September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6113 

Getting the tribal language in here, I 

think, is not only a good bipartisan effort, but one that the administration is 

supporting, as well working directly 

with Director Fugate. I was glad to see 

the administration put out an email on 

the tribal language just a little while 

ago. 

Let me respond to the concern that 

this bill may not allow FEMA to respond to a terrorist attack. It’s just 

not true. 

First, the President used the Stafford 

Act and FEMA to declare a Federal disaster and to respond to every major 

terrorist attack in this country. 

There’s no question FEMA, the Stafford Act, or this bill fully authorizes 

the President to direct any element of 

the Federal Government to respond to 

a terrorist attack. 

Second, one of the most important 

reforms made by this bill is to remove 

the liability cloud hanging over our 

urban search and rescue teams when 

they’re called into Federal service to 

respond to a disaster. 

On September 11, these teams responded to the World Trade Center and 

the Pentagon. They responded to Hurricane Katrina and even the earthquake in Haiti. Many of these brave 

first responders are licensed medical 

professionals or engineers who knowingly put themselves at risk when they 

are federalized and sent to other 

States. 

The urban search and rescue teams 

have waited 10 years to remove this 

cloud over their heads. This bill finally 

fixes that problem. That’s why this bill 

is supported by the urban search and 

rescue teams, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of Counties, the National 

Emergency Management Association, 

and the International Association of 

Emergency Managers. 

They also support this bill and support our first responders. Vote for this 

bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

DENHAM) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2903, as 

amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 

FUNDS FOR PARTY CONVENTIONS 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 

the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5912) to 

amend the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 to prohibit the use of public funds 

for political party conventions, and to 

provide for the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction, as 

amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5912 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL 

ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR 

PARTY CONVENTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 95 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

section 9008. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections of chapter 95 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to section 

9008. 

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

(a) AVAILABILITY OF PAYMENTS TO CANDIDATES.—The third sentence of section 

9006(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended by striking ‘‘, section 9008(b)(3),’’. 

(b) REPORTS BY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.—Section 9009(a) of such Code is amended— 

(1) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

(2); 

(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of 

paragraph (3) and inserting a period; and 

(3) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6). 

(c) PENALTIES.—Section 9012 of such Code 

is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking the second sentence; and 

(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph 

(2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). 

(d) AVAILABILITY OF PAYMENTS FROM PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING PAYMENT ACCOUNT.—The second sentence of section 

9037(a) of such Code is amended by striking 

‘‘and for payments under section 9008(b)(3)’’. 

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The amendments made by this Act shall 

apply with respect to elections occurring 

after December 31, 2012. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to 

amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

prohibit the use of public funds for political 

party conventions.’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

California (Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN) 

and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 

FUDGE) each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 

remarks. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from California? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 

time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 5912, which would terminate 

taxpayer financing of party conventions. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry to say that 

party conventions today are by and 

large week-long televised movie sets 

and almost entirely symbolic. Although conventions do provide important insight into party platforms and 

Presidential candidates, spending millions of taxpayer dollars to fund them, 

particularly in today’s environment, is 

simply untenable. 

American taxpayers should not be 

subsidizing political party conventions. 

With our historic levels of deficit 

spending and our national debt over $16 

trillion and climbing, this Congress 

and this President need to be thinking 

very differently about how we use taxpayer dollars. 

b 1740 

Since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion 

has been spent on publicly funding our 

Presidential primaries, our Presidential general elections, and our Presidential party conventions. Each party’s national convention this year received almost $18 million in taxpayer 

funding. While I believe we should be 

getting rid of public funding of Presidential campaigns as well, at a minimum we should pass this commonsense measure to stop financing our 

parties with taxpayers’ dollars. The 

American taxpayer has paid enough for 

this unwise experiment. It should be 

ended. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill, introduced by 

my colleague from Oklahoma, I would 

hope would garner overwhelming bipartisan support. I thank him for introducing it and for his commitment to a 

responsible and efficient stewardship of 

taxpayer dollars. This should stop 

funding going to all party conventions. 

It is a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. 

I urge all my colleagues to support 

H.R. 5912, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. FUDGE. I yield myself such time 

as I may consume. 

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 

5912. H.R. 5912 terminates the public financing of nominating conventions. 

The Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund was created and designed to restore public confidence in the political 

process in a post-Watergate world. 

Since 1976, both parties have requested 

and received public funds to finance 

their nominating conventions, including as recently as this year. The aim of 

H.R. 5912 is to inject more private influence over elections, even though the 

current level is already appallingly 

high. This bill turns over another electoral function to private interests. It 

invites the very corruption the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was 

created to combat. This system needs 

to be reformed, not repealed, and we 

ought to be having a serious debate 

about the outsized role money plays in 

our politics. 

Because the majority has failed to 

act, the ranking member of the House 

Administration Committee, Mr. BRADY

of Pennsylvania, was forced to have his 

own forum on the poisoning effect of 

money in politics. We have not considered the DISCLOSE Act or any legislation of substance to deal with the secret money influencing our politics. 

The Voter Empowerment Act was introduced months ago. Yet absolutely 

nothing has been done to address the 

threat of millions of voters being disenfranchised this November. Most appalling, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

this Congress is making its own history as the least productive Congress 

in a generation. 

This Congress has already considered 

the substance of the measure before 

us—at least twice—in November, 2011, 

and again this past January. To be 

blunt, Mr. Speaker, this is simply a 

waste of time. Unemployment insurance and Medicare physician payment 

rates need to be tackled. Middle class 

tax cuts are set to expire and we need 

to reauthorize the Violence Against 

Women Act. This bill does nothing to 

address deficit reduction, but here we 

are considering it while ignoring the 

looming sequester. We voted to repeal 

ObamaCare more than 30 times without 

voting on a serious jobs bill once. This 

piece of legislation further intertwines 

our political process with the private 

interests while pleas from the middle 

class are blatantly ignored and the economic future of this country hangs in 

the balance. 

For almost 2 years now, serious 

issues have been ignored in favor of politically convenient empty gestures. 

And this is more of the same. It is time 

to get serious and it is time to get to 

work. We can start by opposing this 

legislation and urging the majority to 

address the real issues facing this 

country. 

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote, and I reserve the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 

seconds. 

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame we’ve 

come to a point where it can be said on 

the floor of the House attempting to 

save the taxpayers of America $36 million is a waste of time. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. COLE), 

a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget. Mr. COLE is the 

sponsor of this bill. 

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for 

yielding. 

H.R. 5912 is a bipartisan bill to end 

public financing for political conventions. And that’s all it is. 

I want to begin by thanking my 

friend, Mr. LOEBSACK from Iowa. We belong to different parties. I have no 

doubt we’ll be voting for different Presidential candidates. But we both agree 

that it’s wrong to use taxpayer dollars 

to finance partisan political events. 

And I appreciate his support in helping 

push this legislation. 

Let me make it clear to everybody. 

I’m not opposed to political party conventions. I’ve gone to 10 of them. I actually had the privilege of helping 

stage one in 2000, when I was chief of 

staff of the Republican National Committee. And I can assure you that experience taught me that the parties are 

more than capable of putting on their 

conventions. They essentially do that 

now. The Federal component of the 

cost to the convention is about 23 percent of the total cost. So the idea that 

they can’t find the resources to do this 

for themselves I think simply falls flat 

on its face. 

This year, at a time when we’re going 

to be running trillion-dollar deficits for 

the fourth year in a row, we wrote 

checks to the Democratic Party and to 

the Republican Party, as my friend Mr. 

LUNGREN mentioned, for almost $18 

million each. For what? Was it really 

necessary? Does anybody really believe 

that was the best use of public money? 

Is there no program that’s more important? I can give you a list of better 

places for that money to go that we 

would probably agree on on both sides 

of the aisle. 

It’s remarkable to me that we’ve 

reached a point in this body that this 

becomes an issue of some degree of partisan contention. The United States 

Senate passed, essentially, this legislation by 95–5 in an amendment by my 

friend, Mr. COBURN, to a larger piece of 

legislation. So there’s broad agreement 

in the Senate, which Democrats control, that this is a Federal expense that 

we no longer need to incur. 

This bill is a small step, but it’s a 

stall step in the right direction. It’s a 

step to save taxpayer dollars for things 

that people need as opposed to things 

that politicians and political parties 

want. We ought to take this opportunity, work together, save the money, 

reduce the deficit by at least a modest 

amount, spend money in places where 

it’s necessary, and pass this bill. It’s a 

quite simple piece of legislation. Those 

folks that have a different point of 

view, bring your legislation to the 

floor, we’ll deal with that. But there’s 

no reason to pay for the Democratic 

and the Republican national conventions with taxpayer funds. 

One last point, if I may, Mr. Speaker. 

We don’t do this for anybody else. 

There are other political groups and 

parties in America that I’m sure would 

like to have their conventions paid for. 

We don’t give them a single dime. So 

this actually perpetuates a bipartisan 

monopoly, if you will. There’s no public purpose in spending this money. 

So I urge the passage. I urge some bipartisan cooperation. 

Ms. FUDGE. Just to be clear, let me 

first say it will not reduce the deficit. 

This is a voluntary checkoff. This does 

not come from taxpayers’ dollars. It 

will not reduce the deficit. So let’s be 

clear. 

Secondly, when he talked about the 

Senate having passed this on a 95–5 

vote, he doesn’t say it was an amendment to the farm bill. It was not a 

standalone bill for this purpose. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 

to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 

LOEBSACK), a distinguished member of 

the Committee on Education and 

Workforce and the Committee on 

Armed Services. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

thank the gentleman from California 

for yielding, and I do rise in support of 

this bill. 

As we struggle to recover from the 

worst recession since the Great Depression, Congress must be good stewards 

of taxpayer funding and ensure that as 

families cut back and save, the government cuts back and saves as well. 

I have been pleased to work with 

Congressman COLE to promote this legislation. And as the only Democratic 

cosponsor, I do want to thank him for 

his work on this bill. I’m also pleased 

that Senator COBURN’s identical 

amendment passed with huge bipartisan support in the Senate. And I do 

expect similar support in the House, as 

I think we can all agree on this commonsense way to ensure the prudent 

use of taxpayer funds. 

This bill will prohibit the use of public funding for political party conventions like the recent ones in Tampa 

and Charlotte. It will also put any leftover funding toward deficit reduction. 

And while I did not attend the convention this year so I could focus on the 

needs of Iowans, I know there is an important role some convention activities 

play for the political parties and for 

the country, and indeed for the political process in America. However, I do 

not believe that taxpayer dollars need 

to be used to fund them, especially 

when public funding, as was mentioned, 

only makes up 23 percent of the cost of 

the conventions, is far outweighed by 

private donations, and is used for purposes not necessarily critical to the 

continuance of our stable democracy. 

b 1750 

While Iowa families are struggling 

each day just to pay the bills, Washington should as well be focused on ensuring proper use of taxpayer resources. While I certainly appreciate 

the concerns of those opposed to this 

bill, I nonetheless hope that the House 

agrees that parties at political conventions are not a proper purpose or use of 

funds, taxpayer dollars. 

I do hope that my colleagues will 

support Congressman COLE’s legislation to ensure taxpayer funds are not 

being used for either Republican or 

Democratic Parties, and that in the future, I would like to see us be much 

more thoughtful regarding where we 

apply public funds in the political process. I think there is an important role 

for that. 

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 

Let me be clear again: This is a voluntary checkoff. They check the box 

because they want the money to go to 

conventions and/or political activity. It 

is not something that we require them 

to do. It is voluntary. So if, in fact, we 

are going to stop and give the money 

back, the money should go back to the 

American people, not to reduce the deficit, because that is the purpose for 

which the money was sent to us in the 

first place. 

With that, I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 

time as I may consume. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6115 

Mr. Speaker, it may be a voluntary 

checkoff, but the money is not voluntary. It is part of the income tax you 

are required to pay. While we all do 

support government, I would wonder, if 

you made the income tax entirely voluntary, whether we could get anything 

close to what we do now. It is, in fact, 

the tax that you must pay. So that 

part is not voluntary. 

Secondly, I’m surprised that one 

would not want to attribute this to reducing the deficit even though it’s only 

$36 million, as suggested by the other 

side. If we can’t even do this here, what 

confidence can the American people 

have that we would deal with the 

tougher issues and larger amounts? If 

$36 million is too difficult for us to use 

to somehow reduce the deficit, what 

hope is there that we can do anything 

seriously in this Congress or Congresses in the future? 

I must respond to the repeated suggestion that we have done nothing in 

this Congress. 

The Obama administration would be 

surprised, since they said that the 

FISA amendments, which we passed on 

this floor with 301 positive votes, were 

the number one priority for the administration in the area of intelligence. In 

the aftermath of what happened just a 

couple of weeks ago, one would think 

that we would understand the seriousness of intelligence. And that which is 

the greatest tool, according to the DNI 

currently and previous DNIs, that tool, 

which got strong bipartisan support, 

was indeed an important thing for us 

to do here. 

We had three free trade agreements 

that we finally approved. They have 

been waiting around for a number of 

years. The consensus is they create 

jobs in this economy and give us a fair 

playing field in which our workers can 

compete. 

We had a transportation bill that we 

passed. We dealt with the interest paid 

on student loans. And I would just say, 

for 2 years in a row, we have, in fact, 

spent less on discretionary spending 

than we did the preceding year. I think 

that’s the first time we’ve done that in 

a generation. 

There are other things that I could 

talk about. It is a shame that the other 

body has not acted on the nearly 30 

bills we’ve sent over there that deal 

with jobs. 

Oh, yes, we also had my bill, H.R. 4, 

which repealed that section of the 

President’s health care bill that placed 

an inordinate paperwork burden on 

small business, and that was the number one priority of the small business 

community in the country. 

I wish we would do more. I wish we 

would have the cooperation of the 

other body. It’s very difficult to negotiate when the other party won’t come 

to the table or even articulate what 

their position is; but, nonetheless, I 

would suggest that those things I have 

spoken about are not unimportant. 

But, of course, that’s a digression because that’s not talking about the bill 

before us. 

The bill before us is a simple bill. All 

it does is say that the party’s over. The 

taxpayer will no longer pay with taxpayer dollars for the conventions of the 

two national parties. Doesn’t stop 

them from having their conventions, 

doesn’t denigrate their conventions, 

doesn’t take them off television; it just 

says the American taxpayer will not 

pay for it. We’re going to save $36 million. Fairly straight forward, fairly 

simple. 

I would hope that we would have a 

strong bipartisan vote for this, because 

it is truly a bipartisan problem and 

timely, because many of our constituents, at least when I was home in the 

district, said, Why are you in the Congress voting to put taxpayer dollars for 

these conventions? 

That was a tough question to answer. 

We can answer that question here in a 

very bipartisan way by passing this 

bill. 

With that, I would ask my colleagues 

to support H.R. 5912, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, 

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5912. This 

bill is flawed in substance and comes to the 

floor without serious deliberation or debate. 

I want to make clear, however, that my colleague from Oklahoma and I agree that paying 

for presidential nominating conventions is not 

a wise use of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the 

main provisions of Mr. COLE’s bill are included 

nearly verbatim in my Presidential Funding Act 

H.R. 414. However, H.R. 5912 excludes a critical prohibition on the use of ‘‘soft money’’ to 

fund conventions, keeping the door open for 

unlimited soft money donations from corporations and high-dollar special interests. Allowing 

conventions to accept millions of dollars in 

these unregulated contributions could threaten 

the credibility of the nominating process and 

further erode the principle of one voice, one 

vote. 

I also take issue with the closed process 

under which this bill has been brought to the 

floor. H.R. 5912 is being considered under 

suspension of the rules, without amendments, 

committee markup, or serious deliberation. 

The Committee on House Administration has 

not even held hearings on this bill. But that 

should come as no surprise—the Majority has 

not held a single hearing on the issue of campaign finance in the 112th Congress, a period 

that has seen the House pass bills dismantling 

many of the common-sense campaign reforms 

of the post-Watergate era. I have opposed repeated floor votes that would repeal the presidential public financing system as a whole. 

This bill is merely the latest cynical attempt to 

attack the system with no effort to replace it. 

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s thoroughly misguided Citizens United decision, we 

should be working to strengthen—not to weaken—the rules that ensure our elections are 

free and fair. That is why Mr. VAN HOLLEN, 

other colleagues, and I will introduce a bill 

later this week which will be an important first 

step toward the comprehensive reform that 

our democratic elections need. 

Our bill, the Empowering Citizens Act, will 

incorporate and improve H.R. 414, reforming 

and strengthening the presidential public financing system. In addition, it will establish a 

voluntary small-donor public financing program 

for congressional campaigns. Finally, it will establish strong rules forbidding coordination 

among candidate-specific SuperPACs and political parties or campaigns, thereby lessening 

the outsize influence of special interests and 

outside spending groups in our elections. 

I believe that we are at a tipping point in the 

short history of campaign finance reform—we 

can either choose to stand by the commonsense reforms that have restored America’s 

faith in elections after the Watergate scandal, 

or we can choose to cede control of political 

campaigns entirely to wealthy corporations 

and interest groups. The responsible choice is 

clear. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 

this measure. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN) that the House 

suspend the rules and pass the bill, 

H.R. 5912, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, on that I 

demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

DISASTER LOAN FAIRNESS ACT 

OF 2012 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I move 

to suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 6296) to amend the Small Business Act to provide the interest rate 

for certain disaster related loans, and 

for other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6296 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster 

Loan Fairness Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE FOR CERTAIN DISASTER 

RELATED LOANS. 

Section 7(d) of the Small Business Act is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(8)(A) Upon application, the Administration shall grant an interest rate determined 

under this paragraph with respect to any 

qualifying disaster loan. 

‘‘(B) For the purposes of this paragraph a 

qualifying disaster loan is the Administration’s share of a loan— 

‘‘(i) for which the interest rate would be 

set pursuant to paragraph (5) but for the operation of this paragraph; 

‘‘(ii) which is or was made with respect to 

activity in an area when the President has 

declared a major disaster in that area under 

section 401 of the Stafford Act; and 

‘‘(iii) which is or was made during the period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending on 

the date that is 4 years after the date of the 

enactment of the Disaster Loan Fairness Act 

of 2012. 

‘‘(C) The Administrator shall determine 

the interest rate for each calendar year to be 

the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) 4 percent; and 

‘‘(ii) a rate equivalent to 1⁄2 the rate prevailing in the private market for similar 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE