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 wod 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 ofomen 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. chaarman, 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? mrharper: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlan is recognized. mr. harper: if there is anything 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 bigute would be bad enough in any bill,

but it is especially bad here. this bill s 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.o promulgate regulations before the november electis. that means as we move toward elections just four months away, and americans consider howo 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 pticipate 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 potentiay 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 processs 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 yearo 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 expid. 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 commity are ready. doing wh they can to delay court review and taking those

steps despite their obvious expectatn tha 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 er 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 cairman 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 sreme court's decision in citizens united. which in 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 statesif 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. number t, we say if you are a federal contractor, if you are getting over $10 million from e american taxpayer, or you

are a.i.g., you shouldn't be recycling those moneys into elections to try and influence the body that gave you the contracts, because there is a greater danger of corruption in the expenditure of those moneys. and third, we require disclosure. we believe the voter has a right to know. you would think from the commen from the other side of the aislwe are restricting what people an say. that's not true. you can say anything you want in any ad you want. what you can't do is hide behind the darkness. not tell people who you are. voters have a right know when they see an ad going on with a nice sounding name, the fund for a better america, they have a rit to know o is paying for it. they have a right to know if b.p. is paying for it. they have a right to know if any corporation or big bucks individual is paying for it. because it's a way to give them information to access the credibility of the ad. .

you vote no othis, tell corporations say what you want, but we're not going to let the voters know who you are. the reason the league of women voters, common cause, public citizen, democracy 21, all organizations that have devoted, devoted themselves to clean and fair elections, support this legislation. because they understand that the american voter has a right to know who is spending all these moneys on these ads and they don't want foreign controlled corporations dumping millions of dollars into u.s. elections. so my colleagues, i hope%% that we will move forward on this to make sure that the voice of citizens is not drowned out by secret spending by the biggest corporations, including foreign controlled corporations.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize the chairman of the constitution subcommite, jerry nadler of new york, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the disclose act. earlier this year, the supreme court reversed decades of precedents and ruled that corporations are individuals like you and me and can put as much money into elections as they want. it distorts our political process. the very real danger now is that corporations will be able to use vast sums of concentrated money to further corrupt our political process and drown out the voices of everyone else.

without objection action as a result of this latest activist supreme court decision, our electoral system will be at the mercy of large moneyed interests. this bill takes several critical steps to reclaim our elections. the most important one is that it would require disclosures of donors providing money for political purposes in certain circumstances and mandate that they appear in political ads to say they, quote, approve this message, just as candidates do. it would set some limits on money in politic, not by miting the money but by requiring disclosure of the source of the corporate money to show which interests are behind which advertising. i no many people opposed contributions previously said don't limit the political expenditure the solution is

disclosure. let people know who is sponsoring the ads, that will safeguard the ections. i d't think disclosure is enough but it's all the supreme court will a lou us to do. now people who argued for disclosure for years are saying it's a restriction on free speech, it's disturbing. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. nadler: it's important that ads from citizens for a cleaner environment a from b.p. or the sierra club to know how it affects their decisions. there are obligations to disclose contributors. to limit -- by limiting it to

those that have been in existence for at least a decade have members in each of the 50 states and receive no more than 50% of its funding from unions and corporations. we cannot allothe perfect to become the enemy of the gheesmed disclose act would make a vast andsubstantial difference in protecting the integrity of our elections andky not think of a more important bill. i urge all my colleagues to suort this bill despite its imperfections. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: at thii time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy a valued member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, just a block away from this building, the capitol, stands the supreme court. like many other courthouses across this country, it bears

the image of the goddess of justice. many of you know the statue. she holds a set of scales symbolizing the fairness and equality of law. she wears a blindfold, symbolizing impartiality. unfortunately, this bill does not represent either of those issues. like so many other bill this is house democratic leadership has forced onto the floor this bill suffers from thsame taint, the provisions in this bill are the result of backroom negotiations and special deals to exempt powerful interest groups at the expense of smaller ones. but the unfortunate thing about this bill today is that rather than represent -- than respect the first amendment promise to prooect the speech of all americans, it attempts to use the firstmendment as a partisan sledge hammer to silence certain speakers in favor of others. especially unions.

mr. chairman, this bill bans corporations with government contracts over $10 million from political speech. the sponsor says that's because those contractors might try to influencdecisions by government officials. but this bill does nothing for the labor unions who are parties to collective bargaining, agreements with he governments. even though unions have huge amounts of money at stake and every incentive to influence decisions about the contracts by government officials, it does nothing. we offered an amendment to upheld the fairness and equality but that was rejected in the committee. a second example, mr. chairman is we all agree that foreign citizens shouldn't influence our leches, whether they are foreign citizens that are part of foreign corporations or foreign citizens part of a union with interests in the united states. this bill requires c.e.o.'s to certify under penalty of

perjury that their companies arnot foreign nationals. under the newlyy+ expanded standard of the bill. but the bill does nothing t ensure that when labor unions are spending money on elections, that money did not come from people who are themselves prohibited from spending noun influence american elections. again, we offered an amendmeet to treat corporations and unions equally under the bill by requiring the same certify scation of labor union chiefs but again, it was rejected. mr chairman, a third example. i point to the centerpiece provision of this bill. the so-called disclosure requirement. the bill requires organizations to disclose information about the individuals who gave more than $600. but the federal election committee asked everybody else to do it at $200. as one of the majoritmembers of our committee -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. lungren: i yield the ntleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: as one member of the committee asked, where did the money come from? it's enough to make unions not have to report any of their dues. the average for a union is $377 in 2004. it treats them different than we treat every other american and every other campaign. 10 while candidates and political parties have to itemize contributions from donors about $200, we have a different rule in this bill. a rule apparently designed for the convenience of unions. we offered an amendment to make this disclosure requirement the same as how all federal laws long require ared disclosure of donors but it was rejected. rather than spending time today listening to americans and addressing the number one priority in this country, helping to create jobs and grow the economy, again and again i watch this congress mired in

its partisan priorities. i listen to the gentleman from maryland. he happens to be the chairman of the democratic congressional committee. the chair: the gentleman is -- the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: the back room deal was not done. i started this speech thinking of the gdess of justice and i go through this bill, the blindfold is taken off and the thumb is put on the scale to weigh to one side. this does not honor the first amendment or the fairness of what this buildinggrepresents. i ask for a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: how much time is left on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 150 minutes, the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/2 minutes, and the gentleman from california has 17 1/2 minutes.

mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, another vaed member of the house administration, ms. susan davis. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the disclose act. under current law, yes, it is correct that groups must disclose their name, their name and advertisements and file a disclosure form. but you know, that doesn't tell anyone very much at all. right now, voters see tv ads sponsored by organizations they've never heard of. groups like the american future fund. american leadership project. citizens for strength and security. common sense in america. and today i'm getting calls

from the campaign for liberty. but they will not tell us who they are. does anybody know who they are? in 2008, there were over 80 of these groups and they bought $135 million in advertisements. i for one don't think o constituents should go through another election cycle in the dark. voters want to know who is %% behind that ad? who stands to gain from it? why isn't an actual -- sit an -- why isn't an actual person, corporation, or union taking responsibility for it? the disclose act will finally put that information in voters' hands with tough disclose and disclaimer requirements. i want to tell you, because the disclose act also sets important limits to protect

taxpayer dollars. i ask those opposed to the bill, do we want ads from banks that still have are tarp funds? do we want subsidiaries of foreign controlled companiesed meling in our elections? well, i would think the answer is clearly no. the disclose act is just like other consumer protection bill this is body has passed. i can think of no single time i've regretted giving my constituents more information so they can make wise and informed decisions. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. teague. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. teague: mr. speaker, i rise

today in strong support of the disclose act, a bill i'm proud to co-sponsor. several months ago in the citizen united case, the supreme court made a dangerous decision to allow unlimited corporate and union money into our elections. the consequences of this decision for our democracy are dimplee until we act, massive corporations can secretly funnel hundreds of millions of dollars through shadowy front groups to influence elections. a foreign company like british petroleum could retaliate against members of congress who want to hold them accountable by secretly funding millions in attack ads. f we don't act to stop this injustice, limitless corporate money will flood into our political system and drown out the voice of the american people. debates by candidates will be replaced by ads. some people say this is a free speech issue. of course it is. the court decision lets foreign corporations influence our elections.

what thibill does is protect the speech of american citizens. the dclose act says free speech is for people. it also says, pick a side. do you suuport protecting the voice of the american people? thank you. i ask everyone to support the dill. -- bill. the chai the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i want to thank my colleague for yielding me time. in citizens united vs. federal election commission, the supreme court struck down several provisions of federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' first amendment rights. yet, the disclose act would have more regulations that unduly restrict the freedom of speech. it would do this while unfairly sparing unions and othee preferred groups from the same regulations. this legislation is plainly

unconstitutional. the disclose act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and compaes with as much as 80% ownership by u.s. citizens. it would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations ca% include in ads stating their political opinion. it would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors in violation of their right to free association. and it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. the disclose act is unconstitional and it should be soundly rejected by the house today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield it's back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to jared

polis, thgentleman om colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: people enjoy their constitutional rights but corporations aren't alive, their sons can't be sent off to war. corporations are political zombies only knowing the pursuit. the econommc reason that corporations exist. but in the political context, there is negative civic value to such advocacy, especially withouthe reasonable expectations that was tossed out in the supreme court decision in citizens united.. when they give them an advantage over their competitors, everyone suffers and it undermines the confidence of liberals, conservatives, all citizens. that's why the disclose act is so needed, the flood of special

interest money in our political system and to protect the free speech of individual americans and i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleadsed to recognize mr. hall from new york for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. hall: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to strongly support h.r. 5175, the disclose act. the citizens united was disastrous and gave corporations not just the rights of persons but way more rights than persons have. any citizen has a limit on how much they can donate in any given campaign cycle whereas under the current court decisions corporations have no limit. one of the most important provisions of the bill we're talking about would prevent foreign-owned companies from buying u.s. elections. and i would like to thank chairman van hollen, mr. van

hollen's willingness to work with me in including a similar provision in the bill to one that i introduced in my freedom from foreign-based manipulations in american elections act from keeping companies like.p. deciding who is elected to congress. this is about representing our people. our friends on both sidesf the aisle like to say that we represent the people. well, a poll came out showing 87% of republicans and 91% of independents, 91% of indendents supporthis bill. i urge all members to vote for it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. lungren: mr. chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups that support this bill. interestingly enough as debate started on the rule today we received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, including the american civil liberties union, national right to life and the sierra club. let me quote, if i might, from the aclu's letter that is dated june 17, 2010, because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are known for protecting the first amendment? the aclu says in their letter,

"to the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." and they're referring specifically to this bill. the aclu welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by improving the information available to voters while some elements of this bill move in that direction. the system is not strengthened by chilling free speech and invading the privacy of even modest donors to controversial causes. that, of cour, refers to the seminole case on this by the supreme court i believe in 1948, naacp vs. alabama where they showed that revelation of members or donors to certain groups that are disfavored can lead to intimidation. they go on to say here, "indeed

our constitution embraces public discussion of matters that are important to the nation's future and it respects the right of individuals to support those conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of arrests, embarrassment." own forms that promote speech, rather than limit it, and aly even-handedly rather than selectively will bring positive change to r elections. because the disclose act misses both of those targets, the aclu opposes its passage and urges a no vote on h.r. 5175. i made a mistake earlier when i% referred to the amount of time we are allowed to debate the naming of post offices in this congress. as a matter f fact, 41 hours have been granted by the rules committee or unr suspension under our rules to the debate on the naming of post offices, but we could only give one hour

to this debate. ironic, isn't it, that they talk about this being the disclose act. the guts of the bill were not disclosed to those of us on the committee. i even asked if i could see a copy. in fact, i asked a member of this house who had received a copy, and he was toll that he was prohibited from showing it to us on the republican side because the leadership on the democratic side did not want us to know what they were doing. the disclose act. they didn't disclose the actual bill we have here until two hours before we went to the rules committee yesterday. and maybe one of the reasons they didn't want to disclose it is in addition to those exemptions specifically given to labor unions allowing labor unions to be exempt from the disclosure that all other corporations -- not just the major corporations you keep talking about.

remember, corporations are the usual associated legal apparatus used by most advocacy groups. so that's who you are talking about. and you keep saying, well, you can have foreign companies and foreign countries under this bill or under this decision by the supreme court, control the message in campaigns, that's just utterly untrue. it wasn't allowed by law before. it wasn't changed by the supreme court decision. at least you should talk about what the law is. it is not true that's a dog that won't hunt and you keep putting it up here and keep putting it up here and either you haven't read your own bill, you haven't read the supreme court decision or there'an attempt to not tell people exactly what is happening. but one of the reasons i believe that perhaps we didn't get an opportunity to see the latest version of the bill is because it contains a huge new

big union loophole. and it allows the transfer of all kinds of funds, unlimited funds among affiliated unions so long as not a single member is responsible for $50,000. i doubt many members are responsible for $50,000 which means there will be no limitation whatsoever with respect to unions here. so let get the facts straight. there was an auction in this house behind closed doors, certain groups won the auction, other groups did not. that's one of the reasons that the aclu is against it. that's why we should be against it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan ii recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield the two distinguished subcommittee chairman -- yield to the distinguished subcommittee chairman 45 seconds.

i only have two 45 seconds left and i yield him one of them. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. hnson: let's get right down to it. why are the republicans opposed to restricting campaign donations in american campaigns, both local, state and federal? why? it's because republicans favor big business, andig business favors republicans. with all of these unlimited dollars flowing through, we'll see morrepublicans getting elected, both local, state and federal. what it means is that b.p., a corporate wrong doer, foreign corporation -- wrongdoer, foreign corporation, can influence elections. it means that goldman sachs can influence elections. no limit, no boundaries.

that's what will happen if we don't pass the disclose act. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. chairman, again, may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has six minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 45 seconds. and the gentleman from california has 11 minutes. mr. brady: mr. chairman, at this time'm pleased to recognize the gentleman froo delaware a minute and half, mr. castle. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized. mr. castle: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do rise in support of the disclose act. i'd like to thank mr. van hollen, his office, for their work on this as well. i believe that this is elatively simple. i think that all of us in this country have a right to know who is putting footh ads for or+ against candidates as thee campaigns go on. we do that as elected

officials. the political parties do that. we also file all those who contribute money to us above certain amounts. in that i believe also should be done. this acttthat we are trying to pass basically is one of transparency. call it disclose, whatever you wish, but it basically indicates that foreign corporations cannot spend dollars in u.s. elections, federal contractors cannot get involved, but those who can, the corporations, unions, not-for-profits must disclose who is paying for it in terms of the c.e.o. coming forward, major contributors being posted so that people know who is paying for it. it does not limit what they can say. i do not believe it's in any way a violation of the first amendment, as has been stated here on repeated occasions. i will be the first to tell you i do not like the manager's amendment that was in the rule with respect to the exemptions for certain entities, not because there's anything wrong with the entities but my judgment is this should be applicable to everybody who would fall into these

categories. perhaps that will be fixed in the senate. but the bottom line is this is a disclosure act so the people of this country will know who is advertising. we've all been subjected to it. you've seen the ads and you wonder who is running these ads. i hope everybody will support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i would extend a minute of my time to the gentleman from michigan who i understand needs more time. mr. conyers: could the gentleman spare us a couple minutes? mr. lungren: well, let's start with a minute and see where we go from there. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: i'm very pleased now to recognize the distinguished senior member of % the judiciary committee, sheila

jackson lee of texas, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you for your laidership and boldss on this issue. i hold in my hand a version of the constitution that is in this very distinct book of rules and clearly, i think it is important for the american people to understand really the% action items of this legislation. can you imagine a government contractor being paid by your tax dollars? they might be doing the right thing, we don't know. but advocating, with your tax dollars, for a position you don't wa, without you knowing that is occurring. this bill is under the first amendment because it says that we give you more transparency. if we read the constitution in its entirety the opening says that we have come together to form a more perfect union that means if people are discity --

dissatisfied with this bill they have a right to petition tote the courts. we believer erring on the side of rightness, allowing people to be elected or run for office, dominated, slammed down on the basis of big money. this is a good change, i ask my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gtlan from maryland, mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank the chairman. i want to emphasize, as justice stevens pointed outn his dissent, the supreme court decision did open the door to foreign controlled corporations spending money directly in u.s. elections. if you have a sub -- if you have a u.s. subsidiary of a

foreign corporation, when the supreme court said all corporations could spend money in u.s. electton they opened the door very clearly to that and it's an area where it's also clear congress can move to legislate. number two it's no surprise you have lots of organizations on the right and tte left, love what they stand for or hate what they stand for, that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. that's not a surprise at all. that's why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean organizationand clean campaign elections like the -- like the league of women voters and common cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it. let me say something with respect to unions there is no such thing as a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign union, this is a red herring sue. second, under u.s. law, we have

never defined collective bargaining agreements as federal contracts like the contracts that go to corporations themselves. number three, i draw to the attention of the body a statement that was made by tror potter, president of the campaign legal center, who was the republican commissioner on the federal election commission from 1991 to 1995, who said this. this bill requires funding disclosure for all advertising, union and corporate, and goes on to say, based on the legislative languages, equality of treatment, claims of union favoritism seem to be unsupported efforts to discredit the bill and stave off its primary goal, disclosure of those underwriting the massive -- that's the republican commissioner. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, i find it instructive that one of the members on the other side of the aisle, when she got down here to talk about the constitution, said, i have this version of the constitution. as far as i know, there's only one version of the constitution. except if you happen to be on the majority side dealing with this bill. why do i say that? because the constitution very clearly in the first amendment said congress shall make no law no law abridging free speech. what is it abouno you don't undersnd? i would say rhetorically, because i can't address the majority on this floor. but i would say if i could, what is it about no you don't understand?

it says no law. now some would say, wait a second. the courts do allow some laws in the area of campaign finance and disclosure and so forth. yes they do. but what are they predicated on? they say the countervailing principal -- principle or concern about corruption or the appearance of corruption. that's the only basis you can create the laws. they therefore say you cannot %% distinguish between two sets of groups where that same analysis would come forward. in other words you can't say, we're going to fare -- favor unions but disfavor + corporations who stand essentially in the same shoes in the area of potential corruption. they say if you have a government contract over $10 million, they went from $5 million, up to $10 million to include certain group, we're not sure who they are, there have been some whispers as to

who they are. but the argument is there's a potential corruption between those wwith government contract and those who have influence in giving those contracts. we said, ok, what about unions that represent the workers for those companies who pay -- whose pay comes from the taxpayers by vtue of these contracts? it's the same argument. they id, we can't do that, that would be unfair to unions. what about the fact that you have union bargaining agreements with government entities? twhoont be the same -- >> no, no. that's different than corporations. what's the basis? there is no basis. what they do by the terms of the bill is rend they are bill unconstitutional becau the courts say you can't distinguish among different groups unless you use the same basis. and they use the highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, why? because it involves an essential right protected under the coostitution. that's what's so disturbing

here today. not because we disagree on legislation, because we do that often. but the fact of the matter is, we are so cavalierly dealing with the first amendment, we're so cavalierly dealing with free speech, we're so cavalierly dealing with essential political free speech, particularly when it's involved in elections. ppthat's when it's most important. yet we have seen a bidding war here, an auction, not on the floor, because it took place behind closed doors. and yet we're told, just look at the title. look at the title. you know if you put the nnme cadillac on a ugoh, it would still be a yugo. if it can't drive, putting another ne on it won't make ittbetter. to say this is a disclose act when you refuse to disclose the parts of it to us until two hours before the rules committee yesterday undercuts everything you argue that this bill is about. this is not sunlight. this is putting some in the

cellar where there is no light and others get the light. this is allowing some to be involved in the debate and others not. our founding fathers did not think the ant dote to bad speech was to prohibit speech. it was to encourage robust debate and give others the opportunity. we can't agree on disclosure but not when you bring it in this form because it isn't disclosure that is frly imposed on all parties. i am sure of this. this will be declared untugal. but the dirty little secret in this, you have put in here the appellate process so it won't be decided until after the election so that these who should be able to exercise their first amendment rights will be afraid to exercise them for fear they might make a mistake. what a tragedy. what a travesty. we should do better on this floor. owe it to ourselves and if

we don't think we're worthy, maybe the constitution is worthy. maybe our constituents are worthy. to hide behind the words disclosure, disclose, when in fa that's not what you're doing, is the ultimate in insult to the constitution. the chair: who seeks recognition? mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'll use the balance of my time. members of the house, i've been on the judiciary committee longer than anyone in the house of representatives. sand save one other court decision, there's been no decision that they have ever rendered that i coider more abhorrent and more onerous than the results that will flow from

this measure of the citizens united decision. i say that because what we're doing is a matter of whether corporate control in the body politic now goes completely, totally without any halt or reservation whatsoer. so please, support this measure. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i'd like to reserve the lance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, at this time, it's my distinct honor to recognize the gentleman from ohio the distinguished leader of the republicans here in the house, mr. boehner for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized.

mr. boehner: i want to thank my colleague for yielding. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. we all know that that's part of our first amendment to the constitution. and it's first for a reason. because freedom of speech is the basis for our democracy. but today, the majority wants to pass a bill restricting speech. violating that very first amendment to the constitution. oh, no, they don't want to restrict it for everyone. they want to use their majority hear in the -- here in the house to silence their political opponents. pure and simple. for just one election. is there any other explanation for this bill? is there any reason under this bill that small business -- businesses get muffled but big

businesses will be fine. -- fine? labor unions won't have to comply with this, they're exempted from it. they get their right prospected. why is the national rifle association protected, but not the national righttto life organization. -- organization? obviously no onwants to answer. the national rifle associion is carved out -- the national rifle association is carved out of this deaa and given a special deal. they are big defenders of the second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms. but yet they think it's all right to throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, while requiring other% to comply with all the rules outlined in this bill. frankly, i think it's disappointing.

why does e humane society of america get to speak freely, but not the national farm bureau. why do aarp get protected under the bill? yet if you belong to 60-plus, no, no. you've got to comply with all of this. since the supreme court's decision to uphold the first amendment, democrats here have maintained their bill would apply equally across the board to corporations, labor unions and advocacy organitions alike. instead, they've proded a ppbillhat is ll of loopholes, designed to help their friends while silencing their political opponents. we this house take an oath to preserve, to protect, and to defend o constitution. anyone who votes for this bill today, i'll tell you, is

violating the oath that they took when they became a member of this organization. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? mr. brady: i'm prepared to close, i have no more speakers, if the gentleman is prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i understand the gentleman is going to close, so i will use the balance of my time. the chair: yes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. chairman, i've been privileged to serve in this house for a number of years. during that period of time, i have had the opportunity to vote probably thousands of times on many, many, many different issues. sometimes the results of the votes, collective votes of this house and the senate and the signature of the president, during the course of time i've been here, has resulted in legislation which subsequently was ruled to be in part or in

whole unconstitutional. and i have had conversations on the floor of the house that said, i'm not concerned about the constitution. don't let me worry about that, the court december side that. i've always said to them in response, we have an obligation when we take the oath of office to uphold the constitution and we ought to do it as we consider legislation. but i'm not sure that i have ev seen a frontal assault on this constitution as this bill is. why do i say that? i say that because this deals with the first amendment. it deals with political speech. it deals with political speech at its most effective. that is in the context of a political campaign. and we ought to deal with that very, very carefully. i will say to my friend from michigan, if he was so concerned about the constitution, why did our

committee waive jurisdiction here after havi this bill only for a day? other times we insist on dealing with constitutional questions, t yet we gave it up. you look at this bill and you see that it violates the contours of the decision by the supreme court. if you want to amend the constitution, bring an amendment to the floor. it violates it in so many ways. and it's a continual violation as the auction block was established on the other side of the aisle. we kept hearing day after day, week after wk they don't have the votes, they don't have the votes. they are going to make this deal, they are going to make that deal. what did they do? they expanded -- they expanded the exemption. they said, yes, the national rifle association gott a specia exemption. the aarp did. the humane society did.

they changed it from a million members to half a million members. but we know most groups won't exempt. just a privileged few. that violates the decisions of the courts going back decades tell you. you cannot discriminate among groups. you cannot have disfavored and favored groups. and that's what we're doing right here on the floor. not just about something dealing with the -- dealt with by the constitution, but the essential of the first amendment. i am surprised that my liberal friends are t down here on this floor condemning provisions of this bill. and they say it's not a perfect bill. no, it's not perfect. it's unconstitutional. it is unconstutional by its very terms. and in the last two weeks and even yesterday it became more unconstitutional because they carved out exemmtions even further for unions and for selected groups of large size. mr. chairman, we should do

better than this. we should do better than this. if we're not concerned about protecting the constitution, who is? you know, as was said basically by our leader, we take an oath to protect and defend all parts of the constitutioo. the first amendment as well as the second amendment. the fact of the matter is, we take an oath to uphold the constitution. to only allow an hour's worth of debate when we give far more time to naming post offices is a disgrace in this house. a disgrace. to not allow amendments that deal with some of the very subjects that my friends on the other side talk about is a disgrace. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, i ask for a no vote on this bill. the chhir: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, first, let me thank the staff of house administration, jamie fleet, matt pinkas for the hard work they've done on this bill. it was a lot of moving ound,

a lot of moving parts and to be able to put it back together they were able to have us here today. i appreciate all the help. despite all the rhetoric that we heard about this bill, the simple purpose is, mr. chairman, who's saying it, who's paying it? all i want to know if i run or somebody runs for re-election and somebody runs an ad against me i'd like to know who that is or if somebody runs an ad in my favor i'd like to know who it is. the unions pay dues and they have a checkup to go to a pack fund. they can say, i don't want to spend any money to a pacfund. but if and when they do they now vote. they sit and vote for every single candiddte that that union is supporting, whether or not they want to support that

candidate or not, and every union has a tagline who they're supporting. and corporations, if you're a stockholder of a corporation, i could be a member of a stockholder in at&t and they can run an ad against me and i don't even know it. all i want to know, again, is -- and also those corporations don't vote. i'm a stockholder, i can't vote. i can't vote what they do with my money even though you spend money for an opponent against me. all we're saying is who's saying it and who's paying for it. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gent >> house members later voted 219-260 -- 206. the bill requires individuals

and groups to disclose when they pay for campaign advertisements. >> starting monday, what's the confirmation hearings for supreme court elena kagan alive. see replace every night at 9:00 eastern on c-span to parade to learn about the nation's highest court, greeted the latest book by cspan. it is candid conversations with all the justices provide unique information about the court. >> we will look at the financial regulations bill. at 8:30 eastern, more about the supreme court confirmation hearings of elena kagan. and we will discuss