we will take a call from philadelphia as we wait for today's session of the house of representatives. sheila, democrats line. caller: good morning to all of you, america. a few segments that you have a caller call in and say, make excuses for mcchrystal. that he was a snake eats. mcchrystal is the snake with a nest of little snakes. barack obama, my president, is the snake eats here. think about this man sitting around and throwing back beers with a reporter and running off at the mouth. what do you think if the enemy was to infiltrate, be a friend, throwback a couple of brewskis and stroke his ego, he would give up some secrets that would be imperative to this country in that part of the land. and to have karzai come out and say, i don't think he should be fired. wait a minute. you are the president of afghanistan. you don't have any input of what

goes on in the top echelon of this country. so what is going on between mcchrystal and karzai that they are buddies, karzai is a crook and the enemy. remember, this man said, i will go and join the taliban. how do you know he he is not really the leader of the taliban? wake up, america. stop being racist. my present age up the snake and good for him. host: next is brad calling us from arkansas. independent line. caller: good morning. i kind of agree with the woman who called about the unemployment. they want to create more unemployment by stopping oil- drilling, but they don't want to make any decisions on what they are going to do about all of the unemployed and losing our homes. that is kind of where i am curious. host: have you lost your job? caller: i have.

host: but field? caller: a welder. a year and two months. host: are you collecting benefits? caller: the benefits have been exhausted and there is no more until they make a decision. host: what is the game plan? host: jim caller: i am looking for work and anything i can do at this point and pricing. host: are you expecting the welding business will pick up at this point? caller: i am hoping so, but i am not so sure about that. i am looking into changing careers, if i have to. host: good luck. thank you so much for calling in this morning. >> and probably last -- getting two minutes past 10:00. oklahoma city, oklahoma. marie, republican line. are you there? caller: yes. host: could you turn down your volume and then make your comment? caller: ok. host: go ahead, marie. caller: the reason i'm calling

is i think there is an injustice in america with the unemployment. i believe the upper echelon of the republicans and democrats, all of these people are not worthy of their positions because they don't feel the sacrifice and commitments that the working people have committed to make them be in their positions. they feel that we are not worthy of unemployment benefits. how can we survive out here? there is no way. now they are asking us to wait. we wait, and we have commitments to pay -- there is no way to go out and about. everybody goes on, works everything, gets put on hold. i think the injustice. and may the lord -- they will be

accountable for them. host: and live picture from the floor of the house of representatives. they are late getting under way. we will take one more call and probably wrap this up for thursday morning. michigan city, indiana. marcia, democrats line. caller: you know what? i would like to say something about the president of the united states, barack obama. i know is how all of the polls and most of the news channels are really speaking against him. now, and iass right was taught in a class that the polls could be shifted any way they want them to shift. i just hope that we can get behind the president of the united states of america. it is almost like we aren't in school, and you have a teacher. sometimes you don't always choose your teacher but you have to go along with what you are being taught. you don't always choose your

parent but you go along with what you have and make the best as you can. so i think we as americans need to get behind our president and make the best of this thing. we are all completing right now about what he is doing wrong and what he is not doing right. this president did not create that oil spill and there are a whole lot of other things he did not create but he is getting the backlash. let us be supportive, for a change. host: you are the last word. thank you for your call. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time for three hours of "washington journal." today on capitol hill, starting just half an hour ago, live conference committee continues with chairman barney frank and chris dodd on the financial regulation. we are also straining its on c- span.org. as you heard from our guest, there are getting down to the tough, big issues, including derivatives. the senate today is back to the latest version of the tax

extenders bill -- iran actions. the house will be coming in soon. it looks like something is holding them up on the door. first of all, a bill called the campaign finance disclosure bill, and later on, conference report on the iran sanctions, which of the senate is handling as well. thanks for being with us. have a good thursday. see you tomorrow. [capttoning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, calvary united methodist church, annapolis, maryland. the chaplain: let us pray. for a few passing years, o god, you have entrusted these representatives with the gift of authority and leadership.

may they do no harm. keep them free from the temptation of seeking personal gain or glory. save them from the mediocrity of trivial debate. guide them in these challenging days. may there ever be mutual respect and cooperation among them. remind them that they are servants of the people, and true their actions may the people be served, the poor lifted up and your creation respected. give them the grace and the wisdom to discern what is right and give them the courage to do it. may justice and peace flourish throughout this good land. in your holy name we pray.

amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from north carolina, congresswoman foxx. ms. foxx: meeze join me in the pledge to our -- please join me in the pledge to our wonderful flag. 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 receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with amendment h.r. 725, cited as the indian arts and crafts amendment act of 2010 in which

the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker: thank you. without objection, the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, is recognized for one minute. mr. sarbanes: thank you, madam speaker. it is my great pleasure and honor to welcome reverend byron brought to congress this morning. he's retiring this month after serving the maryland community for more than 40 years of spiritual leader and mentor. since 1992, reverend brought has served as senior pastor as calvary united methodist church in annapolis, maryland. prior to his appointment at calvary, he presided over several methodist ministries in the baltimore conference. his many accomplishments includes serving on various community councils including terms as president of the baltimore-washington board of pensions and the council on finance and administration. reverend brought is the proud husband of mary kay and father to two children and grandfather to soon-to-be four

grandchildren. i ask my colleagues in the house of representatives to join with me in congratulating reverend brought on a career of dedication and service. and i yield back. the speaker: thank you, mr. sarbanes. the chair will entertain up to 10 more additional one minutes % on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: thank you, madam speaker. this week congressman glenn nye and i introduced the sweep act. this legislation would require an independent bipartisan commission be established to review federal programs and make recommendations for those that should be eliminated, consolidated or have their funding reduced. most importantly, this bill would require congress to have an up or down vote on the commission's recommendations. there are many programs that have about lived their original

purpose. the sweep act will help us weed out programs that are no longer needed and help our bottom line. this bill is part of a comprehensive 10-bill package that i'm either co-sponsoring or writing to help tackle our national debt. each of the 10 bills in my plan does one of three things that working families do as they deal with their own finances. they make commonsense spending decisions. they trim the fat. they chip away at their everyday debt. they -- the sweep act will help trim the fat, and i am proud to help bring this bill to congress. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this important bill. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. the majority now finally

admitted what we have suspected for months. they have no intention of fulfilling their obligation to draft and pass a federal budget. this fiscal irresponsibility on display in washington is affecting american citizens and further damaging our economy and job growth. mr. coffman: it is widely known and thankfully widely reported that the reason we won't be seeing a budget this year is to evade calling further attention to an addiction to reckless spending. the federal debt has gone up by nearly $2.4 trillion since january of 2009, and $240 billion just since the budget was due back in april of this year. undoubtedly and correctly, democrat leaders fear that the public won't be shocked at this figure and shocked at the future debt and a -- that a budget would show.

and so they seek to hide behind a one-year deeming motion, but the consequences of their shame show a lack of fiscal discipline and a lack of responsible economic policy. america needs a responsible policy to promote job growth and business development. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for two -- excuse me -- one minute. mr. baca: the falled policy of the bush administration brought our economy to a brink two years ago, and while the economy is showing sights of growth, unemployment is still unacceptable levels. there is still too many families having to sit down at the table to decide which bills they can afford to pay each month. there are still families finding themselves with underwater mortgage, many of them losing their homes. i ask my colleagues, how would you feel if it was your family or member that you knew? we need to make sure that

hardworking americans are able to come home with a sense of pride after a day's work, not a sense of fear about their bills they can't afford. too many of our families are struggling to make ends meet. let's build a momentum of job creation like the home star, the hire act, the small business lending act which provides incentives for growth and innovation. america deserves better from their government. i am committed to making sure that happens. but republicans and democrats must come together for the betterment of this country. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: madam speaker, mexico has joined a lawsuit against arizona's new illegal immigration enforcement law. in its legal brief, mexico says the arizona law is unconstitutional. that's right, the foreign

country of mexico is lecturing us on our constitution. i guess president calderon, like our attorney general, hasn't read arizona's law either, because the arizona law is constitutional. president calderon just doesn't want the law enforced. he wants open borders so illegals can illegally come to america. and by the way, hypocritical mexico enforces its own immigration laws but doesn't want us to do the same. president calderon should not meddle in u.s. affairs. if the feds joined the lawsuit against arizona, it will be mexico and the u.s. government vs. arizona. ironically, mexico and the u.s. government together will be arguing against border security and public safety while arizona will be arguing for the basic right to protect its citizens. isn't there something wrong with that concept? and that's just the way it is. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> this past month the southeastern connecticut received blockbuster news when it was announced electric boat will be aretiring 700,000 square feet of office space from pfizer pharmaceutical company. mr. courtney: this is space which pfizer was going to be departing from as part of its global reorganization. the decision to come in and acquire this space is a huge good news for the economy in southeastern connecticut. it is not happening in a vacuum. this space is needed because the work force is growing. there are new jobs in southeastern connecticut because this congress recognized that our subin aareason fleet who had bln underfunded under the prior administration was running into end dates for the ohio class submarine program. we have invested over the last three years in growing the work force, research development, engineering, and these new jobs will now ensure that we will have a submarine fleet well into the later stages of the 21st century. it provides stability for the economy innsoutheastern connecticut. we'll maintain that connecticut will become and remane the

submarine capital of the world. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the genttelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in tribute to don moss of pilot mountain, north carolina, who is a dedicated volunteer at wake forest university baptist medical center. why is mr. moss so special? because over the past three decades he has racked up 47,000 volunteer hours at the hospital. a guinness world record. mr. moss currently donates 48 hours of his time each week to the hospital. working 12 hours a day and serving up a healthy dose of good cheer and plain hold helpfulness. it is a well deserved reputation for looking out for patients and for his humor and humility. north carolina is indeed blessed to be the home of people like mr. moss. his service to the community and his staggering number of volunteer hours illustrate a

true spirit of selfless generosity to those in need. i congratulate mr. moss on his record breaking time of service and i hope others will be inspired by his example to invest their time and abilities in their communities. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentteman from new jersey rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: madam speaker, i rise today to celebrate the orderly and peaceful election that took place in colombia. i congratulate president-elect of colombia, juan santos, and commend the people of colombia for their relentless dedication to the democratic process shown through this election. in an increasingly volatile region, colombia has continued on the path toward reform while combating drug trafficking and terrorism. efforts that have had a positive effect on colombia and the american national security. additionally, colombia has made remarkable progress on other fronts.

emerging as an important growth market and the leading center for latin american businesses. in the face of%% u.s. interest d values, colombia has consistently proven itself to be an important friend and reliable partner and champion for democracy. the bilateral relationship between the united states and colombia has been based on many common, strategic, and idea logical interests. reaffirming colombia's position as an important ally and long friend of the united states. again i congratulate president-elect juan manuel santos on his victory. i look forward to the continued partnership between our two nations. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, madam. recent "new york times" poll ipped case 54% of the public believe the president does not have clear plan for creating

jobs. clearly the failed $1 trillion stimulus plan created to keep unemployment below 8% shows the president's inability to lead. the dismal numbers come as the democrats neglected to produce a budget and the majority leader announced the democrats will raise taxes to pay for more government spending. i say cut government spending so you don't have to raise taxes. while they should be focused on creating jobs, the democrats have proven the only thing they can do well is tax and spend. here's a new novel idea. the american people know from personal experience, stop pend -- spending the money you don't have. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from the great state of nevada rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: madam speaker, i rise

to congratulate my constituent, bryce harper, on being selected by the washington nationals as the first overall pick in the major league baseball draft. harper, a native of southern nevada, who is 17 years old, led the college of southern nevada and the scenic west athletic conference in virtually every offensive category. in recognition of his outstanding performance, he was the 2010 player of the year and he was named to the first team a.w.c. all conference team. during the 2010 season, he set a c.s.n. school record for home runs. he belted in 31, shattering the previous record of 12. so, madam speaker, i look forward to welcoming bryce to washington and watching him play just down the street as he stars for the nationals for years to come. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: the house is playing politics with troop funding. the money is being held up by liberal lawmakers so they can add billions of dollars to the so-called stimulus funds and special interest moneys to the troop funding package. partisan special interest moneys and a hodgepodge of wasteful spending has no place in a true funding bill. we need a clean bill that will pass easily so our military operations will not be disrupted. secretary gates has warned us not to play or hold up this essential spending or else defense spending will suffer. meaning our troops will be at risk. as a veteran with four sons in the military, nothing is more important to me than making sure that our troops on the frontlines receive the funding they need. with two counterinsurgency operations going on in afghanistan and iraq, it's

highly irresponsible to hold this up any longer. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: madam speaker, we should all be greatly concerned for the safety of our u.s. census workers. according to the census bureau, there have been 379 incidents involving threats and abuse towards census employees so far this year. that's more than double the violence that occurred during the last census in 2000, and there are still three weeks remaining in this year's census taking. reported incidents have consisted of robberies, assault, violent threats, being held against their will, and carjacking. they are doing very important work and getting paid very little for it. they should not be subjected to

this kind of abusive treatment. ironically it is the work of census takers that will ensure that each american receives their fair share of federal resources. they are performing a very important public service. i'm afraid this abuse may be directly tied to some of the anti-government rhetoric that is coming from some people in this body and the republican noise machine. in other words, rush limbaugh, and countless other so-called shock jocks. rather than disparage -- disparaging federal employees, this congress should be applauding the work they are performing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to honor two sons of southwestern pennsylvania who gave their lives to their country. mr. murphy: while on patrol in

afghanistan, staff car gent brian hooper was killed by a suicide bomber. they were the 35 and 36 members of the pennsylvania national guard to be killed in iraq and afghanistan. sergeant five was described as one of those guys who just liked instantly. he graduated in 1989 from pen traver high school, joined the national guard in 1993, and served in italy, saudi arabia, and iraq. his experience in military as well as state prison guard made him an excellent leader of the younger troops. it was said of him that the guys respected everything he said, they trusted and liked him. staff sergeant hoover graduated from elizabeth ford high school in 2000 where he was a standout athlete in track, football, and wrestling. he enlisted in the marines and served in iraq and then the army reserves before joining the national guard. back home, brian hoover was an assistant track and dross country coach at elizabeth forward high school. he also volunteered to coach

low-income children at the ymca. he left a mark on his students. one described him as an inspirational coach. these two guardsmen were friend, having served together in iraq in 2007 and 2008. the results of their shared commitment to community and country that led them to join the military where together they protected the reconstruction team building schools and infrastructure for the people of afghanistan. hundreds gathered to pay their respects this past week for sergeant five and staff sergeant hoover as they were laid to rest. as we mourn with these families, we know there are two more heroes keeping watch over them from above. on behalf of a grateful nation, we thank them for their service and sacrifice. may god bless their families and the country they loved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. a great deal of attention has been focused on the recent "rolling stone" article which resulted in the resignation of stanley mcchrystal. but even more troublesome to me than the general's inappropriate remarks were the comments by senior military officials about the state of the war and the future of our involvement in afghanistan which seem to contradict what the obama administration has told us. i quote, if americans pull back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular. another said, instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year as obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency even further. the american people and our troops deserve to know the troops about what we are doing in afghanistan. we need clarity. we should have clarity before we bring up any war supplemental appropriations bill. i yield back my time. 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, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> madam speaker, this week i introduced oil spill prevention act of 2010. this deepwater spill is the worst environmental disaster in u.s. history. my bill would prevent future disasters from happening. number one, we want to reform the interior department, separate revenues, a structural separation of revenues and leasing from inspections. in other words, we got people that are doing leases and the revenue side cutting deals on environmental exemptions. mr. buchanan: second, strength general the oversight inspections. 16 were missed with b.p. that's got to stop with b.p. and the industry. we need to reschedule and make sure every safety inspection is done. three, is eliminate the libel caps on major oil spills. today it's at $75 million. that's a joke. this is going to be tens of billions of dollars to fix. we need to act now.

i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my bill and we'll eliminate spills. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: madam speaker, the gulf coast catastrophe underscores the need for comprehensive energy and climate reform to rein in big oil and reduce our relines on dirty and foreign -- reliance on dirty and foreign fuels. big oil was able to operate with complete disregard for safety and instead of standing up for the people, businesses, and environment, house republicans continue to side with big oil. the democratic-led congress is moving america in a new direction for energy independence, working to lower costs for consumers, making america more secure, and launching a cleaner, smarter, more cost-effective energy future that creates millions of clean energy jobs and reduces global warming. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to honor a great man, marine lance corporal timothy g. servanowsky. just 21, he was killed in action while serving in southern afghanistan this past sunday. a native of new york, a 2007 graduate of the high school, tim enjoyed singing, playing the guitar, he played football throughout his high school, and was honored by his coaches during his senior year for his excellence and leadership. mr. lee: he took those straits to the marines. when asked why he wanted to enlist with the marines, he said, if you're going to do it, you go with the best. . tim tried to be the best and his life was taken far too soon. both him and his family, whom i know personally, have paid the

ultimate sacrifice for this country and we owe it to them to bring our men and women home as soon as possible. tim served our nation with valor and with honor. and he will be deeply missed by the many whose lives he has touched. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada rise? ms. berkley: i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, it's time to put partisan politics aside and pass the jobs bill that would do the following -- extend unemployment benefits to the thousands and thousands of our fellow citizens that find themselves unemployed due to no fault of their own. that would protect the health of our seniors depended on medicare by restoring a 21% cut in medicare reimbursement to our doctors, and extend tax credits and benefits essential to the american people.

surely there are three republican senators that are willing to break with their partisan beliefs and stand up with the american people so that those that are unemployed can get their benefits and take care of their families, the doctors can continue to take care of medicare patients, our seniors will continue to see their docttrs and we can provide the necessary tax credits and benefits that the american people are demanding and asking for. i ask everybody to think of the american people instead of their own narrow interests. let's get this thing done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, in a few minutes we are going to start talking about a rule and then go into the substance of a bill called the disclose act. the disclose act supposedly talks merely about disclosure of political speech, but what it really does is effect the first amendment of the constitution which says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. it does not say congress will pass laws which allow some people to speak but not others. and yet that's what the bill does that's being brought to us. if you happen to be a big organization, a large special interest with a lot of money and have been around a long time you are exempt from the disclosure requirements. but if you happen to be somebody like, oh, the tea party or a smaller group where you don't have a lot of money or haven't been around for 10

years, you have the imposition of the burden of disclosure which in some cases would make it impossible for you to exercise free speech. you know, the first amendment talks about speech. my friends on the other side of the aisle love to talk about how it protects nude dancing or something like that. how about talking about political speech? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massaahusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1468 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 206, house resolution 1468. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this ppresolution 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. 5175, to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures witt respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on house administration. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on house administration now printed in the bill, modified by the

amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. all points of order against such further amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. in the case of sundry further amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house en gros and without division of the question. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on house administration or his pesignee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 3, it shall be in order at any time through the

legislative day of june 25, 2010, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. section 4, the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waiied with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of june 25, 2010, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure that includes a subject matter addressed by h.r. 4213. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. for purpose the debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx.

all time yielded is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on house resolution 1468. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, the resolution -- the resolution provides for consideration of h.r. 5175, the disclose act, under a structured rule. the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the resolution provides one hour of debate on the bill, and the resolution provides that the substitute amendment recommended by the house administration committee modified by the amendment printed in part a of the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted. the resolution makes in order five amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report. the resolution waives all poirneds against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21, and the resolution provides

one motion to recommit with or without instructions, provides that the chair may offer a motion to rise and provides that the chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill. and the resolution permits the speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of friday, june 5, 2010. the resolution waives a requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote for same-day consideration of a report from the rules committee through the legislative day of friday, june 25, on a measure that includes a subject matter in h.r. 4213. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying bill. you know, during my time in congress i haven't had a single constituent say to me, you know, jim, i think there should be more special interest money in politics. obviously the conservative activist judges that now make up the majority of the supreee court don't live in my

district. because in january the court tossed aside decades of established law and legal precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections. as justice john paul stevens pointed out in his dissent, the decision, and i quote, would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual americans, end quote. you know, it's a sad state of affairs when swift voting has entered the language as a verb. unfortunately, the supreme court's decision makes swift voting easier for the special interests. large multinational corporations will be able to create shadowy groups and pour millions and millions of dollars iito supporting or defeating candidates. if b.p. doesn't like somebody, they could create americans for sensible energy and run attack ad after attack ad after attack ad.

and while we cannot undo the court's decision, we can and must try to minimize its impact. that's why the bipartisan legislation before us today is so important. the disclose act will go a long way toward restoring openness and transparency in our political process. and i want to commend chris van hollen and mike castle for their work on this bill. the legislation does several important things. it requires the heads of the organizations to stand by their ad. just like political candidates are required to do. it requires the organization to list its top five contributors on screen at the end of the ad. it would ban u.s. corporations that are controlled by foreign interests and foreign companies like b.p. from making political expenditures in our elections. now, i know there are some on the other side that may be -- who have been apoll gists for b.p., who may be troubled by that. but i think most americans believe that foreign influences

should not dictate our %% elections. and it would prohibit entities that receive large amounts of taxpayer money, like wall street banks and government contractors, from pouring money into politics. the bill is supported by common cause and other national reform groups. now, to be sure, the bill isn't perfect. it contains an exemption for certain longstanding organizations that take small corporate money. i know many are not particularly pleased with that change, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i would urge my colleagues to examine a bill offered by mike capuano, the shareholder protection act. this would give shareholders a voice and how companies spend their money. now proponents of the bill are making noise about challenging and accord. i would remind them that polls show that the american people are overwhelmingly supportive

of this reform. we mmst do all we can to bring more openness and transparency to our political process. the disclose act before us today is a vital step. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my colleague from massachusetts for yielding time. i rise today in defense of the first amendment to the constitution and to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for h.r. 5172, the so-called disclose act, and the underlying bill, and i would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from virginia, the republican whip, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: for how long? ms. foxx: i'm sorry, madam speaker. for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is

recognized for two minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the gentlelady from north carolina, i thank the speaker. madam speaker, today i rise in opposition to the previous question motion and in support of the latest youcut spending reduction sent to the floor directly from the american people. this week's proposal, sponsored by congressman upton from michigan, would restore $15 billion to the american taxpayers by stopping new i.r.s. funding for the purpose of hiring employees to enforce a controversial individual mandate under the democratic majority's health care overhaul. . to the democratic majority who has worked to discredit the youcut movement, madam speaker, i continue to urge them to join us, but i'd also like to give a wake-up call. this week we received the one millionth vote, an amazing milestone that reflects the discomfort from coast to coast about washington's run away spending spree.

sadly, madam speaker, my friends across the aisle continue to ignore the will of the people and their desire to see us act with the same responsibility with their money that they do around their own kitchen tables. america is at a crossroads. our message to the democratic leadership is chris cal clear, stop ignoring the american people. stop spending money we don't have. stop ruining the next generation's future. it's time for us to come together to cut wasteful spending now. madam speaker, i urge a no vote on the previous question. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i would ust want to point us to the previous speaker that the american people want us to fix this economy which we are trying to do. i would also point out that we have created more jobs this year than in the entire eight years of the bush administration. so i think we are doing the

american people's work. at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the distinguished speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and making the point he just made. i would also like to make a further point which is 87.5% of the american people support what the disclose act will do. which is to shed light on elections. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, nearly a century ago supreme court justice louis brandeis wrote about the dangers of corporate interest dominating our economy, stifling competition, and harming our nation. and he reminded us in the face of these force that is sunlight is the best disinfectant. today many of us will rise, and i do now, in that same tradition to shed sunlight on our democratic process and preserve the integrity of our election,

to call to my -- to call on them to pass the disclose act and in doing so to protect the voices and the votes of the american people. i want to acknowledge key leaders on both sides of the aisle who have taken leadership on this legislation. chairman chris van hollen certainly has been tireless in his efforts to do -- to pass this disclose act. chairman robert brady, chair of the house administration committee. and also some support from congressman mike castle and congressman walter jones who early on supported this legislation. earlier this year the supreme court overturned decades of precedents in a court case called the citizens united case. the decision undermines democracy and empowers the powerful. it opens the floodgates to corporate takeover of our

elections and invites unrestricted special interest dollars in our campaign. and it even left opened the door to donations from companies owned by foreign governments. imagine. in response, congress and the president immediately went to work on the disclose act. this legislation restores transparency and accountability and ensures the americans know when wall street and health insurers are the ones behind poliiical advertising. the bill requires corporate c.e.o.'s to stand by their ads in the same way candidates do. prevents corporate -- corporations controlled by foreign or even hostile governments from spending money in federal lawsuits and keep government contractors and tarp

recipients from making political expenditures. imagine a tarp recipient, getting taxpayer money to bail them out using that money to impact elections. and it compels corporations and outside groups to disclose their campaign spending to shareholders, members, and the public. in the spirit of justice brandeis these landmark provision also add sunlight to our campaign which is why the disclose act has gained the support of good government advocates such as the league of women voters, common cause, public citizens, democracy 21, and citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington to name a few. with the words of the president's state of the union address this year.

when he said, election should be decided by the american people. the disclose act reaffirms a fundamental american value, the right to vote is afforded to the people not the special interest. with this bill no longer will corporations be able to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. by voting yes we are putting power back into the hands of the voters. i urge my colleagues to vote aye today on this legislation. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i would now like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. miller: thank you. madam speaker, our national debt is over $13 trillion and our annual deficit is expected to be

nearly $1.6 trillion this year alone. the american people have had enough of this out-of-control spending. and today house republicans offer another measure to cut spending that was chosen by the american people in the youcut program. this provision will cut funding for the i.r.s. which is authorized to hire thousands of new agents to enforce the unconstitutional individual health care mandate. this cut will save taxpayers up to $10 billion. the purpose of the health care law was supposed to be to reduce costs and make health care more affordable. does anyone truly believe that thousands of new i.r.s. agents will really reduce health care costs? the new i.r.s. agent's job will be to verify you have acceptable government approved health care or they have the authority to impose a fine of up to 2% of your income. what we need to do is to help t+ create new jobs, not hire an army of new i.r.s. agents to impose job-killing taxes, new mandates, and new penalties on the american people. i urge my colleagues to vote no

on the previous question so that we can make this common sense cut in spending under the youcut program. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: my republican colleagues claim that they have the best interest of the american people at heart. that they want to help the taxpayers. yet i find it somewhat ironic that they propose that we cut money for jobs, money for health care, money for senior citizens, and at the same time they defend british petroleum and believe -- and tell the american people that the american people should pay for the cleanup of that terrible oil spill and not british petroleum. look, what we are talking about here is a bill to require disclosure so that companies likk british petroleum, other foreign-owned companies can't come into the united states and influence elections.

now, i don't know why that's so controversial. i guess if a particular interest was overly generous like big oil is to my republican side, that they would have objections, but, look, the american people overwhelmingly want transparency and disclosure. if someone -- some oil company were to come into my district and swift boat me and try to hide who they are by saying that they are a committee for clean oceans, that's deception. the american people ought to know it's being paid for by big oil. we have right now all across the country ads that are distorting the health care bill that was passed in the congress. but they are all paid for by insurance -- the insurance industry, yet you can't find the word insurance industry on any of those ads. people deserve to know who is spending millions and millions of dollars on these ads. whether you are a democrat or republican, you ought to be for transparency and that is what

this bill is about. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, every citizen in this country, in fact every school child above the fifth grade, ought to know what the first amendment of the constitution says. but we know that our education is lacking these days, so i'm going to read the amendment and i'm hoping that as our speakers speak we keep it on the floor so people can read it because i think folks need to be reminded of what it says. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the preexercise there d. of -- thereof or bridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of

grievances. it's very important, very simple, but it's very important. i now would like to yield five minutes to my distinguished colleague from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much, madam chair. i'm sorry the speaker is no longer here because she frankly, hopefully inadvertently misstated the law. she said with the decision by the supreme court it would allow companies, even those that are controlled by foreign countries, foreign governments, to affect our elections. that is absolutely dead wrong. it did nothing with the prohibition that remains that does not allow and has not allowed for decades foreign governments or foreign nationals to effect our campaign. this decision by the supreme court does not. the problem with this is i haven't found a single person on the other side of the aisle that read the opinion. if they did, they would know what they are saying is absolutely wrong.

they call it the disclose act. it is in fact the disguise act. it was designed in secret. no effort to bring those of us on the committee on the republican side into it. i asked for copies of it. they refused to give it to us. we in fact got their last manager's amendment two hours yesterday before we had to go to the rules committee to talk about our amendments. they disallow in this rule a single amendment brought forward by any of us on the committee that held the hearing. i had five amendments i asked to present. several of them would require the unions to be treated the same as corporations. that was denied. they don't want you to have a chance to level the playing field. look, in alice in wonderland it is said, if i had a world of my own everything would be nonsense. nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't.

and contrarywise what is it wouldn't be and what it wouldn't be it would. you see that basically sums up the speaker's statement. they want you to think -- if i had the chance under the house rules to speak to the public this is what i'd say, this is your first amendment. it's not my first amendment. it's not the democratic leadership's first amendment. and yet they are auctioning off parts of this first amendment by this bill. why do i say that? some people are more equal than others. if you happen to be a special interest that's existed for 10 years, if you happen to have a certain amount of money in your coffer that comes from corporations, if you happen to have a certain number of members, it was a million, but some special interest said we don't have a million let's bring it down to 500,000, ok, now it's 500,000. so those people, those interests

are exempted from all of the disclosure requirements in here. and here's the other thing they do under this rule. this bill allows the law to go into effect within 30 days without any regulations being promulgated. in fact, it's impossible for a regulation to be promulgated. so those who have a true exemption don't have to worry about the law. those who are trying to figure out how to comply with the law have to worry about if they make a mistake because if they do, what happens? they are subject to criminal penalties. ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the first amendment to the constitution. the first amendment, that's talking about robust political speech. you heard what my friends on the other side said, oh, my god, we had these ads against us. we don't like that. we got to do something about it. there's nothing this bill does about the suppression ads that were run against me in the last campaign. three hours before we closed the polls, robo calls to my

district, including my house, in which they say this is a news alert, news alert, president obama's won the election. it doesn't matter what happens in california. it's alleady decided. this has been a news alert. no one specified an individual, no one specified a party. very, very clever. the idea was to suppress those who were supporting the republicans from coming out. it does nothing with that. . i mean, people ought to understand this is a precious gift given to us by god and recognized by our founding fathers and we're fooling around with it here. let me just tell you this. this bill allows us one hour to talk about this, one hour. guess what ww have spent 10 hours doing in this congress? naming post offices. we've named 61 post offices in this congress. we are ridding the world of the scourge of unnamed post offices.

we can spend 10 hours on post offices but we can't spend more than an hour talking about the constitution, talking about the first amendment? and they're auctioning off pieces of the first amendment in this bill. if you happen to be one of those lucky enough to win the auction, you don't have these disclosure rules and you can continue to talk and you can continue to make your political statement. but if you -- if you didn't win the lottery -- ms. foxx: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. lungren: ladies and gentlemen, this is an affront to the constitution. this is an affront to the proceedings of this house. and just because someone says it is doesn't make it so. this is a disclose act that was designed in secret giving unions and interests special exemptions. if you happened to be on the lucky side of the draw, you may like it. but you ought to weep because

this is a destruction of the first amendment in the name of partisanship. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. one of the reasons why the american people overwhelmingly support the disclose act is because quite frankly they are concerned and rightly so that money is becoming more and more of an influence in politics. not just big corporations in the united states but foreign companies. investment funds controlled by foreign governments or foreign interests. could be controlled by china. they have the right, if they're here in the united states, they have the right to, under an innocuous name, spend millions and millions of dollars of negative ads for a candidate. why should anybody want foreign

governments or foreign interests to have a greater impact on american elections than regular people? and one of the reasons why this is important, for there to be transparency, for those to run those ads to stand by their ads. everybody has to stand by the ads when we run for office. i say that it's authorized by jim mcgovern. this is what we have to do. what is so wrong requiring big corporations to do the same thing? what is so wrong saying we don't want foreign interests to influence our elections? these are american elections. we don't want china involved in these elections. i will not. or any other country. and we know that they can under the status quo influence our elections and play a role in our elections to these sovereign funds. i think the american people are right. there's nothing in the first amendment that says we can't ask somebody to stand by their words.

we're not inhibiting free speech. we're just saying if british petroleum is going to run a swift vote ad against anybody here they ought to say who they are and not make up some name that somehow they're dedicated to clean oceans or to a good environment. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. let me reiterate to my good friend from massachusetts what the gentleman from california said. citizens united did not do anything to repeal the ban against foreign money influencing american elections. so this bill has nothing to do with what the gentleman from massachusetts just said. i rise in opposition to the bill and the rule. while h.r. 5175 is being touted

by supporters of increasing disclosure and transparency, the bill will ultimately serve as a roadblock to americans who wish to exercise their first amendment rights. the supreme court explicitly stated in citizens united that there is no basis for the proposition the context of political speech the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. well, we have sure heard a list of disfavored speakers on the other side of the aisle. but this is exactly what this unconstitutional bill will do. the citizens united decision struck down provisions of campaign finance law because of the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. the right explicitly guaranteed by the first amendment. the bill is around citizens united. the supreme court was very clear that prohibitions on political speech are unconstitutional and will be only a matter of time should this bill become law that it's

struck down as well. the most glaring of this bill's unconstitutional provisions is the banning of political speech by government contractors with as much as 80% ownership by american citizens. while a business may only receive a limited portion of its revenue from a government contract, under this bill that business would be prohibited from engaging in political dialogue on issues that are vital to its operations. additionally, this bill punishes companies that attract overseas investors by banning political speech on companies where foreign nationals have at least a 20% stake. this unfortunate that the supporters of this bill want to silence the voice, the predominantly american companies. the bill further complicates matters by publicly traded corporations by forcing them to determine the percentage of company's stock ownership by the nationality of the investor which will most likely prove to be impossible.

it's clear that the disclose act will institute unconstitutional restrictions, however, the crafters of -- the desire to treat trade corporations differently abandons the government's longstanding policy to treat them equally. given a story published in "the hill" newspaper last month which revealed that the american federation of stake, county and municipal employees will spend in excess of $50 million in this fall's election, part of it which will go to protecting incurveents. it's no wonder that the democrat supporters of this bill have made -- may i have an additional 30 seconds? ms. foxx: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. sensenbrenner: it's no wonder that the democratic supporters of this bill have made special exemptions for unions and that any attempts in the house administration committee to rectify this

discrimination between unions and corporations were defeated on party line votes. it's evident while this legislation increases disclosure requirements that imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech just in time to influence the outcome of the mid term elections. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the disclose act, to vote no on the rule and uphold their oath of office. i yield the balance of my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, let me again point out that one reason why the american people overwhelmingly support this bill is because they don't want, you know, financial institutions, tarp recipients to be able to use taxpayer money to run negative ads. one of the reasons why the american people overwhelmingly support this act is because they know the status quo basically is the b.p. protection policy which is you allow foreign companies to be able to set up these sovereign

wealth funds and be able to funnel money into elections to run ads for and against people. you know, we know that the insurance industry wants to spend a lot of money in this election, but they don't want to tell anybody that they're an insurance industry when they attack the health care plan. we know that the big oil companies are going to want to run a lot of ads to try to keep their friends in congress, those who apologized for their bad behavior, but they also know that if they announce the american people that oil companies were paying for this that it -- that they'll get a different reaction. so this is important. i think the american people are way ahead of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. at this point, madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished manager of the rules committee for his

leadership and thank you, madam speaker, very much. i thought i would just hold up this book that has many items in it, but the most precious document is the constitution. and i do want to say that it is clear that the first amendment, the number one amendment in the bill of rights is not violated but enhanced by this legislation. that's why the commonsense judgment of americans are wholeheartedly supporting this. i had my doubts because there are exemptions here that point to entities that i would disagree with, but frankly this legislation reflects the first amendment because what it says is we want transparency. that in essence, tell us who you are. that is no greater an affirmation of the first amendment than one could imagine. and so it is important to

acknowledge concerns expressed, but it is equally important to say that we stand on the side of a fair and impartial election and unugly election, and when you get unfettered money in elections it becomes ugly. so if you were in the hurricane plains, if you will, of the gulf region and you have a referendum to ask your utility company to stop putting utility poles above ground, spend some money to put them underground so we are not in the dark for eight and nine weeks and they take their money in the referendum and work hard to defeat it. that is to undermine the needs of the people of that region. or you have insurance companies who are not seeing what the american people are now seeing that, wow, this health care bill really can help me and they begin to massively campaign against the implementation of the health care bill against america's

interests. this is what this is about because when you see who's putting these ads up, maybe helping another candidate or pro-insurance, big business candidate who cares nothing about the people of this nation, you will say, you know what, i want to side with letting this health bill work itself out. i want to side with young people being covered. i want to side with seniors getting money back. that's what this is about. so i'd offer to say to my colleague that you are wrong. this constitution and the first amendment provides that no law should impede your right to access an association of freedom of speech. but impeding it does not mean don't tell us who you are. don't hide in the dark. and every single candidacy, be it city council or mayor or be it a federal election will have the opportunity to have sums

dumped on them. i want to say, i want to break the locks -- may i get an additional minute? mr. mcgovern: additional one minute to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is given an additional one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. here's what i'd like to do. i'd like us to be able to engage and tell you what our issues are whatever we are running for. and, yes, we have to run with the resources that we have to raise. and when i say that, individuals who are running for office, no matter what party they're in, but what we most want to do is break the locks and chains that big money can mischaracterize an election. we want to take away the right of those who want to demonize someone who, for example, maybe interested in comprehensive immigration reform. that's their viewpoint. they're running on that. maybe they're not. or someone who's running against it. we don't want to have big money demonize a prospective that

maybe the public should hear. so i don't know what the opposition is on the other side because the first amendment is protected, and i believe though it's a struggle because we know that there are elements that do raise the concern of some but i would argue that i want to break those locks and break those chains of big money telling you what to do. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 5175 and the underlying bill and the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i ow yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: i rise in opposition

to the rule. while other matters are being debated in the course of this, this rule also provides for consideration of a conference report on the iran sanctions accountability and divestment act. and i rise in strong support of this legislation with a word of caution. . it was my great privilege to serve on the conference committee on this iran sanctions bill that will be considered today. i believe this legislation represents measurable and meaningful progress in the united states effort to economically and diplomatically isolate iran in the midst of its headlong rush to obtain nuclear weapons. and i urge my colleagues to support it. my word of caution is directed both to my colleagues in congress and to this administration. it is important not only that we adopt the iran sanctions bill today, it is important that this administration implement this

legislation. we know the nature of the threat. iran has made no secret of its intent to use nuclear weapons to threaten the united states or our allies, especially our most cherished ally, israel. president ahmadinejad said in 2005 in iran, the humankind, quote, shall soon experience a world without the united states and without zionism, close quote. led by this anti-american, anti-israeli president of iran is associating with terrorist organizations. if iran obtains a nuclear bomb, it will only be a matter of time before terrorist organizations around the globe have access to this technology. and america and our allies and our most cherished ally will be threatened as a result. it is also essential we consider this legislation in the wake of the failed leadership at the united nations.

the adoption of so-called sanctions y the u.n. is nothing more than a hollow gesture which will do nothing except embolden iran in its nuclear ambitions. we must lead by example. i urge my colleagues to adopt this bill. i urge the president to sign this bill. a word of caution. these sanctions include a number of waivers demanded by the obama administration, but it is essential that president obama carry out the clear congressional intent and cripple iran's energy and financial sectors. in implementing this legislation. iran could be merely months away from acquiring nuclear weapons. they continue to test vehicles that could deliver it. this is a time for decisive action by the american congress and the american administration. failure to act by this congress or failure to implement these sanctions by this administration could lead to a second holocaust . if we act and this

administration implements these sanctions, we may yet see a future of security and peace in the middle east, but if we fail to act, history will judge the congress and this government in the harsh aftermath of a flash of light, a rush of wind, and second tragedy. let us act, let us adopt iran sanctions. mr. president, do not waive these sanctions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgoven: madam speaker, at this time i -- mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: madam speaker, let's keep america the best democracy not the best america, not the best democracy that money can buy, the pollution of our political process with tens of millions of dollars in spending by the world's largest multinational corporation strikes at the very heart of our american democracy.

what these giant interests cannot already get with their army of lobbyists here in washington and the millions of dollars their executives already contribute to campaigns, they now want to buy direct. buy directly from money from the corporate treasury. they are no fools. the limitless dollars that these folks lavish on elections is simply a wise investment for many of them. well designed to spend a few million now in order to claim a few billion dollars in unjustified spending frrm the public treasury later, and often the same folks that are reaching into the public purse are the folks who through special tax expenditures and tax loopholes don't contribute but pennies on the dollar of what a business might be having to pay in its corporate tax rate or working or middle class family struggling to make ends meet. without the disclose act, the tobacco company can come here

masquerading as a phony health care coalition. a wall street bank could come and ask for another bailout, claiming that it's part of a consumer alliance. and a polluter can defeat those who want to holl it accountable by asserting that its part of %- citizens for clean air and clean beaches. insurance monopolies determined to deny american families access to care at a price they can afford are already out there with groups like americans for better health care, which is really designed to stymie our efforts to access health care. disclose act opponents have a great deal to not disclose. they want to be assassins, silent assassins of character where they buy one hate ad after another while denying the public an opportunity to know what the views being expressed in that 30 seconds are in fact limited to

those of a narrow corporate self-interest that is determined never to be held accountable for its misconduct. the public without the power of this corporate deep pockets would also be denied access to the knowledge of who is really wielding the pen. who can look at washington these days and say that the problem up here is too little influenced of corporate cash. a vote for the disclose act is a vote to stop the corruption of our political system and stop the slide to plutocracy. it is a vote for a fully informed, fully empowered american people. to take charge of our democracy and assure the change that will make meaningful difference in the lives of our families, i urge its adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. the ability to speak on the floor of this house is a great honor and very powerful thing.

however simply saying something on the floor does not make it true. i would like to now yield two minutes to my colleague from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: madam speaker, i rise today in opposition to this incredibly restrictive rule and underlying legislation. the lacc of democracy and openness that exists in this house is evident when the house rules committee self-executes a 45-page manager's amendment to a 92-page bill and then makes in order only five of the other 36 submitted amendments. and by the way, only one of those amendments made in order was offered by a republican. this of course has all been done in the name of a bill cynically titled democracy strengthened by casting light on spending in elections act. i got a suggestion to my friends. how about strengghening democracy by actually allowing

robust debate and unlimited amendment. that would actually help restore comity and bipartisanship to this polarized house. with that said, madam speaker, i would like to also address the underlying legislation. in this bill the majority has engaged in a self-serving hypocritical political exercise. the underlying legislation is a response to a 5-4 supreme court decision in the citizens united versus the federal elections commission case. good people can disagree about that case and about its ramifications. however, when the majority party decides to reshape the political playing field with a bill written by its political tack tishans and introduced by the chairman of its own campaign committee, we have reached a new low. the clear aim of this legislation is to tilt the political playing field in favor of the democratic party. simply put, this bill facilitates the involvement and political activities of groups supportive of the democratic party while limiting the political activities of those who may not support the

democratic agenda. a clear example of this is where the bill applies onerous restrictions on corporations which may wish to involve themselves in political activity while carving out large exceptions for unions which traditionally support the democratic agenda. madam speaker, this bill is a prescription for chicanery in our elections and it will fundamentally restrict our first amendment rights. therefore i urge members to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation limiting the freedom of speech in pursuit of partisan political advantage is fundamentally wrong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reccgnized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i think it's important to remind everybody that the supreme court decision in the citizens united case essentially allow us unlimited special interest money , corporate money to drown out the voices of everyday people. that's what the issue is here. the majority of americans i

think are alarmed by that. that's why an overwhelming majority support the passage of this disclose act. and those of us who are arguing for the assage of this bill believe the voters have a fundamental right to know who is spending money to influence their elections and where that money is coming from. i am puzzled that my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been speaking out against this don't share that same concern. but voters deserve to know who is spending money to influence their election. they deserve no know whether it's a -- they deserve to know whether it's a big oil company and they deserve to know whether it's a foreign special interest trying to influence the election. so i would urge my colleagues to get behind this effort, an effort that is overwhelmingly supported by the american people. i reserve my time.%% the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: madam speaker, i'm sure it's not intentional but fausthoods are being spread on this floor. this is no poll that shows the american people support the disclose act. it would be amazing if they did since we didn't get the last version of it until two hours before we went to the rules committee yesterday. the poll they are referring to took place back in february or march before they had their backroom deals coming up with this particular bill. we now have 438 organizations who oppose this. among them are the american civil liberties union, the national right to life committee, and sierra club. why would those people be getting together to oppose this bill? because they believe in the first amendment. and they understand that the

first amendment says all should be treated the same. that is not the cornerstone of this bill. they are specifically not treated the same. the bigger you are, the stronger you are, the less disclosure you have. the smaller you are, the newer you are, the more disclosure that is required. they even put something in this bill that will make it impossible for certain ads to play on television. they have increased the number of names that have to appear such that in some cases it will take 17 seconds to say all those names and all those organizations. there are things known as 15-second ads now. i guess you have minus time on tv. they go and they say that unions have to be exempt but corporations have to be affected. corporations are not just profit

-- they keep talking about oil companies. they forget about national right to life, they forget about all these other organizations that actually have a corporate structure. most political organizations do. that's what we are talking about. and then they say, well, we don't want to be controlled by foreign entities. the gentlelady have one more minute? ms. foxx: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lungren: and these foreign -owned entities, we offered an amendment in committee to offer that. it was defeated on a party-line vote by the majority party. so please, let's at least be honest. if you are going to disclose, disclow your motivations, disclose the words in here, disclose the deals you have made, disclose who has won the auction for their piece of the first amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. lieu standy: thank you, madam speaker. i -- mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the previous question and the rule because american families continue to struggle with rising health care costs. recently the congressional budget office and the center for medicare and medicaid services reported that health care costs for families and for seniors will rise even higher due to this massive new health care law. today's youcut vote helps to stop one of the major problems with the new health care law. and it could save taxpayers across this country between $5 billion and $10 billion. under the new health care law, the i.r.s. will be in charge of verifying that every american taxpayer that obtained government approved acceptable health coverage for every month

of the year. in other words, if the i.r.s. determines, if the i.r.s. determines that a taxpayer lacks government-approved health insurance, for even a single month, then the i.r.s. can have the power to withhold tax refunds. this is an unprecedented new role for the i.r.s., one that injects the i.r.s. even farther into the personal lives of american families. so today's youcut vote would prevent the i.r.s. from hiring the thousands of examiners and auditers required to implement this new individual mandate. . as a former heart surgeon, i know, i know we can do better. i know we can agree on many commonsense approaches to cutting health care costs for families and for seniors. we have many proposals to do this which are not part of this health care law. but i'll tell you this, an individual mandate enforced by

the i.r.s. is not one of them. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and vote against this rule, join me and cut $5 billion to $10 billion from the i.r.s. while preventing yet another mandate on health care from the federal government. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. upton: it's a great day in michigan. thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of defeating the previous question which is next vote here on house floor. i worked for ronald reagan. we have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year. the last thing that we should

do is to raise taxes. the first thing that we should do is cut spending. as many folks here know, the republican side has been offering five different proposals every week for the last month or so letting folks across america vote on the proposal that they think merits the most sense. this week was my proposal that, one, that is we are going to tell the i.r.s. that we're not, not going to hire another 15,000-some i.r.s. agents in the next couple of years to monitor health care, and we will save the taxpayers $5 billion to $10 billion. billion as in big. that's not a bad proposal. save the taxpayers some money by not hiring 15,000 more bureaucrats. what are these folks going to do? they're being to make sure that every american verifies they have health insurance? maybe they'll look at page 737 in the health care bill which says that every business will have to file a new 1099 with

the i.r.s. for any $600 business-to-business transaction. if you're a home builder and you happen to show up at that same chevron or shell gas station every week to fill up your car and you spend more -- and you spend more than $600 for the course of the year there, you are going to have to file a 1099. let's fight the deficit, not by raising taxes, but by cutting spending. this proposal does that. we were denied at the rules committee to allow this amendment to be offered which is why wept -- we want to defeat the previous, offer this amendment to cut spending and help the taxpayers across the country. madam speaker, i'd urge all my colleagues to support this and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: yeah, madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i find it

puzzling to hear my friend on the other side of the aisle all of a sudden talk about the deficit when bill clinton left office he left the republicans and george bush a record surplus. there was no deficit. we were paying down the debt. they took that surplus and turned it around and drove this economy into a ditch. president obama gets elected to office, he inherits the worst economy since the great depression. my friends on the other side don't take any responsibility for that. in one year under president obama we have created more jobs in this country than george bush did while eight years in office. the american people want us to focus on jobs and job creation. and i would just make another suggestion since we're talking about how we protect the taxpayers. i'd urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop apologizing for the way the federal government is treating b.p. to stop apologizing for the fact that this administration wants british petroleum to live up to its responsibility and pay for the cleanup of that mess in the gulf. i wish my friends on the other

side of the aisle would stop trying to defend big oil from taking its responsibility. b.p. should pay for it, not the american taxpayer. if you want to do something for the american taxpayer, then demand that b.p. do what is right. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now would like to yield one minute again to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: thank you, madam speaker. i'm shocked that my friend on the other side of the aisle would criticize the president's relationship with b.p. in terms of the massive contributions that he received while he was running for office. i don't think that ought to be part of this debate. but you ask about treatment. i have here just an example of one, two, three, four, five

sections of the bill in which there's a specific exemption given to unions versus corporations. that is the kind of favored versus disfavored status created by the government that is on its face unconstitutional. people ought to understand when you start making these distinctions you are creating an unconstitutional act because we do not want government saying that certain groups are ok and certain groups are not ok, that certain language is ok and other language is not ok depending on who happens to be in office. this is an attack on the first amendment, and here you have one, two, three, four, five sections of the bill made in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i reserve my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. we have to constantly remind our colleagues across the aisle that republicans were in charge of the congress when president clinton was in office his last six years and that democrats were in charge of congress the last two years of mr. bush's administration. we know that democrats created the economic crisis, and we are not apologizing to b.p. we know that b.p. should pay for all of the problems that are being caused in the gulf. however, we'd like to see this administration do something to respond to the disaster down there and stop blaming others as they do on everything. in a little over a week on july 4 we will be celebrating our nation's independence. john adams wrote in a letter to his wife, abigail, that, quote,

it ought to be commemorateddas a day of deliverans. today we are not liberating the american people as our founding fathers did. instead, our colleagues are attempting just the opposite. they're attempting to erode our right to free speech. when there's so many other pressing issues that our nation faces today. for one, we could be addressing the 21% cut in medicare reimbursement payments to doctors that went into effect on june 18. the senate after some debate was able to pass by unanimous consent the six-month extension on the 21% cuts last friday. this legislation would provide a six-month extension fully paid for. the speaker says she sees, quote, no reason to pass this inadequate bill until we see jobs legislation coming out of the senate, end quote. but the democrats in charge have seen these disastrous pay cuts to physicians coming for

sometime. i've heard from physicians in my district who are fearful of these cuts and the negative impact they have on their patients when they will no longer be able to afford to see medicare patients. this is a real crisis we should be dealing with. instead of a bill riddled with assault on our constitutional rights. even some democrat members have concerns with this bill. to quote one democrat member who spoke during the rules committee hearing yesterday, with this bill, quote, we're auctioning off parts of the first amendment. don't make this bill unconstitutional on purpose. h.r. 5175 contracts our freedom when we should be expanding them. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be placed in the record prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that i can amend

the rule to allow all members of congress the opportunity to vote to cut spending. republican whip eric cantor recently launched the youcut initiative which gives people an opportunity to vote for cutting spending. hundreds of thousands of americans have cast their vote and this week they directed their representatives in congress to consider h.r. 5570. according to the republican whip youcut's website, the congressional budget office has estimated that over the next 10 years the i.r.s. will require between $5 billion and $10 billion in funding to implement the patient protection and affordability care act, also known as the new health care law. these funds will be used to hire thousands of additional i.r.s. agents and employees. reforming our health care system shouldn't require expanding the i.r.s. by prohibiting funding for the expansion of the i.r.s. for this purpose, we can protect taxpayers while we work to repeal and replace the law. h.r. 5570 would prohibit

taxpayer funds from being appropriated to the internal revenue service for the purpose of hiring new agents to enforce the democrats' health care law. under the new law, additional agents will be specifically hired to force the democrats' unconstitutional individual health care mandate. by preventing their hire, this week's youcut vote could save the taxpayers between $5 billion and $10 billion. in order to provide for consideration of this commonsense legislation, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and no on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has nine minutes. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of his time. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, first of all, the underlying bill that we are talking about here today does not violate the first amendment of the constitution. that's just a ridiculous

argument. and we are supporting this bill because we belieee that no one spending large sums of money on campaigns should be able to hideebehind a madeup shelf. i don't think that's controversial. i don't care if you're republican or democrat that you want to know who is spending all this money, who's behind all these ads. why is that such a terrible idea? you know, i don't think it's too much to ask that these organizations identify in their campaign ads those entities providing funding for those ads. this is about sunlight and transparency. this is about giving the american people the information that i think they all want. who is behind these ads? who are funding these ads? my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be cling to secrecy. well, secrecy in elections does nothing except to advance deception. so when a member of the republican party, for example, apologizes for thee way the

federal government is treating b.p., b.p. can then under the status quo through certain mechanisms to funnel money into ads in favor of that candidate or, you know, against his opponent. and b.p. does not have to identify itself. it can fund this under citizens for good government or citizens for clean environment. we need to understand that one of the problems that we are -- of the way our government has evolved here is that money has played too big of a role. i cannot believe that our founding fathers could ever have imagined that money would play such a big role in campaigns. millions and millions and millions of dollars spent on congressional campaigns, on senate campaigns. too much time is devoted to raising money. too much emphasis is placed on money.

to be able to run for office. this does nothing about capping how much we can spend on campaigns, but what it does say is that those entities that are running ads in favor of us or against us have to tell the american people who they are. i think the reason why so many americans support this effort is because they get it and they want to know the truth. i think the reason why so many americans support this is they don't want foreign governments or foreign special interests to influence our elections. as i said before, these sovereign wealth funds can be set up. china can set one up based on here in the united states. come up with a shell name of the organization and actually spend millions and millions of dollars in an election to influence the outcome. that should not be. i don't care what your political philosophy is. we should not want foreign governments or foreign interests to influence our elections. elections here should be decided by the people of the

united states, not by other countries, not by foreign interests. and i would -- i would again remind my colleagues that as we speak there are, you know, millions and millions of dollars being spent on negative ads all over the country against republicans and against democrats. . they are responsibled by entities that have nice names but may be funded by someone who has an interest in the outcome of the election. i think it's important with these negative health care ads being run that people know they are being run by the insurance industry. and when we have offending behavior of b.p. we know they are being spent by interest tied to big oil. this is about transparency. this is about full disclosure. this has nothing to do with abridging anybody's right to speech. you have to stand by what you say. that's not a radical idea. it's an idea everybody in this house, i don't care what your

political philosophy is, you should embrace. i urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my %%me. i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. ms. foxx: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a five-minute vote -- by

five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 1468, if ordered, suspend the rules with regard to house concurrent resolution 285, and suspend the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1465, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [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 coercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 243, the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question son adoption of the are resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any uss of the closed-captioned coverage of e house proceedings for pitical or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this

vote the yeas are 220. the nays are 205. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 285, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 285, concurrent resolution recognizzng the important role that fathers play in the lives of their children and families and supporting the goals and ideals of designating 2010 as the year of the father. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [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 pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 423 the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the concurrent resolution is adopted. the unfinished business is the

question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1464, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1464, resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the united states-japan treaty of mual cooperation and security and expressing gratitude to the people of japan for enhancing peace, prosperity and security in the asia pacific region. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, -- >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule

20, further proceed -- further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the house will come to order. will members please take their conversations off the floor?

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous -- i ask unanimous consent that during consideration of h.r. 5175 the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, or his designee, may control 10 minutes of general debate time allocated to the chair of the committee on house administration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. speaker, -- madam

speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 5175 and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 1468 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5175. the chair appoints thh gentleman from colorado, mr. salazar, 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. 5175, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to prohibit forge influence in federal election,

prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections and to establish diadecisional disclosure requirements in respect to such elections and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the first time. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman rom pennsylvania, mr. brady will control 20 minute, and the gentleman from california, mr. lungren will control 30 minutes and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i stand with the american people and the house leadership inport of h.r. 5175, the democracy is strengthened by casting light on elections act, or disclose act. it's designed to bring greater transparency to election spending. it was reinforced by the supreme court decision that reaffirmed the constitutionally

and necessity of laws that require this disclosure of political spending. our democracy requires transparency and accountability in our political campaigns. knowing the source of political spending allows us to investigate the motives and better judge the accuracy of the statements of the spenders and candidates. the disclosure requirements for corporations, unions, and other brupes that make campaign-related expenditures for the purpose of engaging in campaign related activity this improvement to current disclosure requirements allows voters to follow the money and ensure that special interest money can't hide behind sham organizations and shell corporations. the supreme court has recognized it essential to hold people accountable. voters have the right to know who is trying to buy our leches.

the bill requires c.e.o.'s and highest ranking officials of corporations that sponsor political advertisements to record stand by your ad disclaimers as well as protest taxpayers dollars from misuse by preventing certain government contractors from making campaign related expenditures. the disclosure act also closes a loophole creebate citizens united to ensure foreign corporations and foreign governments aren't able to influence elections by spending unlimited sums through united states subsidiaries or affiliates. by allowing them to make campaign contributions, foreign players could use limitless funds to influence the election. the bill is designed to accommodate nonprofit issues advocacy group who have long participated in political activity of which their members are aware.

the bill must have more than 500,000 dues paying members in all 50 states, have had tax exempt status for the past 10 years and derive no more than 50% of its funding from corporate or union sources. it cannot use corporate or union money to pay for campaign-related expenditures. the narrowness of the existing law will make it impossible to have a dummm or sham group. those exempted will be required to file publicly available reports explaining their campaign related expenditures and staff will need to appear in and take responsibility for -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brady: i yield myself 30 seconds. the disclose act ensures accountability and provides prompt and honest disclosure

about those seeking to influence our elections. it's been considered by the house and senate with 30 expert witnesses. citizens are concerned about the citizens united decision urging congress to quickly consider legislation that addresses the problems created by the ruling. i yield myself 30 more seconds. this support in the disclose act reflects the will of the american people and commands the support of the -- the support of the representatives. in addition to that, with 140 co-sponsors and a broad spectrum of support, it promotes open politics. if we don't pass this, the public will be left to wonder who is being served by the negative advertising dominating

campaigns. i urge all members to support thregs and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren: thank you, mr. speaker. obviously if you attempt to speak on the floor and your microphone is not near you, or they have turned it off, you can't exercise your right to represent your constituents here. i yield myself such time as i may consume. that is the problem with this bill. it does not allow the free exercise of the first amendment right to speech. the constitution of the united states refers to that first amendment and unfortunately, in many, many decisions by the supreme court thaverbing talked about everything other than political speech. yet in the citizens united

vvrsus federal election commission case, the court finally got it right. the majority opinion says the first amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints, prohibited, too, are restrictions prohibiting different speakers, allowing speech from some and not from others. that's exactly what this bill does. benjamin franklin stated, whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must again by subduing the freeness of speech. unfortunately, that is what we have here before us. mr. speaker. or mr. chairman. just because you call something disclose or disclosure doesn't make it so. when you prohibit speech as has been done here, when you have onerous disclosure obligations placed on some but not all,

when you make no distinguishing, that is, constitutionally justifiable distinguishing differences between groups, that is you cause some to be subjected to provisions of disclosure and others not, when you specifically have five or six provisions in which you exempt unions as opposed to corporations of all stripes when you've rendered the bill unconstitutional. mr. chairman, i would have asked, if it were proper, to have unanimous consent request to extend our debate for four hours. but i know that's not in order. the majority has decided to stifle debate by allowing only a single hour on the debate of -- of debate on this issue %%

dealing directly with the first amendment. we have spent in excess of 10 hours in this congress talking about the naming of post offices. but we have determined we do not have more time than%% an ho to discuss something as important as the first amendment to the constitution. when we allow ourselves to become an auction house for the first amendment, where some, because of their power and influence, are allowed to exercise first amendment rights, unfettered, and others are not, it is a sorry day. and to do it under the rubric of disclosure is even worse. but that's what we have here. mr. chairman, in the time given to us, i hope we can explain exactly what thissbill does and what it does not do and why it, in fact, not only is dangerous

to the first amendment, but is directed at the heart of the first amendment, wwich is vigorous political speech, particularly close to an election. it may make some members uncomfortable. in some of the hearings and markup of this bill we had members saying, if i had my way, i'd make sure no one could say anything about our campaigns except those of us who are candidates. unfortunately, there's something called the first amendment. i know it's bothersome to some on the other side. i know it's an obstacle to what they want to do. when i came here, i took an oath to uphold the constitution in all parts, not just the second amendment, by way of specific exemption, but by -- of all amendments, the first as well as the second and every other. with that, i would reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is the most disturbing debate that i have engaged in in the 111th congress, and to hear what i have already heard from one of the most distinguished members of the judiciary committee is a little bit dismaying to me. let me say this. i'll answer one of his questions. what does the bill do? i agree. i'd love four hours. perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote regardless of its outcome. this bill rolls back the

decision, blatant decision of citizens united and the supreme court by using the three tools that the court said that we could do to make their decision different. first, we can increase disclosure. two, you can require disclaimer requirements on advertise -- advertisements. and three, we can limit foreign influence in our elections. one, two, three. now, the danger of citizens united decision, the most shocking decision i have read and the supreme court and many, many years -- in many, many years is the threat of groups who attack candidates for office

wiihout ever having to tell people which corporations are are bank rolling these ads. this is what the disclose act, the bill on the floor, is designed to prevent. this bill permits some long established advocacy groups to follow some of the new disclosure requirements, but if these groups take more than 15% of the money from corporations, then all the requirements. discle sure act kick in. -- disclosure act kick in. and they have to stand by their ads just like candidates do. and citizens united, justice stevens, who argued that the much more persuasive -- with much more persuasive reasoning, his position in this case, dissenting, said this, the

constitution does, in fact, prevent numerous restrictions on the speech of some in order to prevent a few from drowning out the many. for example, restrictions on ballot access and on legislators' floor time. he stated that corporations are categorically different from individuals. and the context of election to public office, the disticks 2003 -- distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. although they make enormous contribbtions to our society, corporations are not aatually members of it. they cannot vote or run for office.

because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interest may conflict in fundamental respects with the interest of eligible voters. then they close with this sentence. our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially dilatorious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania.

>> mr. chairman, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from california, zoe lofgren, a + valued member of house administration, four minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, the supreme court's decision in the citizens united case fundamentally alters the political landscape as a result of the court's ruling all organizations, corporations, and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. this could allow corporations to simply take over the political system. according to a report late last year by common cause, the average amount spent for winning a house seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning

congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper wait to different speakers and messages. that's what this bill does. it does exactly what the supreme court says that we could do and should do, and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency. in the past transparency has been a bipartisan issue.

senator mitch mcconnell was quoted in april saying we need to have real disclosure. why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure? republican leader john boehner in twetch said, i think we ought -- what we ought to do, we ought to have full disclosure and went on to say i think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. this measure, the disclose act, has been supported by government reform groups including common cause, league of women voters, and public citizens. senate majority leader harry reid and the chairman of the senate rules committee have released a letter indicating their strong commitment to senate action on the disclose act. the white house strongly supports the disclose act. the president says he'll sign this bill when it comes to his desk. now, i ask my colleagues, will you stand with the american people in calgary for -- calling for disclosure and transparency

in the political process? or will you allow corporations to overtake our democracy with the expenditure of undisclosed,% limitless amounts of money? i think that we should stand with the american people. we should vote for t%%he disclo act. disclosure is good. voters need to know who is saying what. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, a valued member of our committee. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. for how long? mr. harper: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harper: if there is anything in the hearings on this bill and subsequent discussion taught us, it is that the bill is far from clear. theeauthors of the bill say it does one thing, the experts says it does another. the majority's own witnesses

have said it will be up to the f.c.c. to decide what the language means. this conclusion and am big gute would be bad enough in any bill, but it is especially bad here. this bill has implementing language that makes it take effect 0 days after enactment. regardless of whether the f.c.c. has published regulations. indeed one of the majority's witnesses said at a hearing it would be next to impossible for the s.e.c. to promulgate regulations before the november elections. that means as we move toward elections just four months away, and americans consider how to express their views, there will be no guidance to clear up the bill's am big gute, no instructions for how to comply, and no way to participate in the political process where your speech will not land you in jail. mr. chairman, this bill is going to impose civil and criminal penalties on speakers without them having any notice that their behavior may be against the law. what that means is that rather than exercising their first

amendment rights, speakers are just going to stay silent. as former united states solicitor general ted olson statee in our committee's may 6 hearing, so we are saying that you have to guess what the law is because the government can't even tell you what the law is. if you guess wrong, you may be sent to jail or you may be prosecuted. those who seek to challenge this bill's ambiguous and potentially unconstitutional provisions in court are going to be faced with a judicial review process designed for delay and ppfrustration. the procedure in this bill conflicts with the processes created in both the federal election campaign act and the bipartisan campaign reform act. opening the door to collateral litigation to decide what court to be in before the case is even heard. section 401 of this bill is congressional forum shopping. the only conclusion one can draw from the immediate implementation without regulatory guidance and

protracted court process is that this bill is designed to effect the outcome of the 2010 elections. indeed, one need not guess to know that this is true. a letter sent earlier this week from senate majority leadership to house majority leadership pledged to work tirelessly so the bill can be signed by the president in time to take effect for the 2010 elections. there it is, mr. chairman. the proponents of the bill want this house to pass legislation in time to affect the outcomes of the 2010 elections. they have refused our proposals to make this bill effective in 2011 because they want to change the law this year to affect this election, no matter there will be no explanatory regulations and no review to ensure that the law complies with the constitution. so the end result is -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: additional minute. mr. harper: the end result is the bill's proponents are rushing it into effect before

the regulators or the regulated community are ready. doing what they can to delay court review and taking those steps despite their obvious expectation that parts of the bills will not survive judicial scrutiny. the only reason it makes sense has to do with the elections coming up in just over four months. the house should reject this attempt to pass the bill that could alter the outcome of its own elections and let the voters decide this for themselves. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the gentleman from maryland, chris van hollen, author of the legislation, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to start by thanking chairman brady and ms. lofgren and the other members of the committee as well as chairman conyers and mr. nadler and those on the judiciary committee.

and to mike castle and the other co-sponsors of this legislation. phich addresses the very serious threats to our democracy, created by the supreme court's decision in citizens united. which in a very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the united states, will be treated like american citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited millions amount of money in our elections. this bill addresses this issue in three ways. first we say if you are a foreign controlled corporation, if you are british petroleum, if you are a chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation her% in the united states, if you are citgo controlled by hugo chavez, you have no business spending money in u.s. elections, overtly or secretly. if we don't do something about that now, they'll be able to do either of those things.