Good morning. Today's hearing will focus on what many believe to be obvious failings of the current presidential system: front-loaded primaries, low contribution limits, and lack of enforcement of existing laws such as the ban on foreign soft money and the ban on fundraising on federal property.

We also will focus this morning on what I believe to be the abysmal failure of taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns. The American people detest the idea of spending their tax dollars to pay for political buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs and, of course, campaign ads. No one would doubt that the American people generally dislike what is known pejoratively as the politician's "attack ad." I must say that I have always found it insulting to the taxpayers -- and a bit perverse -- that we make taxpayers pay for the attacks ads they despise.

Although today's hearing has been scheduled for several weeks now, it turns out to be exquisite timing. As we talk about the failings of the taxpayer-financed presidential system, Vice President Gore is out on the campaign trail talking about expanding the flawed concept of taxpayer financing to 435 Congressional seats and 100 Senate seats.

So, instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for one election every four years, the Vice President wants to force taxpayers to pay for 435 Congressional races and 33 Senate races every two years -- at a whopping price tag to the taxpayers.

At the outset, I would like to make several observations:

• The taxpayers have shown precious little enthusiasm for funding political campaigns. The presidential system has been around for nearly a quarter century. The high watermark for taxpayer participation through the tax checkoff is 28.7% -- and that was twenty years ago, in 1980. Currently, taxpayer participation hovers around 12%. In other words, more than seven out of every eight taxpayers refuse to participate in federal financing of campaigns -- even though participation on their tax return does not directly impact their tax liability.



• Taxpayer support of presidential campaigns has dropped so low that presidential candidates are unable to receive their payments in full on time. The 2000 presidential primary candidates have only been able to receive a percentage of the matching funds they were due this year -- and that is with three of the Republican candidates (Governor Bush, Steve Forbes and Orrin Hatch) not even accepting taxpayer funds. Moreover, in 1993, the Congress tripled the value of the tax checkoff on each tax return from $1 to $3, which only served to forestall the funds' depletion.



• Based on the indisputable fact that taxpayers overwhelming do not support using tax dollars for one presidential race every four years, I find it curious that the Vice President believes Americans would suddenly become interested in funding 468 federal races every two years.



• Since the inception of the taxpayer-funded presidential system a quarter-century ago, the taxpayers have ponied up more than $1 billion, including $39.8 million for minor party candidates and fringe candidates like Lyndon LaRouche.



• Now, Vice President Gore has proposed a taxpayer-funded campaign system for Senate and House races that would cost taxpayers $2 billion. If the federal government has struggled to come up with $1 billion over a quarter-century, I am mystified at how the Vice President plans to come up with $7 billion in less than a third of that amount of time to endow his new entitlement program. Even with the Vice President's skills as a prodigious fundraiser, I am concerned that this plan rests on a terribly flawed assumption.



• Lastly, I think the taxpayers would rather see their money spent on something other than the campaign commercials run by politicians they oppose.



• As I mentioned earlier, the presidential system has cost taxpayers more than $1 billion over the past two-and-a-half decades. And, Vice President Gore estimates that his plan would cost taxpayers about $2 billion.



• Two billion dollars could fund a lot of worthwhile programs:

One year of funding for the President's initiative to stop the flow of drugs from Columbia, or

Nearly two full years of funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration, or

Nearly four years of funding for the COPS program, or

Fifteen years of funding for charter schools, or

Forty-seven years of funding for the Department of Justice's Counterterrorism Fund, or

Forty-eight years of funding for the Federal Election Commission, or

Two hundred years of funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Let me also say that I find the Vice President's plan puzzling on one final point: Much of the media-driven clamor for reform arose out of the '96 presidential election -- yet oddly enough, the Vice President's new reform plan focuses not on the presidential system, but on House and Senate campaigns. Why does the Vice President want to reform everybody but himself? The American taxpayers should not be forced to atone for the Vice President's campaign finance sins.

Today's hearing offers us a timely opportunity to examine our presidential system, not only taxpayer funding but also important issues such as contribution limits, enforcement of existing law and alternatives to the current nominations process. I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses.