everyone under 55 could do without it and we could have coupons that go to the private market to buy health insurance with. if you are over 65 and you try to go out there now -- i do not think you will be buying it. that does not take into consideration people with pre- existing conditions, like the woman who called on the republican line, the widow called on the republican line. host: thank you for the call. that does it for today's "washington journal." the house is about to come in to begin work on legislation that would reduce federal spending and deficit. that is hr-359. thank you for watching today. we will be back tomorrow with more of your phone calls. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplin, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: almighty god, your wisdom is profound beyond our grasp. and your love penetrates all you create to reveal your infinite beauty in everything and to everyone. bless the house of representatives, its members and all who work here serving the people of this nation. may the vision of righteousness

where justice and peace reign and where truth and true patriotism are standard remain the constant guide in the daily labor to enact just laws and clear policies. gracious god, in truth we recognize that our own insights and powers are not able to right all the wrongs or find the paths to peace and reconciliation. so we turn to you, all powerful lord, and place our trust in your faithfulness now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from new york.

ms. slaughter: please rise. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests from each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the president's speech last night was long on hope and short on reality. the administration's answer to america's problems is more investments, which is a fancy word for more spending and more government control. the administration plans to freeze domestic spending but domestic spending is already too high. since last year the national debt has gone up over $1.7 trillion. once again the administration presents an incomplete solution to america's economic problems. a spending freeze is not enough

to fix the deficits or the debt. we must go one step further and actually cut massive out-of-control government spending to get us out of this spending madness. if we cut spending then we need to also cut taxes. putting money back in the hands of american people is both the proven way to stimulate the economy. we must cut taxes and spending to reboot the american economy. we need less spending, fewer taxes and less government. congress needs to deal in reality, not hope. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the president gain of a great speech last night. mr. jackson: in it he mentioned jobs 31 times. he used innovate 11 times. but he didn't mention the word unemployment a single time. that's because creating jobs is different than ending

unemployment. in america capitalism and entrepreneurship have created great things and great wealth to. name a few, the automobile, the personal computer, the airplane. it is my hope that the cure for cancer will come from an enterprising entrepreneur. but there's one problem that innovation has not solved. unemployment. as f.d.r. said, men are not free men. so i challenge our leading innovaters to help find way to eliminate unemployment, since democrats and republicans have run out of ideas. mr. gates, mr. buffet, put your organizational genius, your job creating skills to use so our nation can be free from the threat of unemployment. but don't give us ideas that have been tried before because none of them have eliminated unemployment. our task as leaders should be the end of scourge of unemployment once and for all so life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be available to all americans. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> mr. speaker, on an early morning last month over 70 christians in iran were sed suddenly arrested and detained by the iranian authorities. mr. pitts: as these iranian christians were taken to a notorious tehran prison, one married couple was forced to leave a 2-year-old child behind, another mother was taken while breast feeding her baby. 11 were released after hours of harsh interrogation. the fate of the others remains unknown. according to some reports they are suffering through sleep deprivation and blind folded interrogations. they're likely to face charges of a death penalty offense in iran. the peaceful worship of these christians poses no threat to the iranian government and the government persistence in accusing its own population of being enemies does nothing to strengthen the regime. we stand with these oppressed christians and other religious minorities in iran that depace constant harassment, potential prosecution. most of all we call on the iranian government to release those prisoners so they can raise their families and peacefully practice their faith. mr. speaker, why would a

government that claims to be so powerful be afraid or threatened by such a small peaceful minority? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, it is with great sadness that i rise today to pay tribute to a community giant, mr. doc m. brown, a very special friend who passed away yesterday. as a life-long resident of north carolina, doc brown was an undeniable force who dedicated his 81 years to serving his community and as a champion for education. doc brown was a veteran of the korean war, teacher, principal, county and town commissioner, state legislator, 50-year deacon at first baptist church in welden and much more. mr. butterfield: he was a true public servant with a legacy that will live on through the many people he inspired over the years. i ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the life and work

of doc brown and to join me in praying for his wife, helen, and his entire family and community during these difficult times. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i represent a gulf coast district in florida so the safety of our coast lines is critical. it's of the utmost importance to me. i'm troubled that cuba is moving ahead with plans to drill oil 50 miles off florida's coast. florida doesn't allow drilling within 125 miles of our shores. so why in the world would we allow cuba to drill even closer? mr. buchanan: cuba's rig, built by the chinese, would even drill deeper than b.p.'s rig that exploded a year ago. and if there was a spill, they claim it would only take three days to get to our shoreless.

whose problem does it become then? -- shores. whose problem does it gn become then? let me guess, america's problem. i've introduced legislation to stop this project. i hope colleagues from both sides would join me in this effort to protect our coasts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of a truly remarkable constituent of mine, mr. jack lalanne, who passed away this past sunday. known as the godfather of fitness, mr. lalanne opened his health club in oakland in 1936. for over 30 years he starred in the jack la lanne show, encouraging all americans to eat healthier and exercise. today as our country phases an epidemic of obesity -- faces an epidemic of obesity, we know his emphasis on physical fitness and healthy eating made him a man truly ahead of his time. he accomplished many remarkable

feats over the course of his life, such as swimming handcuffed from alcatraz to fisherman's wharf in san francisco in 1955, completing a 1,0 3 pushups in 23 minutes -- 1,033 pushups in 23 minutes and toing a 25--- 2,500 pound cruiser. jack la lanne used to say, i can't afford to die, it would wreck my image but his image is in tact and. he is survived by his wife of over 50 years and three children, dan, yvonne and john. thank you, jack lalanne, for all you have done for the health of this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor of a grassroots movement that is currently taking place all across our great nation, the celebration of national school choice week. in many states across the country events are being held.

it is a commonsense idea that gives every parent the power and freedom to choose what's best for their children's education. here in washington, d.c., we've seen the positive impact of injecting free market principles into the educational system. while the previous congress chose to side against innovation, i sincerely hope this new congress will see fit to remember that every child is important and that every child learns differently. across this nation we are seeing proposals for school choice expansion in places like wisconsin, florida, georgia, indiana and others. in my home state of south carolina i'm pleased to see that legislators in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle have introduced a bill that would give opportunity to all children in south carolina to attend the school of their choice. it is imperative that we empower parents with the ability to choose the best educational experience for their child, whether it's public, charter, private or home school. may god bless our children and

may god continue to bless the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, less than three weeks ago a horrible tragedy in arizona gave our nation pause. all americans were horrified at the news that congresswoman gabrielle giffords, her staff and constituents were shot in an appalling act of violence. some people lost their lives that day, even more were hurt. and our friend gabby now faces a long road to recovery. but some good came out of all that horror. ms. speier: ordinary americans risked their lives to help those in need. violence was denounced from the left and from the right and members of congress pledged to not let this tragedy keep them from meeting with their constituents. to honor gabby, the other two victims in our great democracy, i've introduced a resolution which designates the first saturday in january as national congress on your corner day. we cannot allow one single

gunman to alter our representative form of government. and that spirit i will be holding a congress on your corner in my district this weekend and i know that when gabby is fully recovered she will do the same. to honor all those affected by the tucson tragedy, i urge support of this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, last night president obama said that the u.s. stands with the people of tunisia and supports the democratic aspirations of the people. that is not -- that has not always been true, however. mr. miller: we stood far too long with the undemocratic ben ali, the president of tunisia. and it's time that we stand as the president has said with the people of tunisia now and support their democratic aspirations. the u.s. gets another chance to stand with the democratic aspirations of another people, the people of egypt -- egypt, against the autocratic, dicta

torl and undemocratic leadership of hue barrack. for too long the u.s. has stood against the people of egypt who are seeking a more democratic government and country. every election has been rigged by the mubarak government and the state emergency power has been extended so people could be rounded up so his viable opponents could be thrown into jail and political parties would be outlawed. the time has come to stop this, the time is for the united states to tell the mubarak government that this election has to be free and open. the soul purpose of the election cannot be to pass on a great country to the son of the current leader in spite of the democratic aspirations of the egyptian people. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, we have to confront the fact that our government spended more than it takes in. that is -- spend mors than it takes in. that's not sustainable. every day families sacrifice to live within their means.

they deserve a government that does the same. those were the words that were stated less than 24 hours ago at 9:00 last night by the president of the united states and i have to say that truer words have never been spoken. and we, mr. speaker, when ms. foxx calls up this rule, will be proceeding with the first modified open rule for debate in four years and we will be putting ourselves on a path towards reducing the size and scope and reach of government so that we will send a signal out there that job creation and economic growth can finally, finally get moving. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 54 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 5, house resolution 54, resolved that at any time after the

adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 359, to reduce federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. 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 among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on house administrations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed five hours. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of

rule 18 and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. . at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendments, 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 amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the pump 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 the consideration of this resolution all time yield said for the purpose of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative

days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: 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 republican majority focused on changing the direction from the failed liberal policies that have dominated washington for the past four 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 dole droms, it is indeed a new day. this rule provides for consideration of h.r. 359, legislation authored by my friend, mr. cole, that i co-sponsored as it represents a small step towards a brighter future for our country.

instead of considering legislation providing a perpet twule spending increases as the solution for all that ails us, in a departure from washington group-think, h.r. 359 would actually reduce federal spending, mr. speaker. although this concept may be foreign to many liberals and other washington beltway insiders, it's what americans expect out of new republican majority that they recently sent to represent hem here in the people's house. instead, h.r. 359 which c.b.o. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for

yielding time. i rise in opposition to the proposed rule h.r. 359 to terminate the presidential election campaign funding, the ability for taxpayers to designate $3 of their federal tax liability for financing of presidential election campaigns. 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 tax paying 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 0 of $6 if filing jointly. checking the "yes" box does not increase the amount of taxes an individual owes, nor does it decrease an refund to which he or she is entitled. in establishing the check-off 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. i might add that 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 are -- beyond the 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 or for general election grants and a total of $18 million for primary matching funds for parties' candidates' nominations. house republican leaders have promised to bring reform and accountability to congress, and i quote from the republican pledge to america. quote, we are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the process. is this the kind of reform and sunlight that you pledged to the american people? you cut -- give americans a choice. really? 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. 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 interests, influence, is not welcome. i've said it before and i'll say it again. a more fitting name for you cut or the you cut program would be cut you, because it hurts everyday americans while doing little to cut the federal deficit. simply put, you cut undercuts our democracy. the summary's headline for the legislation we're considering today is end the presidential election fund, saving $520

million over 10 years. the 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're written to elicit a specific response. we know the use of the fund has declined in recent years. president obama was the first candidate since the fund's inception to opt out of public financing program 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 you-cut program is inherently selective and therefore biased. neither on line nor cell phone voters are to be able 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 votes on a partisan web site does not constitute the will of the american people. republicans seem to think this ontline gim sick 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 or more than likely on either side, republican or democrat, to cost as much as a billion

dollars each. the house republican leadership has touted that they're 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 a focus on the increased -- increasing the role of average citizens in our presidential election process. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from california, can chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me begin my expression expressing my appreciation to my

good friend from grandfather for doing her typically good job managing the bill and to my friend from fort lauderdaledale for his thoughtful remarks. i'm dumb pounded, it's been four years, april 8, 2008, a beach bill that was being considered here, a modified open rule, we now are going to allow members of this house to engage in a free-flowing debate, you're rules committee committee mr. polis came up to me last nights, right before the 1250u7b message saying he was going to offer an amendment he submitted to the record last night. we are going to for the first time in a long time allow for free-flowing debate. i understand why my friend might want to oppose the underlying legislation. i disagree with him but i can't understand why in the world they would conceive of opposing for the first time since april 8 of 2008 having the kind of free-flowing debate both democrats and republicans and the american people deserve to see their representatives have

in this institution. what is this legislation all about? this legislation is all about job creation and economic growth. job creation and economic growth. one might say how is that when you're talking about the presidential check-off? how is that about job creation and economic grothe growth? i will tell you, mr. speaker, last night the president time and time again talked about the importance of creating jobs and as i said during the one-minute presentation here, the president made it very clear we need to make sure we live within our means. now, what is it that living within our means will do? we need to send a message to those potential job creators out there that the united states government is getting its fiscal house in order so that there can be a level of confidence, a level of confidence for those

businesses to create jobs and right now, when you look at the fact that we have this $14 trillion debt, if you look at the fact that we have deficits as far as the eye can see, it's not sending a very positive signal to those people who want to create jobs. so you say why is it we're taking on a program like this? . the new estimate has it from $2 20 million to $617 based on the new estimates. now a small amount of money, of course it's a small amount of money. why is this chosen? well, i think there's a reason. it's the fact that it has failed. president obama chose to cast aside and not utilize this system when he was running for president. and john mccain did use it, as my friend said in the rules committee yesterday. and we've already had the president of the united states announce that his plan is to raise $1 billion, $1 billion for

his re-election campaign. that would lead me to conclude that president obama, assuming he runs for re-election, is not planning to use this fund. let's also look at fact that since 1980 when it was in effect 28.7% of the american people utilized that checkoff. and today about 7.3% or something like that of the american people are using that checkoff system that is there. now, i listen to the remarks of my friend from fort lauderdale in which he said that the notion of getting rid of this would allow corporations to be involved in a much greater way and he implied that there would be all kinds of corruption. no one, no one, mr. speaker, is advocating that we go back to the way the campaign finance law was before 1974 and watergate. we all acknowledge, i mean, it was a horrible, horrible time and disclosure and accountability are very

important. we have in place today under the federal election law limitations that exist. no corporate contributions are allowed to be made to federal candidates. no corporate contributions are allowed to be made to federal candidates. so the notion of somehow claiming that by saving $617 million the idea of taking that amount of money off the table and allowing people to voluntarily support the candidate of their choice is somehow going to encourage greater corporate contributions. it's against the law, this does nothing to change that and i think that it's a very specious argument to propound something other than the case here. so, mr. speaker, i will say that , again, we are going to have a rigorous debate on this. members are going to have an opportunity to participate. and while -- if members do want to oppose the underlying legislation, i think that they

should be welcome to do that. but i still find it very hard to believe that the majority that went through an entire congress for the first time in the history of our republic, now approaching 222 years this spring, we saw an entire congress have not a single bill considered under an open amendment process and while this is not an open rule, and i'm not claiming it's an open rule, it is a modified open rule that does allow for the kind of free-flowing debate that we haven't seen in a long period of time. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join with ms. foxx in support of this rule and then let's have the free-flowing debate, allow, as speaker boehner regularly says, the house to work its will and we can vote, people can vote however they'd like at the end of the legislation, the end of the debate. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, that free-flowing debate consists of

six pre-printed amendments, five of those amendments are not in order and so we're -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield on that? mr. hastings: we're going to have free-flowing debate on six mats that are 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. yes, i yield. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. let me just say that obviously this is a very positive step in the direction of allowing for that debate. and the fact that amendments were filed that are not germane is -- has nothing to do with the question of whether or not -- if we had 100 amendments filed that were germane, we'd have the outside time limit and opportunity for a debate to take place on those amendments. and so again, many members had the chance, any member had a chance, democratic and republican alike, to file amendments last night so we could consider them on the house floor. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. hastings: i reclaim my time merely to point out that i don't consider five mats that are are

not in order -- matters that are not in order and one that's going to be ultimately debated to be 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 woman from new york. i yield ms. slaughter three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. hastings. you know, it's rather ironic that we're having this debate today because it is almost exactly one year from the date the supreme court decided the citizens case. that decision opened the flood gates for an -- for unanimous special interests and for corporations to dump unlimited amounts of cash into our political system. predictably the result of this awful judgment was to set loose a torrent of secret money to influence the midterm elections this past november.

now my republican colleagues propose to further erode whatever protections our government has left against the state of democracy for the highest bidder by attempting town do our system of presidential public financing. let's remember where this system came from. it was a direct response to the wild west, unregulated, free-wheeling campaign that led up to the watergate scandal. the atmosphere of that time was described by campaign finance expert as so bad that contributors to richard nixon's re-election campaign were, quote, literally flying into washington with satchels of cash. , end quote. hidden, unregulated, private money ruled. in response to that, congress acted as much to clean up that system and we have done fairly well with that. our democracy will not be able

to afford a return to that corruption. but that is what we start today, with this bill. this bill will result in even more corporate and special interest money in our campaigns than we have today and that's really saying something. we don't even know how much money comes in from foreign money. the presidential election campaign fund is the one place in the electoral system that we take some of the pressure off of candidates who otherwise have to raise bushels of private money. for the life of me i can't see how this bill does anything other than add insult to the injury of the terrible citizens united decision last year. this bill will also take away from the american taxpayer the freedom to choose to support good government, to choose to support the public financing of campaigns. republicans cite the low participation rate as a reason to scrap the entire program. i don't see the sense of that argument.

the amount of money that goes into the presidential election campaign fund is directly proportional to how many people check the box on their tax forms. apparently there is enough support for the program for american taxpayers to designate a projected $617 million since that's the number being thrown around here today to be saved over the next 10 years. that sounds to me like enough support to keep the program around. now that is certainly not to say that this current system is perfect, it is not -- it has not really been changed since the 1970's. on the contrary, our current system is one in dire need of reform. as "the washington post" said in an editorial yesterday -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute. ms. slaughter: as "the washington post" said yesterday in an editorial opposing this bill, we have a great need to rehab it, but let's fix it and don't junk it. i agree. i hope that my colleagues will look at two bills that are being proposed. while one passed last year, the

disclose act, the second from our resident expert on financial reform, mr. david price,. this bill has been brought to us with absolutely no committee action, no hearing, no public input whatsoever. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and to vote no on the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to point out to our colleagues across the aisle who are complaining about some of the amendments being declared -- proposed amendments being declared not germane that it is not the republicans who decide whether amendments are germane or not germane, but 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, mr. woodall from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, i could not get over here to the floor fast enough when i saw this rule cup come up for debate. i recognize -- come up for debate. i rise in strong support of this rule, for the underlying legislation. i'm pleased to be joined on this day after the state of the union, not just by my colleagues, but with so many young people in the gallery today, because that is exactly what this debate is about. we've heard much talk on the floor of this house over the past week about the upcoming c.b.o. baseline report. if it arrived in your emailboxes this morning like it did mine you saw that c.b.o.'s most recent score predicts a $6.9 trillion 10-year operating deficit. that's not the $14 trillion in debt that these young people are going to have to pay back, it's the actual operating deficit, the initial debt that we're going to add over the next 10 years. this proposal today is one small

step towards attacking that operating deficit. now we're talking about big numbers here today. somewhere between $500 million and $600 million will be saved with the elimination of this proposal. but, folks, $6.9 trillion is where we have to go over the next 10 years. so if you think that this underlying proposal, if you think the public financing proposal has some merit, i look forward to debating that when the time comes when we get our operating deficit under control. but we don't just need to pass this provision today. we need to pass this provision and 10,000 more just like it to get to a balanced budget. i want you to think about that. all of the discussion, all of the gnashing of teeth, the hand wringing about this provision today. folks, this is just the beginning. this proposal and 10,000 more just like it are what we need to

pass in this house. the question isn't why are we bringing up this proposal today, the question is, why don't we have three or four or five more just like it? i look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about those provisions, talk about those spending items in our budget that we can get rid of. but, folks, i am absolutely certain, as the youcut site pointed out when america voted, that public financing is one of the top 10,000 things that we can get rid of. we don't have to decide today whether this is number one of the 10,000 more wasteful programs in government or number 10,000 of the 10,000 most wasteful programs in government. we only have to decide if it's somewhere on that spectrum. i tell you that it is and i rise in strong support of this rule. second reason i had to rush over here to the floor. i'm brand new. been in this house less than one month. and i'm down here speaking on a rule that offers an open

amendment process. now, if anybody has been watching the house floor as i have over the past two years, you might wonder what an open amendment process is and you'd be right to wonder because you've never seen one. i may be a freshmen in this body, but folks who came two years before me, sophomores in this body, they don't any more experience in this process than i do because this is the first open amendment process that we've seen on the floor of the house. why are we seeing it? because it's the right thing to do for the institution. speaker boehner has made a point of saying, the house is going to work its rule and i've come from a very conservative district in the northeastern suburbs of atlanta. and i'll tell you, when the house works its will, we're not always going to get what we want in the northeastern suburbs of atlanta because the house sits kind of here in the middle and i'm a little further here on the right-hand side of the spectrum. but in order for this congress to work, in order for this house to work, in order to restore the dignity of this house, we have to allow the house to work its will. i am just so pleased, so pleased in my very first month if in

congress that we not only -- month in congress that we not only have seen narrowly focused pieces of legislation come to the floor, but they've come to the floor under that open amendment process. and one thing about the open amendment process, especially for folks who haven't seen one before, folks who have not seen an open amendment process before, just because it's open doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to do on the house floor. we're talking about the public financing of elections today. so if you have an amendment that's going to change the way we finance education, that amendment's not going to be germane. if you have an amendment about what you want to do with the health care system, that amendment's not going to be germane. when you bring narrowly crafted pieces of legislation to the floor, the amendments that are germane are narrowly crafted amendments. and, folks, i love that. for too long we've had 2,000-major bills, 1 now-page bills that folks can't read and -- 1,000-page bills that folks can't read and understand -- and

understand and can't be amended. i'm pleased to stand here in support of my colleague from north carolina's resolution. i will be in favor of the rule and the underlying legislation and i thank the gentlelady for the time. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from colorado, mr. posey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. posey: i thank the gentleman from florida for allowing me to speak on the rule. i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. first it was repealing patients' rights, then a budget resolution with no budget. every one of us in this chamber was elected to congress with a goal of creating jobs and growing our economy. yet there hasn't been any talk about that. and today the republican leadership has brought to the floor another piece of political posturing that takes us away from the goal of creating jobs for millions of americans and establishing economic stability

and growth. mr. polis: we should develop bipartisan solutions to create jobs, reduce the deficit and put our economy back on track. we can all agree that our campaign finance system is broken. in every election more and more dollars are spent by wealthy corporations and special interests on campaigns, i know a lot of my friends wanted to turn the television office by the end of the last campaign. but ending the presidential campaign fund would only further breach that trust. recent polls have found the public overwhelmingly believes money buys elections, 5-1 in some polls and no surprise, spending has gone up fourfold between 2006 and 2010. with the voluntary $3 individual contribution the presidential campaign fund is a modest part of the answer to the nation's campaign finance needs, not the problem. it's a way to include the people's voice in our government. by honoring small donations and restoring the people's faith in

democracy. nearly all presidential candidates over 3035 years have used this fund to reduce the emphasis on fundraising and special interests. our democracy in its current form would cease to exist if only the rich and powerful could influence public officials. i ask you today when the middle class is suffering and job creation is our number one goal why do we continue to talk about giving more power to big-money contributors to presidential campaigns? after the supreme court's terrible decision on citizens unit we need the exact opposite, true, reasonable campaign finance reform. that's how people are empowered. the people's house should not be spending time -- can i ask for 15 seconds? mr. hastings: an additional 30 peckeds. mr. polis: thank you. we should not cut off people. yes, our campaign finance system is broken. it needs to be repaired, not eliminated so we have a fair way of electing our leaders. i urge a no vote on the rule and the bill and i yield back the

balance of my time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i'd like to say to my colleague from colorado, this is not cutting off the 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 ofthe 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're 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 to us cut back spending and they've told us on this program three different ways. i'd like to 0 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 election 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. 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 could be used for it. the proposal embodied by h.r. 359 first received attention as a result of then-republican minority chip cantor's initiative dubbed you cut. majority leader cantor is continuing this effort which encourages public participation in our wonderful american democracy. the web site at majorityleader.gov/youcut for the first time be 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 to rely on private donations rather than tax dollars. the amount of funding for the

public financing system is determined by check-offs on income tax returns and taxpayer participation via the check-offs has declined declined, mr. speaker, 28.7% in 1980 to only 7.3% 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 check-off. 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 long-time 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 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, my good friend, jerry connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i thank my good friend. mr. speaker, we just heard a reference to youcut and that this was one of the most popular cuts suggested by people on this republican blog. well, mr. speaker, 10 million americans want to participate in public financing of presidential campaigns. and i would dare say that dwarfs anything we've heard from youcut. if we're going to get in the business of what the american people want and how they've expressed themselves, 10 million voices are in threat of being silenced today by this rule and

the underlying legislation. the idea that we're going to save money and solve the deficit by eliminating public financing of presidential campaigns is fallacious. but i will give the other side credit. it is intellectually honest. when you have a supreme court ruling like citizen united that fosters anonymous financing of campaigns, no wonder you want to delete public financing of campaigns. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina -- the gentlewoman from nok. ms. foxx: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, my friend of long standing, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i don't like to reference the republican chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier, because he did leave the floor, but he made a couple statements that i

have to comment on. first of all, he said that this republican initiative is about creating jobs. nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. i've watched as the republicans have been in office now or in the majority i should say for about three or four weeks and they're not doing anything to create jobs. this certainly doesn't create jobs. then mr. dreier said there can be a no corporate contributions under the current law. well, the citizens united case clearly says that there are unlimited corporate contributions and that's the problem. rather than having public financing of campaigns which this legislation would eliminate, we're going to have more and more corporations just spending millions and millions of dollars to finance campaigns. and that's what this is all about. this is the republicans basically catering to special interests and the large corporations who will spend unlimited amounts of corporate money on campaigns and not having in this case public a public financing component

through voluntary, largely small donations. now, i have to say this is a system that we have now that's been in place since watergate. it was a reform that democrats and republicans used. a reform of a very bad system that the watergate scandal you know, showed was not the way we should go. and i agree that the system needs to be updated but it should be changed to meet the needs of today's elections. they're costing more and more primaries and the focus should be on small donations, not getting rid of small donationth. what we see instead is the republican majority eliminating the system altogether and making presidential campaigns more susceptible to what i call outside influence. we saw the effect of citizens united case in the past election where corporations and special interests poured money to sway elections in their favor. with disclosure requirements almost nonexistent we will have no way of knowing whether foreign corporations or entities

were contribution contributing to the elections and have to question whose side the republican majority is on. it appears this is just another attempt by the republicans to support their special interest friends and big corporations who had an unfair and undue influence on our electoral process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, 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 just said in at least three different ways, as i've 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 check-off 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 debt and 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 to us cut spending wherever we can and this is a program that has long ago outlived its usefulness. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. dr. foxx, i'm prepared to close. i have no further speak evers. mr. foxx: i thank my colleague from florida. we can close, too. mr. hastings: all right, mr. speaker, i'm one of those people among the 10 million that did do the check-off 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'd yield to him to respond, when he cites to the fact that no corporate dollars can be contributed to the respective candidates who are on

the ballot, he's absolutely correct. that is the law. but under the agent of the citizens united decision, corporations and individuals can contribute unanimously to any campaign and we saw evidence of that on both sides. now i've 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 limitation and at the same time did permit people like eugene mccarthy or jimmy carter, pat buchanan, pat robertson, jerry brown, jesse jacksonner is, just to -- jesse jackson, just to mention a few, and just recently

my good friend, dr. ron ball, gave them an opportunity to put forward -- ron ball, gave them the opportunity to put forward their -- ron paul, gave them the opportunity to put forward their ideas. 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're considering today is a repeal or 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're 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 candidate. the presidential public financing system needs repair but eliminating a program that works, that is voluntarily 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 multimillion dollars to donate to a campaign. is that really what we want for our constituents? i'm 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. tanned would require this disclosed 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 contributors 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 for 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 and, 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 speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's request is honored. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. as i urge my colleagues to vote for the previous question, rule and underlying bill, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? mr. hastings: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having

the speaker pro tempore: on this the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234, the nays are 1 am. a majority voting -- 178.

a sufficient number having arisen, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the previous resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members, please cease coferingses. members on the aisles, please take seats. members in the back of the room,

please take your conversations off the floor. those in the rear of the chamber, please take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: parliamentary inquiry. on the bill we're going to be considering shortly, the presidential checkoff bill, there's a requirement under the rules that the amendments be printed in the record is that record available? -- printed in the record. is that record available? the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the printed record is not yet available. mr. weiner: further inquiry.

does the chair have -- does the speaker have any guidance -- guidance on when that record will be available? the speaker pro tempore: the chair does not currently have that information. the question would become ripe when the amendment process begins. mr. weiner: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 359. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 54 and rule 18, the chair delairs the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 359. the chair appoints the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 359 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to reduce federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. the chair: the gentleman's correct. the house will be in order. members on both sides, clear the aisles, take seats, remove conversations. members at the rear of the chamber. the clerk, did you report the title of the bill?

ok, excellent. pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time, general debate shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and chair and ranking minority member of the committee on house administration. the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, and the gentleman from pentagon, mr. brady, will each control 15 minutes. the chair will again ask for order. specifically members on the chair's left will please remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may proceed.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes -- the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, last night the president in this very chamber issued us an invitation and that invitation, there were several opportunities, but two of them i'd like to highlight. one is, he said this, he said that he's willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. i take the president at face value, that he's interested in doing that. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. members of the majority side, behind the rail, please adjourn to the cloakroom or the hallway so we can proceed with the debate. the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: the other thing that the president issued was an invitation where he said this, he said, in fact the best thing we can do on taxes for all

americans is to simplify the tax code. well the law governing presidential election campaign funds and the presidential primary matching payment account is located in the internal revenue code which really inherently makes no sense. and i think during the course of this debate, mr. chairman, we're going to lay out the argument as to why the president's first point can be greeted and agreed to, that first goal, that this is simply something we can do without. let me take a couple of quick -- make a couple of quick points. i think it's important to recognize the irony of the statement of administration policy that was published on january 25, and i'm reading in the third paragraph, he says, the administration in criticism of this effort said, its effect would be to expand the power of corporations and special interests in the nation's elections to force many candidates into an endless cycle of fundraising at the expense of engagement with voters on the

issues. how can that be, mr. chairman? president obama, when he was a candidate in 2000 for the united states presidency, declined to participate in the fund, both in his primary and his general election. and if president obama is able to rise above that, i think other americans can rise above that. also, i'd just like to bring to your attention sort of that same argument and that is, in a dear colleague that was sent criticizing this bill, said basically the same thing. by creating a viable alternative to private fundraising the presidential campaign orb the -- or the public financing system was designed to level the electoral playing field and ensure that candidates remain accountable to voters and not special interests. does that mean, mr. chairman, that candidates who didn't participate in the program are somehow not accountable to voters? i think president obama would say he's really accountable to the voters. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague. i rise in strong opposition to this measure which along with the supreme court's radical decision in citizens united takes our nation's campaign finance system in precisely the wrong direction. less transparency and less information for the voters. americans from across the political spectrum, democrats, republicans, independents, want less special interest money in politics, not more. they want clean, transparent and competitive elections and campaigns where candidates, those of us in this room, presidential candidates, rise and fall based on the quality of their ideas, the strength of their arguments and their ability to attract support from the votes that are they seek to represent. what they don't want, what they don't want are campaigns decided

by how much secret money flows into an election from secret outside groups. and they will no longer tolerate, i believe, those politicians turning around and saying to those citizens, you have no right to know who's paying for what in our political campaigns. you have no right to know who is paying for those tv advertisements that you're watching. let's remember what we're talking about here. the current presidential financing system that this bill would eliminate arose from public outrage in the post watergate period. rather than presidential candidates trafficking in secret slush funds, our nation decisions that -- decided that our democracy would be better served by a system of public disclosure, contribution limits and emphasis on smaller dollar contributions matched by the presidential financing fund. the system is voluntary. one line on your tax code. not complicated. and while not perfect, for most

of its 36 years in existence, it has served this nation well. candidates from across the political spectrum, from ronald reagan to jesse jackson, have voluntarily participated in the presidential financing system. now, as a colleague on the other side mentioned, there is no doubt that the current law needs to be modernized. it needs to be fixed. we saw that in the last presidential election, but rather than throw out something that has served the country and the electorate well for 36 years, rather than throw it out let's fix it. and mr. price from north carolina and i and others have introduced legislation to do exactly that. so rather than shielding an avelampling of unlimited special interest money from public view, we should shine a light on it, we should do it by modernizing the presidential system and also pass the disclose act which we could have brought up and voted on except for the previous question was just defeated.

mr. speaker, at the end of the day our nation's democracy doesn't belong to presidents or members of congress. it belongs to the voters who send us here. and we have a solemn responsibility to safeguard it on their behalf and protect it for future generations, from the lessons of corruption in history, let's mend it, let's fix it, let's not throw it out. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the committee will rise informally for the purposes of receiving a message. will the gentleman from nebraska kindly take the chair? the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order and the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed with s. 3, honoring the service and sacrifice of staff sergeant salvatore giunta, a native of iowa, in the first living recipient of the medal of

honor since the vietnam war. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. choipt chair sees the gentleman from illinois on -- the chair: the chair sees the gentleman from illinois on his feet. are we going to go -- it will be the chair's inclination to represent the gentleman from california at this moment in time if you're going to do it all at the same time but the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. chairman. if it hasn't been requested already, i would ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the chair: it's already been requested in the house. we can move on. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 359 which terminates the taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. at the outset i want to mention in response to something that

was said by the other side, this is absolutely nothing to do with the citizens united case decided by the supreme court. that changed not one eye oata campaign finance law. corporations still cannot make contributions to campaigns or candidates. it does not change that. citizens united had to do with the question of whether or not one loses his or her first amendment protections of free speech, particularly with respect to expressions of political nature, merely because they associate with another person. the supreme court told us that you do not in fact lose your first amendment rights because you happen to say it jointly with someone else. so, as a matter of fact, they pointed out that some people with the least amount of influence in a society actually expand their influence in the political debate by joining with others.

and then the question of the supreme court, that the supreme court answered was that if that association happens to be corporate in nature, happens to be a union, happens to be a for-profit, happens to be a not-for profit, whether that changes the dynamic of contemplated by the first amendment protections and they told us it did not. so let's g of that canarrd right abay. this has nothing to do with corporate contributions to campaigns or foreign contributions to campaigns both of which remain illegal with criminal sanctions under the law. let's get that out of the way so we don't have a lot of debate that doesn't have anything to do with the bill before us. mr. chairman, we find ourselves at a unique juncture in the long standing debate over this issue but the reality it's a juncture

no longer. taxpayer financing of presidential elections and party conventions, the two major parties is simply no longer defensible. the first tax liability contributions for 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 stress of the government and increase the number of candidates and thus electoral competition the financial footing between parties. i believe, mr. chairman, it has failed on all accounts. it did allow us to have lyndon larouche to be a participant in the presidential elections. i'm not sure when we've had someone who had been subjected to a criminal conviction and conducted part of his campaign while still incarcerated, but that was brought to us by way of this fine law.

in 1976 approximately $1.5 billion -- since 1976 approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on this system. as we speak there is a balance of $195 million sitting in the presidential election campaign fund at the u.s. treasury department. and yet this system of leak torle subsidies has not changed the public's perception of our presidential elections or our politics. according to one survey after another, americans continue to harbor deep distrust of elect officials. does anyone think our presidential elections have shown a virtual progression towards more accuracy and more honesty? mr. chairman, how many candidates, candidates who supposedly believe in the system, have opted out of this taxpayer financing scheme in recent years? in 2004 and 2008 several candidates declined public financing for their primary

campaigns. and as was mentioned by the gentleman from illinois, during the most recent presidential election for the first time the nominee of one of our two major political parties withdrew from the public financing during the general election and instead went on to raise record amounts of money for his campaign and i recall when i thought we heard a pledge to participate in this program, because of the virtuous nature of the program. somehow that was lost along the campaign trail. in addition to presidential primaries -- one of the things i would like to point out is this -- there is this idea somehow we are going to be able to suppress money that goes into politics. the fact of the matter is it's like a balloon. a water balloon. if you squeeze it on one side, it has -- comes out on the other side. the question is, how do we get it within the system? we should be talking about the idea of this silly demarcation between our parties and our

candidates, where we limit in extreme fashion the amount of money that can be transferred or coordinated, as if somehow that corrupts the candidate to have him or her identified with the very party they represent. we ought to be working towards those kinds of changes that will allow a greater responsibility on the party and the candidates to express their positions and to hold to their positions be responsible for their positions. but no, we talk about these ways of how we're going to somehow 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, the weaklong presidential con vengeds. on our side of the aisle and our party i think we've had some indications i consider to be wasteful spending in preparation

for our upcoming convention. and to say to the taxpayer that in light of that we ought to continue to subsidize the production of our presidential conventions by the two major parties is very difficult to articulate and even to understand. they are as i say grand fun, wonderful occasions, week long party gatherings that are unfortunately in this day and age largely symbolic. one can't even argue something important is being decided because unfortunately, they cease to have real significance some time ago. that was part of our effort to try and cleanse the system rather than having people selected by delegates that come to con vengeds, we should move more and more to the primary operations. and of course then earlier and earlier in the season. so that somehow it becomes a two-year event. i guess we're already in that.

taxpayers would be shocked if not outraged to discover they had been funding these extravagant photo ops. mr. chair, as i mentioned since 1976 approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on publicly funding our presidential primaries and general elections and our presidential party conventions. the american taxpayer has paid enough for this unwise experiment. i think it should be ended and the balance of the presidential election campaign fund and the presidential primary matching payment account returned to the treasury to be used for deficit reduction. i think we'd have the american people cheer us for that. according to the 2010 congressional budge office estimate the elimination of this program would save american taxpayers $617 million over the next 10 years. now, some can say well, that's your opinion, we have our opinion, why change things? why don't we look to the opinion of the american people? not a bad idea in this house. simply put, this program does

not have the support of the american people. taxpayer support has declined precipitously over time. i remember years ago i thought it was a good experiment. i thought it was a good idea. i checked off as some of my taxes to go to this program. i was in hopes that it would actually prove to be a good change. i, like most americans, though, who contributed to that in the past have given up on the program. we don't believe it gave us what we thought it might. in 1980, for instance, the percentage of taxpayers participating through their tax form checkoff was 28.7%. it was so popular that in 1985 it was 23%. it proved so zphelf 1990 it was 19.5%. it -- boy, it proved itself by the year 1995 because then 12.9% of the american taxpayers decided they'd participate. in the year 2000, it dropped to

11.5%. in 2005 it was 9.1% and according to the irs data obtained, the checkoff rate in 2010 was 7.3%. in other words, on a direct vote, a plebiscite taken by the taxpayers of america, 92.7% reject the motion. where i come from, that's a landslide. i think even in chicago it would be a landslide even if you 35eud your taxes only once. mr. chairman, this candidate and convention subsidy is obviously unpopular. to paraphrase one former member of the federal election commission, quote, any system of public financing must have popular support to succeed. today's low taxpayer checkoff rates cast serious doubt on whether the public financing system has the support. when only one in 13 taxpayers are participating, it's very difficult to conclude that the public financing system has broad popular support.

mr. chairman, as we promised in the pledge to america and as we promised here on the floor during these initial weeks of the 112th congress and as we have verified by our transparency enhancing rules package, our bipartisan votes to trim congress' budget and end excessive congressional printing, by a determination to return to scr discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less and now through there bill the republican majority is committed to fiscal stewardship, to having a relentless eye on waste waste and inefficiency and reduce spending, to create private sector jobs and produce meaningful legislation that makes long lasting reforms. mr. chairman, if we in fact mean what we say when we we say we are willing to look at those programs that already exist and to judge whether or not they have proven to be efficacious or efficient or successful in promoting the principles that

underlay their passage in the first play, we ought to start with this. this is a program that almost 93% of the american people who pay taxes reject. and we're asking them to participate. maybe we ought to listen to what they are saying and instead allow the savings garnered by this particular bill to go towards deficit reduction. this bill introduced by our colleague from oklahoma should gardener bipartisan support, we should thank him for introducing it and i do, and to his commitment to responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, i urge my colleagues to understand what this bill is and what it is not and support h.r. 359 and with that, mr. chairman, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chairman: before recognizing the gentleman from pennsylvania, it was the chair's understanding perhaps the gentleman from washington would like to consume some of the ways and means time and then ask permission to give the rest of his time to the

gentleman from pennsylvania. if that understanding is correct the chair would recognize the gentleman from washington. >> i would like to yield to the chairman of the oversight committee, the ranking member of the oversight committee such time as he may wish to use in answering mr. lungren. the chair: which one do you want to use, your time or unyour time? the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized on his own time. >> thank you. it's my pleasure to deal to the member of the house administration committee, ms. lofgren. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms lofgren: i rise in opposition to h.r. 359. this will will unnecessarily eliminate the $3 checkoff box that's voluntary on returns to

fund presidential campaigns. the bill has been fast tracked by the republican leadership without any hearings, no markup, no respect from committee process. as a member of the house administration committee and a former chair of the subcommittee on elections, i'm very concerned by the end run around our committee and the lack of deference shown to the committee and its members. speaker boehner promised two weeks ago when he took the speaker's gavel more transparency in the legislative process and to focus on job creation. last week, the new majority fast tracked the health care reform repeal bill. this week, they expedite the repeal of this voluntary program without the proper process, so i think the speaker may need to revisit his statement about process and transparency. in addition, to the process concerns, i question the need for congress to pass this bill

at all. i was here as a young staffer when the judiciary committee took up the impeachment of president nixon. it's worth remembering that the public finance system was created as a direct result of the watergate scandal. remember phillips petroleum, they legally contributed $498,000 to the nixon campaign or luth ruth farkass who gave $300 to the nixon campaign in explicit exchange for an ambassadorship to luxembourg or the tapes that revealed john connolly shipped down dairy farmers for $600,000 in contributions in exchange for raising price support to the detriment of children who needed milk around the country. these incidents eroded public confidence not only in the nixon administration but this the

entire system and in response pursuant to the general welfare clause of the u.s. constitution, congress passed sweeping election reforms, including the presidential checkoff system. now, i would not argue that this system is perfect at this time. i think it does need reform. but i think mere elimination without a committee process is a huge mistake. i would hope that the committee could convene, that we could sort through what are the problems with this current system, how do we fix them, work in a bipartisan way to create the fixes and then come to this house for the solution. i yield back and urge opposition to this bill. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, the author of the bill, mr. cole. mr. cole: i thank the gentleman

for yielding. as i listen to my colleagues on the other side ofthe aisle i urge them to read the bill. it's only three pages long. frankly, most of the things i've heard so far don't have anything to do with this legislation. . this legislation doesn't raise the legal contribution limit for anybody, doesn't allow corporate contributions, keeps in place all the disclosure requirements to presidential campaigns we currently have. those of you concerned about those things don't need to be concerned about this bill. h.r. 359 is really a very simple piece of legislation. it does two things. it removes taxpayer funding for presidential campaigns, and it eliminates taxpayer funding for political party conventions by the two major parties. now, i have to say if you look at the -- at whether or not these ideas have been popular,

historically, they frankly haven't. when this was put in in the 1970's, the idea was it would spread. it hasn't. we don't fund any of your elections with taxpayer dollars, our colleagues in the other body don't, and as mr. lungren pointed out, popular participation in this program has declined for 30 consecutive year from a high of 29% in 1980 to barely 7% today. i need to say for the record, i philosophically have always been opposed to taxpayer dollars being used for political advocacy of any kind. some of my friends on the other side have a very different point of view and i respect that, we just have a philosophical difference. i think this is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money. having said that, as i think even my friends on the other side at least tacitly acknowledge, this is a program

that's broken beyond belief. the system didn't just begin to break down in 2008. i'd go back to 2000. president bush didn't use this system in the primary campaign he only used it, the public system during the general election. four years later, neither president bush nor senator kerry chose to use this system in the primary portion of the campaign. fast forward to 2008, neither president obama nor now-secretary clinton chose to use this in the primary campaign and the president, having committed to use it in the general, then chose not to use it in the general, certainly his right. but said at the time he still thought it was a great idea and that someday we ought to go back and fix it. i'll say this for the president. having said that, we haven't seen any action on that front. he's been in action -- in office for two years. there's not been a proposal to fix this system. as my friends on the other side

of the aisle know, he's planning to run for re--election, he's setting up campaign, there's a lot of thought of how to raise the money and put together a campaign, but no proposal to actually fix the system they purport to support and that they say -- said years ago they were going to try and fix. that's not true, by the way of every member on the other side. there have been some that i think have genuinely tried to fix things. this system has been in decline and decay for a long time. the estimates are, we could save $612 million over a 10-year period. we all know in this chamber we have a $1.4 trillion deficit problem. governing is choosing and prioritizing. this is $612 million that doesn't feed a single american, doesn't educate a single american, doesn't build a single mile of interstate highway or infrastructure, doesn't pay to

defend the country, it simply goes to support a handful of politicians that want to run for president, many of whom are marginal. i ask for an additional minute. >> i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. cole: in an era where we have to make genuinely hard decisions,s that no-brainer. this is a -- this is a no-brainer. this is a lot less important than a lot of decisions we'll have to make. there's leadership by lip service and leadership by example. if my friends on the other side think this is the appropriate thing and if the president thinks it, he ought to lead by example and participate in the system. if not, we ought to recognize it's broken, end it, save the money and if somebody want to rewrite a bill, they ought to do that and let's introduce it. right now, this is money we can't afford to waste. i urge my colleagues to support

h.r. 359, let's get rid of this outdated system. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. speaker. the short title of this bill ought to be the white flag of the united states congress on campaign finance. my distinguished colleague from oklahoma says if it's broke, why don't we write a bill? that's exactly what the point is. that's why i ask unanimous consent to add into the record a letter from the white house opposing the repeal of this bill. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave granted in the house. mr. mcdermott: there aren't many people on this floor who were involved in politics when this whole thing blew up. you've forgotten 1972. we wrote a bill in the congress, we didn't, but the congress wrote a bill, interestingly enough, they left themselves out

of it. but they tried to control how much money went into a presidential campaign. now if you index it for inflation or do some kind of mechanism, it's pretty clear that a law written with the limits of 1972 are going to be pretty out of date by 2012. so there are some things we could do to change this process and make it more in sync with what's going on in this society financially. but by saying you repeal it with nothing to replace it, you simply are saying, we don't care how much money is spent in the election of the president of the united states. it is of no concern to the republican party whatsoever. it fits very nicely with the

united citizens lawsuit that allows corporate money to come in in a variety of other ways and the system is now so corrupt that what you heard my colleague from california say, that is, all of the things that were uncovered as a result of watergate and the investigation that followed and led to the ejection of the president from the white house was because we didn't have any controls on anything. now, did we put the perfect controls in? no. should we be amending this bill? yes. because i don't know what 2010 -- 2012 is going to cost. maybe a billion dollars on either side. sarah palin will have a billion and barack obama will have a billion.

that'll be all right with everybody but the problem with that is that the ordinary folks in this country don't have any opportunity to participate and they also know that people don't give a billion dollars with no expectation of something coming back. that's what happened in 1972. people gave money and they expected something back. and that's where the real fallacy here is in simply wiping this out without trying to fix it. it's an admission that you do not care how much money gets spent in a presidential campaign. and if that's your view of how the democracy works, i think we are in serious trouble. i'm one of those who think there should be publicly financed campaign. i think even my opponents

against me, i get 84%, but i think my opponent ought to have an equal shot at me. but the congress didn't put that in this bill because they didn't want that. neither did the senate want that. they wanted to put it on the president and say, we fixed it over there. we really need it for this house and the senate as well as what's going on in the presidential election. and to simply repeal this is bad public policy. it is an admission that we don't care. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent, and i oppose the bill, i guess you get that, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. brady. the chair: without objection. the chair would advise that there's now a single manager on the democratic side of the aisle and the combined time now controlled by mr. brady is 19

1/2 minutes. mr. roskam has 7 1/2 minutes, mr. lungren has three. maybe to even things up the chair would recognize mr. brady. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. it's my pleasure to yield six minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: mr. speaker, 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 three weeks ago. the process is atrocious. the substance is worse. this repeal bill would destroy one of the proudest and most successful examples of reform that followed watergate scandal. have we forgotten what the watergate scandal was about. the committee to reks -- was

about? the committee to re-elect the president, paying for criminal acts, 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 flag ship of public financing systems used in the united states and one of the greatest steps we've take ton bring transparency and accountability to our electoral system. the supreme court in affirming the constitutionality of the system noted its basic purposes and i quote, to reduce the deleterious influence of large contributions on our political system to free candidates from the rigors of fundraising. president rble public financing

has worked remarkably well, being utilized in the general election by every republican and democratic nominee from 1976 through 2004 and by john mccain in 2008. although in recent year the need for modernization has become evident. perhaps the best example of the program's success is president ronald reagan who participated in the presidential public financing system in 1976, 1980 and 1984. in his 1976 primary campaign, he had less than $44,000 in campaign money at the end of january of 1976, while his opponent, incumbent president ford had 15 times more cash on hand. the $1 million in public funds reagan received in january, the $1.2 million he received in february, were essential in allowinging him to -- allowing him to continue his campaign. reagan was once again short of cash at the end of march and was

allowed to continue through a diffusion of public money which matched small private contributions. this shows the way it's worked in both parties. it often benefits 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 donation base he was able to capitalize he raised about 60% of his campaign funds from small donors. as a result, he 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 date president reagan is the only candidate ever to reach that public funding primary campaign maximum. my colleague 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 nily 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, one could wish for a bipartisan ert to -- 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 re-introduced a bill, h.r. 414, that would do just that and the white house has cooperated in formulating this bill. . it would make it a viable option for candidates. it would bring it into line with the increased costs of campaigns, adjust the programs to the front-loaded primary calendar and enhance the role of fall donors further. it would remove the funding of political conventions as their roles have changed since the system was first in-stated. this bill has been carefully designed. it deserves deliberation and debate through a normal committee process in this body. at a time when confidence in government is low, 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 restore and improve our public financing system and move on to real solutions to put our nation's house in order. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair would recognize the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: before i yield one minute to the majority leader, i might take 15 seconds to yield to myself to say when i find myself 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'd like to yield one minute to the majority leader, mr. cantor. the chair: the majority leader of the house, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, over the past two years, the schedule of this house was dominated by spending money, not cut spending.

but after the people voiced their displeasure in november, the discussion in this town is now focused on rolling back the unchecked growth of government and federal expenditures. our majority is dedicated to cut and grow, cutting spending and job-destroying regulations, growing private sector jobs and the economy. yesterday we directed the budget committee chairman to set spending levels so we returned nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels or below. today, the american public through the youcut program has put on the chopping block an example of unnecessary government waste. specifically, this bill would eliminate the presidential election campaign fund, an outdated mechanism that provides federal tax dollars to candidates in presidential primaries in the form of matching funds and general

elections and subsidies for the democratic and republican national conventions. eliminating this program would save taxpayers $617 million over 10 years, and require candidates and political parties to rely on private contributions rather than tax dollars. in times when government has no choice but to do more with less, voting to end the presidential election campaign fund should be a no-brainer. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. parade. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, one of the things that the republicans will accomplish with this legislation to upend the

presidential campaign finance system is to drown out the voice of the people and to give more power, not less, to their well-heeled special interests. actually, this repeal bill is the beginning of the end of any hope for a system of public financing for all elections in this country. so mr. speaker, i'm not surprised. after all, the majority largely owe their unprecedented spending levels in the last elections thanks to the united citizens decision that turned on the spigot of anonymous corporate cash and in keeping with the spirit of secrecy and lack of transparency it's somehow fitting this bill comes to the floor without any hearings, without any committee referral, without full debate or deliberation. we have a deeply corrupt campaign system, mr. speaker. special interest money is having a corrosive effect on our

democracy, eating away at the people's confidence in their government and their elected representatives. the one beacon of light in this system is the public financing of presidential campaigns. it is, i would remind everyone, a voluntary system. americans must choose to opt in on their tax return. it has served the country well, a limited expense. it needs updating. it does not need to be dismantled. we need more public financing in all of our federal elections, not less. h.r. 359 goes in exactly the wrong direction. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. mr. roskam: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock. mr. schock: thank you, mr. speaker. i read articles about president obama's re-election campaign plans on raising upwards of $.75

billion. there is no system of public financing for our presidential elections that can accommodate anywhere near that level of spending. that is why i believe the president's strong opposition to legislation abolishing a system the president himself found unworkable in reality is profoundly hypocritical. putting out a statement of administration policy that states repealing the public financing system would, quote, force many candidates into an endless cycle of fundraising at the expense of engagement with voters on the issues and to place a premium on access to large donors or special interest support narrowing the field of otherwise worthy candidates, end quote. what incredible audacity. this is like the proverbial arsonist child who kills his parents bied ising their house on fire and appeals for sympathy

by exclaiming he is an orphan. the president's statement is absolutely saying one thing while doing the opposite. a "new york times" editorial on january 24 of this year said, quote, eric cantor is targeting for extinction the publicly subsidized campaign finance system adopted in the wake of the watergate scandals, end quote. wrong. it was president obama who killed it, and made a mockery of public financing of presidential campaigns with his arrogant pressing of self-advantage. his unprecedented move to decline public financing for the first and only time since the adoption of this system. in disparaging the majority leader thetimes went on to say that quote, we expect his real motive is to give an even bigger voice to big money contributors in presidential campaigns, end quote. once again, the record needs correcting. no campaign, no campaign in

american history had more maximum donors at $30,000 ,400 per person than obama for america. much has been made of that committee's legendary prowess in generating small donors over the internet but that committee has had a record shattering haul among big donors, bundlers and influence peddlers. but such is the right for mr. obama as a candidate in america. however, when he alone has refused to participate in public financing of a general election for a presidential campaign, his protestations ring are rather hollow. no one has made more of the system operationally obsolete than barrack obama. actions speak louder than words and barrassment alone has refused to participate on the level playing field that existed in publicly financed presidential election campaigns in history. it was not that the system was

antiquated that forced barrassment to break a very -- forced barack obama to break a public promise. it was his decision to put expediency over his express support for the democrat mantra of public financing. it was about a ruthless pressing of self-advantage despite a core campaign theme of promising to rise above self-interested politics. today when we hear about on the floor measures to address the inadequacies of the system and the need for repair of the system, first i note an earlier "new york times" eledtorle which stated, quote, senator russ feingold, rightly points out while the primary cycle's public matching systems are broken and need updating for inflation, the system for the general election is not broken. secondly, i ask my democratic colleagues this -- have any of you received the specifics of

what it would take to change the law that would cause president barack obama's campaign to abide by public spending limits in the general election for 2012? because without those specifics, this debate is not grounded in reality that the incumbent president has zero intention of giving up his gargantuan financial advantage in his re-election campaign by opting out of the one of the most perfect systems of public financing we could possibly adopt. i ask the supporters of public financing for presidential campaigns, are you willing to adopt a system that makes it mandatory for all candidates to participate in the system? and can you unequivocally pledge that the president's re-election committee will be agree to be bound by your new system? if not, i would suggest you are preaching at the wrong end of pennsylvania avenue. i yield back. the chairman: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair would advise members that mr. roskam still has 2 1/2

minutes, mr. lungren 1 3/4 minutes, mr. brady 11 1/2 minutes. the chair would further advise that ascribing motivations or intentions to the president of the united states or another member of the united states congress is inappropriate and the chair would recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. brady. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. it's my honor to have, oh, lead the democratic leader, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi, for one minute. the chair: the minority leader is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you for your leadership, mr. brady, and participating in this important discussion. it's fundamental as our democracy is on the floor today. mr. speaker, i rise today to urge this congress to focus on our number-one priority, the creation of jobs. this is a priority for the american people and for this congress. we should be focusing on it.

that was the message we heard last night from president obama, just on this floor, just last night, who called on us to outeducate, outinnovate and outbuild the rest of the world. but instead of talking about job creation this legislation will not create jobs, will not reduce the deficit, and will not strengthen the middle class. and those are the standards we should apply to any legislation that comes to the floor. instead, it will put american elections more squarely -- more squarely into the hands of special interests. one year ago, the supreme court decision on citizens united opened the floorgates to unlimited, uninhibited, undisclosed special interest spending in our elections and unlimited special interest influence over our public policy debate. in response to the citizens

ruling, the citizens united ruling, democrats worked to restore transparency, fairness, accountability to our political process. last congress with bipartisan support the house passed the disclose act to require corporations to stand by -- and donors to stand by your ad. why are you running and hiding? as you keep -- and to keep foreign entities from participating in our election. but senate republicans balked even though it came out of the house with bipartisan support, senate republicans blocked this bill from receiving an up-or-down vote and now house republicans are perpetuating a sneak attack on campaign finance reform. the result was clear in the last election. special interest groups spent tens of millions of dollars,

more in the 2010 elections than ever before. again, undisclosed, without identification. there's a reason they don't want it disclosed. first of all, if the public knew who was paying for those ads they would realize that their own personal interests were not being served but the special interest. that's our experience in california where we had a special interest initiative placed on the ballot by outside oil companies, and with strong -- the strongest statement against the initiative was to see the disclosure at the bottom of the ad as to who was funding it. that spoke more eloquently to the fact it was not in the people's interest, and the initiative was defeated. today by eliminating the presidential election fund as this election would do, opens the door for foreign-owned entities and large corporations

to enjoy an even greater role in the funding of political campaigns. in the past, members on both sitesdz of the aisle have supported legislation to reform and eliminate, not eliminate the public financing system. we should come together to ensure the american people are heard, that they are heard and they are not drowned out by special interest dollars. in our democracy, god bless our founders for establishing it, voters determine the outcome of the election. that's the way it should be. special interests should not be determining the outcome of our election. one year after the supreme court's decision undermined the -- that fundamental american value, let's come together to fight on behalf of the public interest, to preserve the

integrity of our political campaign, and therefore to strengthen our democracy. and maybe we could, instead of undermining it here today, strengthen our country by creating jobs, by reducing the deficit, by strengthening the middle class, none of which is being done by this legislation. i urge my colleague to -- colleagues to oppose this effort to further empower the special interests over the people's interests. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the minority leader yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: i yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. womack: last night a few seats down from where i stand, i listened to our president say he would offer his support to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without.

i stand here today in this house chamber feeling a little less like a freshman representative of the united states congress and more like a guy presiding over the people's choice awards. there is no better program in my judgment that is tailor made for elimination than this program. in overwhelming fashion, the people of arkansas and indeed the people of america spoke loud and clear last year about the need to reduce spending in this country. the gentleman from oklahoma talked about the fact that this program does not educate anyone, doesn't feed anyone, doesn't produce a mile of interstate highway. the gentleman from california articulating the declining participation in this check-off program. i don't think there's a better barometer out there for the overwhelming support the people have for this particular measure. i urge my colleagues to join me today and vote in favor of h.r. 359. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from welve.

mr. brady: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i stand in support of h.r. 459. developed in the aftermath of the watergate scandal, it eases the burden of presidential campaigns. since 1976, candidates from across the political spectrum have used the public financing program to run for president. is the system perfect? absolutely not. it needs to be reformed, not repealed. i heard mention that our president, president obama opted out of this program. that was his choice. i do not think we should be in a position to legislate the american people's choice. it should be their option to opt out or check that box, i don't think we have the right to do that. a little over a year ago, we were already well on our way to elections bought by the highest corporate bidder. if this bill passes, there will

be even more reason for foreign companies to support elections to move jobs overseas. this bill takes secret corporate dominance over our elections to the next level. the bill also is being considered at the wrong time, under the wrong circumstances. less than three weeks ago, the american people were promised an open congress, a congress that allowed for open debate, one that allows for open rules. the american people are still waiting. the committee process was completely disregarded. there have been no hearings, no testimony from witnesses either for or against, no markup, none. we did the disclosure act, we had three hearings, 17 witnesses. we learn from our witnesses. they gave us their opinion and they give us -- gave us educationed on what they thought, pro and con. to bypass that which we have never done before in our committee i think is wrong and

we should have our hearings and let it happen. there's no reason to rush this thing over to the senate. i would doubt very much if they're sitting there waiting for it. we could have took our time, did our hearings, which we do in a nonpartisan way and had this thing threshed out, aired it out, people could have put their amendments in, offered amendments at the committee level, we could have aired it out perfectly and maybe had a chance to reform it for the better. while reforming the presidential financing system is important, the president, rble election is two years away. this bill does not create a single job. a hearing might be the place but now is certainly not the time. i urge my colleagues to get on with the task of putting americans back to work. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair would advise that the gentleman from pennsylvania has 8 1/2 minutes, the majority side

has a combined 3 1/4, the order of closing would be the gentleman from pennsylvania would exhaust time on their side then we'll move to the gentlemen on the majority side for conclusion. i turn again to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: it's my pleasure to yield as much time as me he may consume to in my opinion an expert on this matter, mr. price. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i am pleased to close for our side with a plea to our -- with a plea to our colleagues that they do not repeal one of the proudest achievements of political reform. of course we want president obecause mark we want all presidential candidates to opt in to this system. i think we've made it about as

clear as we possibly could that the bill that mr. van hollen and i introduced is designed to make it feasible once again for candidates to participate in the public financing system. but mr. schock's talk about having it both ways, he 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 poth because ma nor anyone else could par -- neither president obama nor anyone else could participate. of course we want a system that works. we know the system needs to be adjusted. we have constructive efforts under way to do just that. what we should be doing instead of having this up ore 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. you know, there's a bipartisan history here. there's a bipartisan history of supporting this program, a bipartisan history of participating in the program. and that may be out of fashion now. but under the cover, under the cover of achieving fiscal responsibility, come in here and abolish one of the proudest and most successful of our reform efforts i think does a disservice to the new majority and to this house and it does violate all the pledges we had three weeks ago. of hearings, committee consideration, markups, none of that. none of that has been done. this is simply an up or down vote, as i said, flying under the banner of fiscal responsibility. so, we have a chance to take on

this challenge, to mend it, not end it. to make certain that we preserve this reform. but 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, i think is beneath what we should be about as responsibility legislators in this body and this country. i ask for members to look at our legislation by which we can indeidre pair and rejuvenate this system and in the meantime, to reject this summary attempt to destroy one of the proudest achievements of reform. with that, i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair would advise the gentleman from pennsylvania, he's still got five minutes left. mr. brady: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the majority has indicated -- mr. brady: they have no further speakers? the chair: i think they're done except for the close on each committee. mr. brady: i yield back my time. the chair: who wants to close first? you have a minute and three quarters. mr. lungren: i yield myself the whole minute and three quarters. the ranking member has been fair with us over the years and we will continue that tradition. we were unable to have hearings or consideration of this matter before our committee until yesterday when we finally were told by the minority party as to who they wished to have our on -- on our committee. we could not meet as a full committee until we had a

complement of both democrats and republicans, we having established our side several weeks ago. i'm sorry that happened. we will have plenty of hearings in the future on this and other issues. what is the current system we are hearing the other side defend? what has it given us? it's given us lyndon la rouge but would prevent eugene mccarthy from being a successful candidate. that's what we don't hear. the system works against people like a ewe jeeb mccarthy who is a poor fundraiser but managed to have a number of people who supported him who gave him large contribution. yet he was able to change the course of history, bringing down a sitting president and allow for, he was called the pied piper of the youth vote. 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% of the american people who pay taxes have voted no to this system. that ought to give us good guidance as to where we can find savings to bring down our national debt. as i understand it, we're 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 it comes forward, i will support it and i hope we have the support of our colleagues for this bill. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has a minute and a half. mr. roskam: the minority leader was on the floor a couple of minutes ago, i know the weather situation is urgent, i didn't want to prolong this drama, but it seemed to me to make the argument that this doesn't do anything as it relates to economic growth is an overstatement. one thing we continue to hear and the.'s -- the president's own debt commission spoke eloquently about the nature of debt and the stifling nature of debt on the economy and the

stifling nature of spending on the economy. here the congressional budget office says without ambiguity, the congressional budget office says h.r. 359 would reduce direct spend big $617 million over the 2011 to 2021 period. this is an opportunity for us to take the admonition of the minority leader, to take the admonition of the president to take the admonition of what the electorate told us in november that is to concentrate on ways we can trim this government, the burden on the taxpayer that adds absolutely no value there is not one member on this house floor, michigan. -- mr. chairman, that has defended the results of this system. i urge passage of this bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. the bill shall be considered for considered under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed five hours.

no amendment shall be considered in order except those in the record for that purpose. the chair would advise in light of the gentleman from new york's parliamentary inquiry earlier that the record is available and all members can happily read the amendments made and have been preprinted. each amendment printed may be offered only by the author who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read. are there amendments to the bill? for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes in support of this amendment. mr. peters: there is strong bipartisan agreement that the long-term health of our economy necessitates confronting persistent budget deficits and the growing national debt.

democrats and republicans are able to work together to create balanced budgets in the 1990's and a similar attempt is needed now. while i appreciate the efforts the efforts, i have concerns with eliminating the public campaign financing system. however, if the house is going to vote on this, we owe it to the american people to ensure that the funds are actually used for deficit reduction and not for additional spending. when i was reading the text of this legislation i was surprised to find the bill does not make specific provisions for using the remaining money in the presidential election campaign fund to reduce the deficit. this is why i'm putting forward my amendment that will ensure that the $194 million in tax dollars currently sitting in the presidential election campaign fund will be used to reduce the deficit should this legislation become law. as introduced, h.r. 359 would

transfer this money to the treasury's general fund where it could be dedicated to new spending or lent to government trust funds. my amendment would simply specify upon transfer to the treasury these funds are to be used only, to be used only for reducing the deficit. this is about sending a message to taxpayers. if we're going to put deficit reduction in a bill's title we should make sure that deficit reduction is in the statutory language as well. as a matter of fact, the bill was introduced simply returns the $195 million in the presidential election campaign fund to treasury's general fund and it is from this fund that most expenditures are made as well as loans to a number of government trust funds. if we're going to pass a bill to reduce the deficit, let's make sure it actually does that. it is not uncommon or unprecedented to specify funds being returned to the treasury to be used for deficit reduction. i'm proud to be a bipartisan co-sponsor of two republican bills introduced this session,

one by my colleague from michigan, chairman camp, and representative gingrey that would codify the requirements that unspent frunds a member's representation allowance be used specifically for deficit reduction. this amendment basically uses the same language as in both of those bills by mr. camp and mr. gingrey. if congress is going to sandy message to taxpayers that cutting spending is a top priority let's make sure those recovered funds are actually used to reduce the deficit. my amendment is a common sense change that ensures the stated purpose of this bill, deficit reduction, will actually be carried out. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. roskam: i rise in support of the amendment, whole heartedly agree and urge its passage. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes -- the gentleman is done with his five minutes. mr. roskam: i yield back. the chair: any other member wish to be recognized on the amendment? the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters. all in favor say aye, those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two. the chair: could you tell us which one? >> the first amendment. the chair: which would be two. first would be two. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: i reserve a point of order against the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: i rise in support of the amendment to safeguard the local government security funds

that come from the presidential election campaign fund. i know a lot of the debate has been focused on public campaign financing of presidential campaigns but another important portion of that fund goes to local communities to help them with local security and local law enforcement costs when they host a convention parks political party convention. and we're very proud in my hometown of tampa to be the host of the 2012 republican convention. it's no wonder that the republicans selected tampa, it's a wonderful place, we have beautiful beaches, we need the business and the jobs, so we're going to be a very welcoming community. we do conventions very well and we're very happy that we're going to play host to the republican convention. but here are great warning flags going off. what i hear from my local law enforcement community is that

the security costs especially in the post-9/11 world are very daunting. they are very concerned with the cost of providing security for the republican convention. just like i think any host community would be for any party convention. so what this amendment does, it says rather than completely do away with this fund, that we will retain the portion that will cover local law enforcement security costs. we are going to need this help. what i understand from my colleagues in minneapolis after the last convention is that they received over $16 million from this fund to help them cover the cost of security. yet that wasn't enough to fully cover all the costs. and let me tell you in this economy right now and in an area

where we've been -- we were hard hit by the recession in 2007, early 2007, our local governments simply don't have the wherewithal to go this extra mile and cover all these security costs. what i'm asking through this amendment is we come together in a bipartisan way to cover those local law enforcement costs. let's not throw out the entire fund. let's retain this amount or what's left in the fund to go to cover these local security costs. let's face it, too. this is voluntary. this is a voluntary checkoff on your income tax form that taxpayers all across america can decide if they want to do this or not. this is not something that's mandatory upon all taxpayers across the country. and it's folks around the country, taxpayers want to say voluntarily we want to help keep big money out of campaigns and we want to help cover local

security issues, then we should be -- we should be following through with that commitment and not eliminating it, not giving them any choice at all. overall, if the majority will not accept this amendment, since you raised the point of order, and it seems like you don't want to bring it up to a vote, i would urge everyone to vote no on h.r. 359 because it puts in danger dollars that can be used by the city of tampa, the tampa bay area and other communities for security, transportation, preparation and other allowable purposes. this amendment allows -- intends to replace the $100 million we replace for security every four years. if we kill this fund, we're going to be hurting many local communities such as my hometown of tampa, the host committee will be way behind the 8-ball and they're doing a good job, but boy, this was a commitment, this was the law, and you're

going to really stick it to them by taking these security funds away. so let's focus on making our communities safe when we rally and in our political conventions. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady cannot reserve. she has to use it or lose it. we're under the five-minute rule. ms. castor: since the majority party has offered a point of order it appears like they're not going to allow this amendment and probably the next one to come up for a vote, so because the majority has raised the point of order to prevent a vote on my amendment, i reluctantly ask i ask unanimous consent to withdraw both of my amendments which would have sfaurted our security funds for local law enforcement. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. are there further amendments to the bill? are there further amendments to

the bill? for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in the congressional record offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: i reserve a point of order against the amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. speaker. it is my intention to withdraw however reluctantly my amendment but i thank my colleagues on the other side ofthe aisle for giving me the opportunity to discuss what i believe is a critically important issue for our democracy. my amendment is straightforward -- entities that receive federal funds may not use those funds, be they bailouts, earmarks, grants or payments for contracts, toward the election or defeat of a presidential candidate. i understand what my colleagues

on the other side ofthe aisle hope to accomplish with the underlying bill today. they want to protect taxpayer dollars. saving taxpayer dollars is a noble goal, particularly in these tough economic times. unfortunately, this bill eliminates the voluntary fund that taxpayers elect to put toward campaign financing and does nothing about the much larger share of taxpayer dollars that can now go to campaign financing with no say from taxpayers. if we are truly serious about protecting taxpayer dollars, it is these dollars we should be concerned with. we should ensure that corporations and other entities receiving taxpayer money cannot turn around and use that same money to finance presidential campaigns. the supreme court in citizens united allowed corporations to have unlimited influence in elections. it removed long-standing

protections that prevented corporations from making large contributions to candidates, drowning out the voices of everyday americans trying to participate in our democracy. in the wake of citizens united, public financing of presidential elections is all the more important more important to ensure a level playing field for candidates running for office and to preserve the voice of the american taxpayer p. by eliminating the presidential campaign fund, my colleagues across the aisle would increase the influence of special interests in the elections, leaving presidential candidates beholding to large private contributions. if my colleagues insist on eliminating this important and completely voluntary fund, let us at least make sure that corporations receiving taxpayer money through blouths, earmarks and other federal funds are not able to then use these taxpayer funds towards influencing presidential elections. let us level the playing field

and protect all american voters by ensuring these large private contributions to political candidates aren't funded using taxpayer money. mr. speaker, i reluctantly ask i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. are there further amendments to the bill? the gentlelady from wisconsin have an amendment? the gentlelady from wisconsin? >> thank you so much, mr. chair, for recognizing me. the chair: do you have an amendment? >> i have an amendment at the desk. , the clerk: amendment offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. mr. ran come: i preserve a point of order against the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: the supreme court created an uninhibited voice for special interests spending in

our elections, an unlimited corporate speech in our public policy debate. special interests were heard loud and clear this past election cycle at the tune of $281.6 million. almost five times greater than the previous midterm election of 2006. by eliminating the presidential election campaign fund, where everyday americans can have their voices heard, special interest groups will be able to shout from the top of the mountain and dominate presidential elections even more. currently, between 7% and 8% of americans choose to direct $3 of their tax liability to the presidential election campaign fund. my amendment is simple. instead of