates and political parties to rely on private donations rather than tax dollars. The amount of funding for the public financing system is determined by checkoffs on income tax returns, and taxpayer participation via the checkoffs has declined,'' Mr. Speaker, ``from 28.7 percent in 1980 to 7.3 percent in 2009.'' And that's the end of the quote from the Web site.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the American people are telling us how they feel about this program because they're not using the checkoff.

As the program grows increasingly less popular, its purpose is accordingly muddled. For example, while on the campaign trail, then- candidate Barack Obama, who portrayed himself as a longtime supporter of public financing, ultimately broke his pledge to participate in the presidential public financing system. If public financing isn't good enough for such a vehement supporter, why should taxpayers finance partisan political campaigns?

That's why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the American people are buying these tired arguments that our colleagues across the aisle are using

about us wanting to be the tools of corporate interest. That is not the issue here.

The issue here is that the public has said in at least three different ways, as I said before, that this program is not worth continuing.

My colleague from Virginia said that we're denying 10 million Americans the opportunity to participate in donating to campaigns. That isn't true. Individuals can donate to any campaign they want to. So these American people who are now doing the checkoff can easily write a $3 check to the candidates of their choice. We're not stopping that in any way whatsoever.

What we are doing is saying we don't need to be supporting political conventions, primarily, and candidates. They're perfectly capable of raising the money directly from the American people. And what we are doing, though, is saying that $617 million is real money. Our colleagues across the aisle don't think $617 million will put a dent in our deficit? That shows you how far away from the American people they are. They don't think of $617 million as significant.

Mr. Speaker, the American people think that $617 million is significant. They want us to cut spending wherever we can, and this is a program that has long ago outlived its usefulness.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, rule, and underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.