detained by the gsa. he refused to take a pat down from gsa officials at the national international airport. news sources were alerted by a tweet from his father, ron paul. senator paul was treated he was treated like every other passengers that they process. in order to assure the safety of others traveling, security officials deny that senator paul was obtained by the in it -- by the agency for refusing to being passed down. he was escorted after his refusal. we will have more on this after we get it. now for more coverage on the house here at c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 23, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the house -- the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority

leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. this weekend a movie opened in america that is unlike any other movie. significant movie because it is about a group of gentlemen who won the congressional gold medal, the tuskegee airmen, they were the first black airmen in the united states military history. it's part of black history, but beyond black history it's american history. because as i watched the movie yesterday in memphis, and a largely african-american crowd, i realized this was a story about america's progress and fulfilling its promise and about the problems we have had

we had to overcome. the tuss keying gee air -- tuskegee airmen were men who wanted to fight for the country in world war ii and they weren't allowed to because of the segregation policies we had at the time. the military wasn't integrated and they didn't think african-americans were capable of serving as pilots and weren't allowed to do so. they had an experimental group set up at the tuskegee institute to train black army personnel who wanted to be pilots. they succeeded and they fill formed the tuskegee airmen. they had many obstacles but they beat the odds and succeeded. they rose to the challenge. they dispeled myth that african-americans were weren't courageous enough, weren't skilled enough, weren't smart enough. on friday at the request of the family, i spoke at the funeral of lieutenant colonel luke wethers jr.

he was from memphis, originally, and tied in tucson, arizona, at age 90. he was one of the first tuskegee airmen. he was buried on friday at arlington national cemetery with full military honors, his family present, seven horses, six drawing the carriage and riderless horse, a military flyover, 21-gun salute, "taps" an american hero being laid to rest in haloed ground, arlington -- hallowed ground, sacred grount, he not only had to fight the germans and fight for his country, had he to fight his country to be able to accept and benefit in the basic rights we all take for granted. to learn about it from the tuskegee airmen is inspiring. during black history month we reflect on the accomplishments of many african-americans in our history. african-americans who came here about 1620 as slaves and didn't

get freedom from slavery until 1865 and then didn't get real freedom until jim crowe laws were overturned in the 1960's. the vestiges of slavery and jim crow still live with us. those who overcome those obstacles and broke down barriers were heroes and need to be recognized and will in the month of february. at one time they said african-americans couldn't play baseball. and jackie robinson showed them wrong. they said african-americans couldn't be quarterbacks, and doug williams and others showed them wrong. they couldn't be coaches, bill russell took the celtics to championships and tony dungy in 2007 won a super bowl championship. couldn't be pitchers. certainly couldn't play tennis. arthur ashe showed them wrong. golf? nobody in the world better than tiger woods. and you know it's amazing that in this day and time, there's still barriers to be broken. at one time people thought that

african-americans couldn't be president of the united states. wouldn't be capable of such. well, we know that's wrong. but unfortunately there are still people in this country who think that the president can't be their president because of his race. some even refer to him as a food stamp president. we know that code is wrong. i would ask anybody who thinks that way or has those thoughts to know that their backwards thinking just like the people were in the 1940's that said black people couldn't participate in our military and couldn't fly for our country and the red tails couldn't should down the germans and protect our bombers as they d those days are passed. i would ask everybody to see the movie, remember the tuskegee airmen. look how far our country has come and get beyond any bigotry that we have in ourselves. this is a nation of tolerance and diversity. i encourage everybody to learn

about the tuskegee airmen. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam speaker. long ago jefferson warned that the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. the exceptions to that rule have been few and far between recently and they ought to be celebrated when they occur. as one did just this past week with the announcement that supporters of the so-called stop online privacy act and the protect intellectual property act have indefinitely postponed their measures after an unprecedented protest across the internet. sopa and pipa pose a crippling danger to the internet because of a copyright infringement as an excuse for government to

intrude upon and regulate the very essence of the internet, the unrestricted and absolutely free association that links site to site, providing infinite pathways for commerce, discourse, and learning. it is not the internet per se that sets the stage for a quantum leap in human knowledge and advancement, but rather the free association that's at the core of the internet. and this is precisely what sopa and pipa directly threaten. but as dangerous as this concept is to the internet, it pails -- pales in comparison to the danger it imposes to our fundamental freedoms as americans. it is true that rogue websites operating from offshore havens are stealing intellectual property and selling it. we already have very good laws against that as evidenced by the arrest yesterday of mr. kim schmitz and his associates in new zealand who stand accused of operating one of the biggest

of these sites. theft of intellectual property is fundamentally no different than the theft of any other kind of property. it should be taken no less seriously than the thrests perpetrated by the likes of bernie madoff or john dill linger or willie sutton. it is no different than should be treated no differently. in every such case it is the individual who commits the left. it is the individual who is culpable and individual who is accountable to the law. it's the individual who is also accorded the right of due process including the presuppings of -- presumption of innocence while he stands accused. that's what sopa and pipa destroyed. upon mere accusation these measures would allow the government to shut down websites, ruin honest businesses, impound property, disrupt legitimate speech, and doctor goon innocent third parties to enforce laws that may or may not have been broken.

when property is stolen we hold accountable the individuals who knowingly commit the act and place the burden of proof on the accusers, the accuser must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant stole property or he received property he knew was stolen. yes, it is a upon dangerous system. yes, it means you actually have to provide evidence. yes, it means you have to convince a jury. yes, it means we can't catch and successfully prosecute every criminal. but the experience of mankind over centuries has proven this is the best possible way to protect the innocent and protect our freedom while also punishing the guilty. in part we punish the guilty to discourage others that we might not be able to punish. as the arrest yesterday in new zealand proved, it works. let mr. schmitz and his confederates be expedited and let them have their day in court. let evidence be presented. let a jury be convinced of that

evidence. and if convicted of one of the greatest depths in human history, let us mete out the full measure of punishment provided by the law to stand as a fearsome example to others. this doesn't and won't stop all theft and it isn't perfect, but to replace it with one where mere accusation can bring punishment or inflict ruinous costs against innocent third parties would introduce a despotic and destructive concept that is antithetical to the ancient rights that our government was formed to protect. the developments of the last few weeks have saved the internet and saved these fundamental principles at least for now, but jefferson was right that the natural order is for government to grow at the expense of liberty. that's why we have our constitution. and to the protection of that constitution the internet is now empowdered as rightful owners, we the people, to defend it more effectively than ever before. which leads me, madam speaker,

to conclude that because of the events of the paths week -- past week we'll see many more victories for freedom in the days and years to come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to honor the career of an eagle scout who is planning for retirement after 17 years of distinguished professional service to the 37 years of distinguished professional service to the boy scouts of america. bruce "trip" mcwilliams will retire as the area four director for the northeast region of the bow scouts of america. bruce received his bachelor degree from montclair state

university. he's a an honor member of the order of the arrow and staff jam worees and countless training events. his career serving america's youth began in 1975 as the district executive in wayne, new jersey. since then he went on to serve as a scout executive in maryland, new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania. trip was then promoted to the northeast reeblingon -- region air four staff in 2001 and area four director in 2008 n all capacities trip has served with great distinction. earning the respect and admiration of all he's served over a remarkable career. congratulations to trip and his devoted wife, madam speaker, i'm honored to recognize a friend and scouting professional which touched the lives of so many youth in his service to scouting. well-done, scouter. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes.

mr. harper: thank you, madam speaker. i am deeply disappointed by president obama's decision to deny transcanada's application to build the keystone x.l. pipeline. i know that many of my colleagues in the house, members of the senate, and citizens across this country share my disappointment and near disbelief. i say near disbelief rather than complete because while an approval of the application made sense to so many, i had a feeling the president would continue down a path of making political decisions instead of decisions based on merit and what is best for our country. much like the knee-jerk reaction and decision to shut down drilling in the gulf of mexico, after the deep water horizon explosion on april 20 of 2010. instead of shutting down the neglect -- negligent parties

involved in the explosion, the president shut down an inspire industry for six months and then it took almost another six months before the first permit was issued. almost a one-year delay that cost thousands of families to lose their jobs. while the president may talk about energy independence, i question whether he understands the role that oil plays in our economy and will continue to play in our nation's energy portfolio. even worse would be if he does understand it is just making political decisions. . even though history shows these types of applications generally take 18 months to approve, the president said that a february 21, 2012 deadline imposed by congress did not give him enough time to properly review this application. the keystone x.l. application was pending twice as long as the normal application.

the president is arguing about not having enough time to approve the project is weak at best. the application was filed more than three years ago and a final decision on whether to let the pipeline go forward was long, long overdue. unfortunately, i believe that the wrong decision has been made. and if he didn't want to approve it for environmental reasons, i wonder if thought was given to the fact that china wants the oil if the united states does not get it. that would mean putting the oil on tankers which would have a more negative impact than in plinse. mr. speaker, the -- pipelines. mr. speaker, the united states needs the keystone x.l. pipeline. the president talked about the need for energy independence. the keystone x.l. could help provide the united states with certainty of almost a million barrels of oil a day and that comes from our friend and largest trading partner, canada, and not the middle east. at a time when the price at the

pump continues to fluctuate in part due to uncertainty in the middle east, i cannot understand how the president justified denying the transport of friendly canadian oil to our gulf coast refineries. you know, when the president took office in january of 2009, did you remember that the price of a gallon of gas, the average price was $1.83 a gallon? on january 23, 2012, a.a.a. reports that the current average is $3.83 a gallon. the record was the highest annual average for a gallon of gasoline ever in our nation's history was set in 2011. a major factor in recent high prices is continued political tension in the middle east and north africa. these incidents have threatened or disrupted huge quantities of oil causing great fear among investors. it's beyond evident that america needs relief. the president has struggled with turning the economy around

since taking office three years ago and his speech is often cincinnatied on jobs. mr. speaker, i hope that the -- is often centered on jobs. mr. speaker, i hope that the denial of keystone x.l., that this application is costing our country tens of thousands of jobs. one demonstrated the tremendous job-creating potential of this project. it's the reason that six major labor unions have signed project labor agreements to construct the pipeline. these are good-paying american jobs that union members are eager to fill. however, instead of issuing the necessary permits to begin construction of the pipeline and putting americans to work, the administration drags its feet for over three years and at the end of that time denied an estimated 120,000 american jobs to provide a way to support their families. pro-business groups like

americans for prosperity and the chamber of commerce supports keystone x.l. pro-labor groups support keystone x.l. because they know it will create jobs. our country needs the keystone x.l. pipeline and we need those jobs. we need cheaper gas at the pump and i'm committed to working towards alternatives to get it started. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, unemployment is still at an all-time high and the high cost of energy is having a significant negative impact on my district's economy as well as on the economy of the entire country. but when president obama had the opportunity to help job creation and lower energy costs, he turned his back on hardworking american taxpayers. and as my colleague from mississippi has just spelled

out, we have just seen the highest energy costs ever in this country last year, and the cost of gasoline itself has more than doubled under this president. president obama's done all he can to stand in the way of businesses that can help get americans back to work. the keystone x.l. pipeline is $7 billion private sector infrastructure project that will create 20,000 jobs with its construction and an estimated 100,000 indirect jobs during the life of its operation. for the three years that president obama's been in office, he's delayed this project for political benefit in order to placate his liberal base. liberals who oppose this project say that these jobs are temporary and somehow of less value. this is not just misguided but insulting. all construction jobs by their essence are temporary. no construction project is permanent.

it's a dangerous precedent these groups are setting by denigrating hardworking americans for the type of work they perform. the president is in full campaign mode. he's more interested in protecting his job than allowing the private sector to create jobs. mr. speaker, we cannot continue to import energy from middle eastern countries. north american lead will -- energy will lead to energy security, lower energy costs and more jobs for americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m.

city the capital of innovation. after hurricane irene, he is followed by terry on economic expansion. you can watch the inauguration of mississippi's new governor. plus, jerry brown from california who said that rumors of california's demise are

greatly exaggerated. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern including the president's speech, republicans response, and your phone calls. live on c-span and c-span radio. on c-span2, watch the president's speech from members with congress. after the address, more from house members and senators. go online for life a video and to add your comments using facebook and twitter at c- span.org. "the chicago tribune" is reporting today that marked kirk underwent surgery today after he suffered a stroke -- mark kirk

underwent surgery today after he suffered a stroke. they are saying that due to his young age and good health, they are very confident the senators recover -- the senator will recover over the weeks ahead. coming up next here on c-span, former white house environmental adviser now heads a group he co- founded called rebuild the dream. it focuses on economic issues. he talked about the role of providing health care and basic services to individuals and how the current health care debate will define the character and value system of the nation. the focus -- it is just over one hour. >> we are about to have the pleasure of hearing the grand finale. [applause] i will take the applause as a positive meaning.

i have the pleasure, and it is an enormous pleasure of introducing the van at jones, the co-founder of the rebuild a dream of movement. you will hear him emphasizing good jobs and economic opportunities. his work is much broader than that. he also, being a very busy man, is involved in many good things. among others, he co-founded the center for human rights. time magazine named him one of the 100 most important people in the world. anyway, we as health care

advocates are, of course, part of the progressive movement. as you'll discover, that broader progressive movement could not have a more elegant voice then van jones. let me just add a couple of personal comments i also wanted to tell you that the broad agenda of which we are part is something that all of us need to be more conscious of these days than before he covers everything from the occupy movement to all the progressive causes that many of us are involved in.

i am personally proud to be and have been for some kind -- for some time one of the van's supporters. you are about to see why. van. [applause] >> thank you. >> they made it dark in here. i hope you all finished eating. in one year from now we'll be back in this room. or a room like it. we will be in one of two scenarios. either the country will have

affirmed its wisdom in moving forward, trying to get a few more doctors, building on the success of the people in this room and across this country, or we will have decided to take a step back. whether or not the heroism that was shown by this white house and people in this room is honored is largely in our hands. what i want to talk about is not the specifics of health care. you know more about that than i do. but the context in which this struggle is taking place. it cannot be the case -- you know, rationally, it cannot be the case if we get more doctors to babies. that cannot be the real issue. it cannot be the case that people are this upset with the

opponents of this progressive movement, this upset because a few more americans might be able to see a doctor when they are sick. there is something else that is going on. what is at stake is, what is the character of our country? who are we as americans? what does it mean to be an american? that is going to be the subtext, the context of every single attack ad. every single debate. every single bar room discussion. every single discussion in the laundromat will be fundamentally about who we're going to be as a country. this is a key issue for us. i get my mind wrapped around it by thinking about my father. my father was born in abject poverty. he was born in memphis tennessee. it was in a community called

orange amount. it was one of the biggest black ghettos in the country before harlem overtook it. his parents were together, but his father died when he was 5 years old. in part, because he could not get good health care. one of the last things my grandfather ever said to my father at five years old, was that i will not be here. i want you to take care of your home little brothers and sisters -- you are the madhouse. my father was 5 years old. as a child growing up years later, whenever we would go back to memphis, everyone would say to my father, oh, willie. how you doing? to me, this made perfectly good sense. at that point, he was old. he was probably 35. [laughter]

it made perfectly good sense to me that they would call my old that old willie. he would walk around at six years old trying to be the father. he was trying to be the man of the house at six years old. they started calling him "old willie" when he was 6. it helped me understand where ron when i found out why he joined the military and got out of orange mound. and then came back and put himself through college. he put his little brother through college. he put a cousin through college. and he put me and my sister through college. nobody has to tell people in our communities about bootstrapping. we are some of the original bootstrap first. we are the original group strappers. my father took some wisdom of

the experience. used to tell me, son, nobody can give you anything. but nobody can stop you from being poor. nobody can give you anything that will stop you from being poor. in admire what you are doing, but keep this in mind. if you give somebody some money, they're still pour in their mind, in their heart, and in the spirit, they will be broke again in a week. every individual has to climb the ladder of poverty. and society has a responsibility, too. society has to make sure there is a ladder for that child to climb. a ladder for the child to climb -- that is where we have been

failing as a country. that is where we have been failing. it has been kicked over by people who have a financial stake in reading the rules and reading the stakes and leaving more and more people out at the bottom. the rug between the latter gets farther and farther spread out. that is fundamentally what is wrong with america. they are going to tell us that we just one equality and redistribution as well. there is nobody in here that is trying to move to north korea. that is not anybody's conversation. what we are saying is that we want people to be able to work hard and get somewhere. now work harder and harder but fall further and further behind. we are old fashioned that way.

we have old fashioned values that when you work hard, you should be able to get something. we should be able to get up in the morning and go to the dignity of the workplace. the respected on the job. come back home with a paycheck. look at child in the eye and you can give that child a better life if you work hard and play by the rules. the problem as yet people who were working the hardest and most honest people are falling further behind in cannot succeed. yet we a people were breaking the rules who had their foot propped up on a desk who have computers, but no matter how lazy they are they cannot fail. they have been declared too big to fail. that is what is wrong.

the only thing that is too big to fail are the middle and working-class families. middle and working-class communities. that is too big to fail. our children's dreams are too big to fail. the american dream is too big to fail. we will do what we have to do this year to make sure it does not fail. to me, that makes us the patriots, the real patriots. when a country is in this level of crisis and change, every issue is just a surface discussion of a deeper issue about the character and identity of the people themselves. who are we as americans? i think this tumult in this country is over the fact the should be able to see a doctor. if you are sick, you should be

able to see a doctor. that should be a low rung on the ladder. the struggle has to do with some people telling us that is a foreign idea, a socialist idea. they always point to the founding. notice how they abuse the constitution and the founding to justify their agenda. we should take upon it. let me suggest to you that we have something to say about our issues in this country. we know a little bit about this country, some of us. my family has been here for

unknowable generations. many of you have marched and gone into neighborhoods with people who talk about his children should be made into janitors. i think we know a little bit about it. many of you have put your life on hold tried to fight for liberty and justice for all in communities that know little about either. i think we might know a little bit about america and might have something to say about that. it might be helpful for us to say something about that while we talk about our issues. america is not just the founding reality. they love to talk about the founders. let's talk about america at the founding. america was born in a contradiction. we have a founding reality that is ugly and unequal.

jefferson said he trembled for his country thinking that god is just. think about enslavement and marks on the republic. think about the way they had fallen short on their higher ideals. he said he trembled for his country. even the founders had heartbreak about the founding reality. thank goodness america is not just a founding reality. it is also our founding dream. the founding dream, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all created equal and that we have a right from the creator to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that is the founding dream. who are we as americans?

americans are a unique people on this earth. every color, class, face, gender, the rainbow people, an imperfect people who have struggled generation after generation to drag the unequal down in reality closer to the beauty of the dream. that is who we are. that is what we do. that is a makes us americans. each generation looks at the reality and the dream and tries to figure out what to do to take another step closer to the dream. the beauty of the last century is that the dream builders, the dream defenders won the last century. we won the last century. if you do not believe me, rewind the tape to 1900. does anybody want to go back to 1900? think about 1900.

women in a secondary status did not have the right to vote. people of color were not even considered human beings. our rights were in the garbage can. the environment is being trashed from coast to coast. trees were being shot down. pollution was without regulation. mother nature was in the garbage. workers never had a day off. there was no such thing as a weekend. there was not one paid a federal holiday. there was no middle class at all, just people working hard and a few people who own everything. children were working in the factories. children and working families were in the garbage can. lesbians and gays did not even have a name. they did not even get a garbage can. [laughter]

that is 1900. some people looked around and said, this looks great. this is wonderful. let's conserve this. [laughter] [applause] thank goodness there were some deeper patriots who looked around. they were appalled. they are aghast. they said that we will never be a perfect nation, but we can be a more perfect union the myths -- than this.

they marched, they rallied, they did sit-ins, strikes, voted, some were beaten, some were jailed. some were murdered. their blood is in the ground of this country. by the year 2000, everything they said that america should be, we were many steps closer to. the statement that we call the american way of 1900, it was not people trying to conserve 1900. they created that. it was the people that wanted progress beyond 1900 that gave us the middle class, the great american invention, the middle class were ordinary people

could build and buy things. they could find pathways of poverty and the middle class. they're all kinds of measures to get us closer to the starting point of equality. they accuse us of being for absolute equality, sharing the same toothbrush. i do not know what they think we want. [laughter] but starting point equality requires real work as a nation to make sure everybody can get to kindergarten, see a doctor, have clean air and water, these things are about making sure every american can pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. they can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. what do we call that great century when the dream builders won the day?

recall that the american century. that is the century that we won where our ideas prevailed. it made us the envy, the hope, and the beacon for all. the dream builders and offenders were willing to stand together. there's a lot of cheap patriotism and gets thrown around. we let them get away with it. we let them set this up as the patriots versus the progressives. it is shocking to me. my father was a deep patriot. it is easy to have the ideology that is all about liberty.

they have turned into a philosophy. they call it libertarianism. i am african-american. you do not have to sell me on liberty. [laughter] i am for it. you had me at hello on that. you do not have to have a whole political party and all of this. but i have two children. i have tried to teach them just one thing. when they learned the pledge of allegiance, they do not stop with the word liberty. they say, "liberty and justice for all." liberty and justice for all, not liberty and justice for all except the gay people, the

immigrants. liberty and justice for all. why is that so fundamental? i have a little edu-ma-cation. my parents were tough on me. i had to read those books. american values cannot be reduced to a single principle. anybody who does so inevitably runs the countries off of the rails. there is the reason we say liberty and justice. if you only care about justice and nothing for individual rights and liberties, you are driving the country in the direction of totalitarianism, government tyranny with no

concern for the individual. we reject that in this country, as well we should. but if you only care about liberty, individual economic liberty and have no compassion or care for justice, you drive the country to corporate tyranny and domination. our liberties are under threat in this country much more from big money trying to by the government and the government itself. i love my friends in the tea party. they say our liberties are under threat. i say, you just figured that out? [laughter] come to my neighborhood. really, you think? they get the puppet and puppet- master relationship wrong. they say the government is trying to take over the economy.

obama, the socialists. "the government is trying to take over the economy." au contraire. the corporations are trying to take over the government. it is the corporations trying to take over the government. [applause] that is the real threat to our liberty. if you tried to reduce all of the american principles down to one single principle, you disable people from defending themselves against the real threat. right now is global corporations masquerading as american corporations that take from this country and do not want to give anything back. i have never seen anything like corporate america right now. they want to be american corporations when is convenient for them.

when is time for them to enforce the fine print on the contract, they want to be will to go in to american court. they do not pay for the american courts. you pay for the american courts, but they are americans. if they have a conflict overseas, then they are american. when they want to hire workers in the united states on those rare occasions, they did not train those workers or teach them out to the. you did through the public schools. then they are americans. if there is some oil contract and the resources are being imperiled, then they are americans. they are americans when it is time to drive the product on the road the paid for. then they are americans. when you ask them to pay taxes or hire an american worker or invest in their own country, surprise, surprise. they want to put their money in

other countries called tax havens. when it is time to hire a worker, they want to do it in another country. think about it. think about that. gimme gimme, but give nothing back. does that sound familiar? corporate america would be the worst boyfriend ever. [laughter] [applause] we have seen this before. am i wrong? [laughter] ask our business community to pay america back in the form of fair wages and taxes -- that is called return on investment.

[applause] if you are an american corporation, you have the best shareholder in the world, the american people. we do everything we can to set you up to succeed. we have a court system for you. we respect your property rights. we make sure you have a trained work force. if he started paying taxes, we could do a better job. if we set you up to succeed and you do not succeed, he should not pay taxes. but if you do succeed, you should be proud. if you do well in america, you should do well by america. that is how our parents and grandparents were. why should we have to beg you to do well by a country that has done well by you? it is a cheap form of patriotism to let them off the

hook and say the country is supposed to serve them that they are not supposed to serve us. it is cheap form of patriotism to say the epa is a job killer. think about that. the epa. what is the epa do? think about this. we fall into this saying we do not know if we can defend epa because the economy is bad. excuse me. the epa keeps americans from from dying.

i do not want to pull out the values card, but the epa has probably saved more american lives in the past 30 years than the department of defense. [applause] think about this. you are mad at the epa? just the mercury rules alone probably save 100,000 american lives every year. if you take out the epa, do not call me a job killer. you are a kid killer. what would happen without the epa? mercury, lead, poison. the epa is holding back poisons to keep americans alive. how many of my children do you want to kill? let me understand your math. how many of my children are you willing to kill for a job? at some point we have to be able to say it is a cheap form of patriotism to have your children sing "america the beautiful,"

but do nothing to defend america's beauty against the oil spillers and the people who want to put poison into our waters and our children's lungs. it is a cheap form of patriotism to sing of america's beauty and then sell it out for a dollar. there is something wrong with that form of patriotism. my problem with these people is not that they are too patriotic. in this country, there is no such thing. my problem is they are not patriotic enough. that is my problem. [applause]

the statue of liberty will be closing to try to fix it up. it is not hard to get there and look at it from across the water. everybody loves to do that. bring the kids. the picture-taking with the statue in the back. [laughter] we love that. you put it on your facebook page. "such a patriot." "i just wanted my children to see some of the greatness of america." [laughter] easy, cheap. zero in on that picture to the base of that statue. "give me your tired,

corporation, huddled masses who yearn to breathe free." how can you be so passionate about the symbol and have such contempt for the values? those two things do not go together. [applause] the color of the skin of a newcomer may change, but our values do not. we are american, and the patriots. send us the folks you do not want and we will turn them into millionaires and artists and give them a chance to be an inspiration to the world.

send us the folks you do not want. we will use their genius inside of the system to lift up the whole world. we have done it for centuries. this is the great challenge we have to stand up for deeper patriotism and speak in these terms. the danger we are in is that you are headed into a century that has new challenges. that is part of why the health care plan is so important to us. there are new challenges in this century. there is a scenario out there, is a dangerous scenario. we've got to use this fight to get ready for it. we could be living in a country very soon that is more diverse,

racially, socially, culturally, religiously diverse, more diverse but less prosperous. you have a situation with more diversity but less prosperity, that is not a recipe for common ground. it can be a recipe for a battleground. we have to take this seriously. we have opponents who will say, you are right. i finally agree with you. you have said something that makes sense to me. you are right. what we should do is kill the diversity. [laughter] i am making stuff up. [laughter]

the worst thing happening to americans is that we're getting too perverse, that it is a weakness instead of our greatest strength. they say to get rid of the immigrants, that it would be perfect if they were not here, but they're still patriots. it is the muslims. they say allah and we say god -- that must be it. or worse, they attack the lesbian and gay community. to me, that is the most bizarre. i cannot get my head wrapped around this. they say we must do something about lesbians and gays. really? why? what are they doing? [laughter] you have not heard? they want to get married!

[laughter] and? [laughter] they want to get married! what is my reason to be concerned about that? well, you see, the gay people start getting married. then the straight people have to get divorced. [laughter] there is only so much marriage in america and they won it for themselves. [laughter] and um -- these are serious people. can't we just print up more

marriage licenses? [laughter] is it that hard to do? i do not think the real problem in america is the more people want to make loving, lasting relationships with each other. look at the kardashians. that is not the main problem. [laughter] do not attack the diversity. the diversity of the country is not our greatest weakness. it is going to be the source of every solution we have. it is because we have every faith, color, class, every kind of human being in the world right here in the united states of america. we get along.

not perfectly. but i have been to countries with two ethnic groups that fight all the time. two. two! ya'll can't make it work with two? [laughter] grade.s in second in california, they of 36 languages in the elementary schools. 36. they do not fight over that. bring out the lego's and they will fight over those, but they do not fight over ethnicity. we're getting better at that. as tough as it is, we're the best in the world at it right now. we make it work. it is a miracle in human history of what we do every day. it is a miracle in human history. [applause]

we have a long way to go. taking steps backward is not going to make it better. protect the diversity. restore the prosperity. that is the way forward. how do you restore the prosperity? one way you might want to restore the prosperity is to stop dumping tons of money, more money than any industrial country in a world -- in the world into a system that does not give us something back. the health care system is a check on the good growth of the country. you know more about the math than i do. i found it on the internet. we spend three times as much

money in our health-care systems as the entire dp of india. -- gdp of india. it is wrong, blank google. but i would not be surprised. the gdp of india is still relatively small. why do our insurance companies need to spend three times as much money to try to keep us from getting a pill as the people in india used to live. there is something wrong. there is this argument we have to have now about what is in the way of us being able to reinvent and renew and rebuild the american dream. when i say the american dream, some people react funny and they should.

i do not mean the american fantasy. do you know what the american fantasy is? everybody is going to be rich. i am going to ride my credit cards out to the suburbs, give me a mcmansion, an x-box and get a big flat screen tv to cover up the holes in my life. i will be happy. that is not the american dream. that is the american fantasy that has led to an american nightmare. that is dying out on its own. there is no defense. but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. the first thing that dr. king said about his dream in that beautiful speech in 1963 -- by

the way, he was 33. did you know that? he was 33 years old -- the march on washington. do not count out young people. you act like martin luther king was 97. [laughter] he was dead at 39. i am 33 -- i am of 43. i would have to call him kiddo. i do not speak or occupy wall street. i will speak up for occupy wall street. [applause] they woke up the country and i hope people will stay awake. do not count out young people. the first thing that young man said about his dream, he said, i have a dream, is a dream deeply rooted in the american dream. he was not talking about consumerism.

he was not talking about commercialism. he was talking about living in a country where everybody counts and everybody's dreams matter. he was talking about living in a country where you did not have to be born with a famous last name or with a lot of money in your parents' bank account to get to be successful. to be a contribution to the world. that should not be reserved for a few. that should be attainable by all. that is worth be spending. we know it is worth it cindy because people were put in the ground, including -- we know it is where the offending because people were putting the ground, including that young man. -- worth defending because people were put in the ground, including that young man. when you think about the kind

of victory -- vitriol that these dream killers want to spew into our body politic and say that is what america is all about. if we believe people are born equal and that is part of what makes us americans, that starting point of the quality should include being able to see a doctor if you are sick. that fundamental commitment to each other that this child that has a lot of money and this child that has none can at least bring a healthy body to can it -- to kindergarten, the starting point of equality. after contributing to a lifetime with a few hiccups along the way that late in life you do not have to worry about losing everything you build up for your family because you got

sick. that you want to have some basic floor, some starting point in the quality so people can rise and fly on their own. is that vision, that dream is to endure and to take another step forward, your heroism has to be grounded in something deeper than an abstract technical policy debate. they are not treating you like it technocrat because you are not. that little -- they are not treating you like a technocrat because you are not. it is a piece of a dream, a piece of a deeper division. is another thread in the fabric of the nation we are becoming.

is another step toward being the land of the free and the home of the brave. we have to be courageous now. we had hope, we had despair under w. we had hope with obama. we had here with the tea party. we have had all the rage and indignation with occupy wall street. now it is time for courage, just her rich, just standing for what we believe, standing for who we are, and to know when we are standing of the shoulders of giants who never gave up on the dream. thank you very much. [applause]

>> in my enthusiasm, i neglected to ask for index cards. we have 15 minutes. we will have a couple of questions from the floor to bide time. it the rest of you would like to send some index cards up, we have 15 minutes. for those of you who want to have further exposure, let me

remind you that at 2:30, van will participate at the annual meeting, which will be in the regency d. you will have a second opportunity, including asking some questions. a-ha. >> he wants me to use this microphone. maybe we could also have the lights. it will be a lot easier to see hands than in the dark. if you will fill out the cards -- in the meantime, who would like to ask the first question? we have some walking microphones. >> hello. >> hello. you talked about standing on the shoulders of giants and patriotism.

the utmost form of patriotism for which people have died is voting. >> you said voting. >> voting. there is so much activity and discussion about voter suppression. could you speak to that? >> yes. how many people are aware that in the equal number of states it would take to elect a president, there are active efforts to make voting harder rather than easier for americans. are you aware of this? this is disgusting. they are geniuses. at a certain point, you have to admire the genius of its. -- of it. they say to themselves, my god. all of these young people taking for obama, 2-1 or obama.

we have to talk to those young people and find out what their issues are. we have to find a way to convince them to be a part of our party. never mind. we will just keep them from voting. it is easier. how do they do it? remember when you were in college and you went to vote. did you have to have a driver's license in the state you went to vote? no. you just brought your college id maybe you had your home state license. they say you cannot bring your college id. you have to have a driver's license in this state. they are doing it all over the place to knock out young people. they are doing a whole other thing to knock out african americans. when you combine the two threats to democracy -- big money and quiet bigotry --

citizens united flooding in big money and this group -- ain't they terrible? it is such a nice name. alec. can alec come by for dinner? they come up with all these terrible ideas and they spread them around. corporations you like to give them the money to do it. isn't that terrible? you give the corporations money and they give alec the money to take away the right to voted. remember the white citizens council? this is like the white citizens council on steroids. they are trying to stop americans for voting and it is wrong. thank you for raising it. >> we have already gotten one of the index cards. ken.

thank you. question, do you think the american dream movement will expand to focus on the occupied movement which has brought about a necessary change on -- in the nation's dialogue to make a real positive, systematic change for all americans? >> first of all, i do not speak or occupy wall street. i speak up for them. just like the student nonviolent coordinating committee. will you stand up? >> i was younger than that. >> i know. i know. i was not going to make you that old. i was going to brag on you for

carrying forward the work. that is what i was going to rat on you for. the student nonviolent coordinating committee, where young people were willing to put their bodies on the line. they occupied lunch counters. they occupied the buses that went down south. some of them were beaten and some of them were killed. what about our great heroes is here who has carried that movement forward. nobody expected those young students who risks their lives to turn around and produce comprehensive legislation to end segregation. we tell these young protesters, sure you are out there protesting. what is your proposal for derivative reform? [laughter] what are your demands, after all? isn't that ignorant? this child has slept outside. on the hard ground.

pepper sprayed. chased around by the police. saying, i would like to have a job. i would like congress not to be for sale. they say, but what are your demands? their job is to start the conversation so that the rest of us can talk about something that makes sense. they have done a great job, but i do not speak for them. what i will say is that they have given up some opportunities to turn some of this energy they have kicked up into power. think about that. they have a lot of energy since october, november, december. no power. when it seapower -- the tea

party had their protests, they turned those protests into some power. they took over a big part of congress. pretty soon, they were holding us all how sit on the debt ceiling. do you know what, if you go to a tea party rally or a protest right now, about as many people as added these two tables will show up. they are not a big protest force. they have a caucus in the house. they have presidential debates that people have to come to. they have turned the protest energy into political power. we have got to do that. the way we do that is to begin to the electionize some of the issues they have talked about, standing up for their right to be free from the student loan oppression they are suffering under. [applause] let's meet just say a few words about this. i am surprised we have been as

silent as we have been in the face of this sort of abuse of our young people. first of all, you have to understand why young people are so mad. why? because they cannot get jobs, we know that. you and i told them to go to college. they did not want to go to college. they said, i can learn anything i want to on the internet. we said, that is not enough. you are going to college. can i have a gap year? no. i want to see the world. you will see the world when you get out of college. we wanted them to go and they went. some did well and some did badly. when they got out, they graduated off of a cliff into

the worst economy since the great depression. they wind up sitting on a couch next to their cousin who has been playing the xbox for four years. and they have debt, they have big debt. they had to get loans because to wish you was going up. not just federal laws, but private loans. the bankers went into congress in 2005 and changed the lock so that you can never go into bankruptcy court with your student loans. federal has always been that way. or private. that means they can never get up from under the obligation. when they miss a payment and they miss another one, the bank has no incentive for working anything out with them. their credit scores are destroyed and they are

unemployable because we told them what to do. that is wrong. i get a bank loan and blow my money in las vegas, i can go into bankruptcy courts and be fine. if you get a stand-alone and go and is it a bit, you are ruined. -- get a loan to go to college, you're ruined. if we talk about an agenda that 99% of americans can agree with, you would not have to have people protesting. are we going to give them something to voted or? that is the question period about this young generation, let me say this. do not underestimate them. they talk funny. they have piercing is. they make up genders.

[laughter] i cannot always relate. they talk with their thumbs if they get mad. [applause] what are you doing, son. i'm having an argument. they are strange. do not underestimate them. the biggest generation we have ever had since the baby boomers, the baby boomers when they hit their teens and twenties, they turn everything around. 1959 looked like "leave it to beaver." unless you're black. "left out beaver." 1959, "leave it to beaver." 1969, totally different country. why? young people got involved.

they broke the back of jim crow. you have a way that big coming out. every color in the skittles bag. it walk around with these ipad and iphones. more competing power on their person then the u.s. government had to put a man on the moon. everyone walking is a technological superpower. they had an interest in making everything we talked about come true. do not underestimate these yougn ng folks. they stood up in 2008 end date history. there was not a landslide in the country except for them. they made it a landslide. they set out in 2010 and made history. the wrong kind. they laid down in the street in 2011, occupy wall street, and made history. standing up, sitting down,

laying down, they make history. do not underestimate the young people. we are going to see a lot from them this year. if you listen to them, they can tell us more about what is wrong and what could be right in this country. the attack on their voting rights and the attacks on african-american voting writes have gone unanswered. that is one edge of the system. the other age is to stop local voting. we have to be able to stand up to both of them and we will be able to get the job done. >> who would like to have the honor of asking the final, brief question? >> do you have any suggestions -- >> use the microphone. >> what are your suggestions to help us move the message about

supporting the affordable care act in the communities, no matter if they are communities of color our communities that are a diverse? how can we build support? >> you are more expert on that than i am. what i know for sure is that the tools that are emerging, both high-tech and high touch, give us an opportunity to do a more effective job. part of what we are doing wrong when it comes to the people want to keep building this dream is that, if we talk to somebody about our issue, health care in this case, green jobs in my case -- if they are not interested in my issue, we code them as "never mind" and we move on. we do not aggregate data.

if we had the kind of movement where all of us were trying to figure out not would you support me, but what you want to support, we could actually feed that information back and we would be much stronger. this is something that i have been talking to leaders about with rebuild the dream. it does not make a lot of sense. unfortunately, progressives are working in our neighborhoods and they get knocked on the door for unions and environmentalists, e-mails from women. at no point do you get the sense that any of these people are talking to each other. i would like to begin to see us -- and part of the reason i put together this contract with the american dream -- is to give us a basis to start cooperating a little better than that. the cooperation for the

american dream has 131,000 people to write a document together. yes, it was hard. we did it on line and in person. the tea party did their contract from america. we did 131,000, triple the tea party. we came up with an agenda for progressive called the contract for the american dream. one of the bullet point is american health care. i guarantee you that is going to create big outcomes for us in terms of power to move your agenda, my agenda, his agenda,

but the whole agenda and the whole country. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] >> the u.s. house is in recess. members are expected to gavel back in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. immediately they will recess until 4:00 when work will start on two bills. we will have more live house coverage when the gavel comes down on c-span.

more live events to tell you about later today. it looked at the influence of super pacs. the sunlight foundation will host the event and you can watch that at 2:15 p.m. eastern live on c-span. marlborough to the white house coverage on the c-span networks. the four remaining candidates will debate tonight and we will assure you that tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m. eastern just before "washington journal." the supreme court unanimously ruled today that police officers cannot use gps devices to track a suspect without first gaining a warrant. the case involved adc -- a d.c. man who receive the life in prison for trafficking. the justices were worried that

ruling in the government's favor would lead to a police state. justice brier said that you could not produce what sounded like 1984. elsewhere, the annual right-to- life rallied is taking place despite the rally. here is a live look at the scene.

>> this is the right to life march going on for the next

several hours. they are making their way to the supreme court. we will continue to follow the march and we will show you the rally in its entirety later. right now, c-span2 as coverage of the rally. the national organization for women is marking today the roe v wade anniversary and we are covering their event later in our scandal, as well. mayors from across the country gathered in washington this past week. up next, the address from white house adviser david plouffe. this is just over 20 minutes. [applause] >> thanks, everyone. i am not going to start by singing al green. only obama can carry that tune.

thanks for inviting me today. the president was in orlando, fla., yesterday. it will make them easier for foreign tourists. this is the kind of action we have taken. we cannot wait. we are scouring the government about what we can do on our air to help improve the government and the country, and something like this seem like a small procedural deal, but it as a big impact. all around the country, in communities often small, where people ram and rom can come and spend money and go about our country, if you are a small business owner, more tourists mean more revenue, and if you are one of the many americans still looking forward, more

revenue could mean more jobs, and for just but everyone in this room, tourist dollars to play a role. we were doing business in many other countries, and that has to stop, and it will. it will help people in communities all around the country get through some of the toughest times that any of us can remember, certainly since the great depression. what is nice about talking to all of you, and i know that members have had a chance to visit with you, you are grounded obviously in the real world, that every decision we make in washington, that your governors make, that you make as mayors, these have direct impact on your constituents in the moment and the kind of cities and towns that are going to be built for your residents in the coming years, so when we talk about investing in education or reforming it, investing in transportation, about creating good, lasting, middle-class jobs, how we can become known for things stamped with those great words tipping made in the

usa," you understand how much this means for people living in the cities. it used to be a lot more about scoring political points. it needs to be more about putting points on the board for you and your communities and the american people. the decisions we make in this city have a real, direct impact, for many of your constituents, it has never been more important that government live up to its responsibilities, and what is happening a lot around the country is that people know if you are living up to your responsibilities. you are having to make tough decisions, state governments, people running businesses, having to make tough decisions, workers, family members. they have weathered this recession and have made adjustments. they have been super responsible, and they want to see that same responsibility out of their institutions, and they certainly need to see more of that out of this city, and that is roughly what we will see in 2012.

the president last month, some of you may have seen his speech he gave in kansas, where he talked about the kind of value he believes. we have to continue to get jobs, create growth, and get the unemployment down. the challenge is how do we have more people in the middle class feel more secure about it and the people that are fighting to get to the middle class, so many of you represent people who were trying to get to the middle class. we have to get to an economy, a government that is focused on that task for the middle class. the speech gave in kansas, i think what is reflected there is what is happening all over the country. for too many people in america,

they're not sure if they're going to be rewarded. it does not matter who you are or where you come from, you will have the same opportunities that people in previous generations have had. that is something where too many americans have come to believe that it is in question. what we're seeing here is wage stagnation has been a problem going back decades. they have been falling further and further behind. on top of that gap, and was exacerbated by the financial crisis. even though people were dealing with wage stagnation, less mobility, you put this over it and it makes the burden of recovery for these people in their recovery even more challenging.

the have been going on for long time, and it will take us a long time to build an america where everyone gets their fair share. we're grated together than we are on our own. we all succeed when everyone plays by the same rules. i think it is true for our economy. that is the kind of america that people all across america want to live in. there are the same rules in place for everybody, they're hard workers just as valued as everybody. if you are not accountable, there will be responses. that is really what we have to build here in america. we know the jobs that will be needed to be created.

we know that we have to have a manufacturing sector here. that is the first time since we have added manufacturing jobs. in communities across america, you are beginning to see in manufacturing renaissance. we need those jobs that pay people $18, $20 so they can thrive. many of them will be in a high- tech manufacturing field. it is you're seeing rising wages in china, there is a window here.

the president had a conference on here a few weeks ago on insourcing. companies can heard talk about the decision they made to bring jobs back. think about it. we have a moment where you are beginning to see more companies make the decision that economically it makes sense for them to stay in america or relocate in america. you are seeing rising wages in china and the cost of business increasing their and in other countries. there is a window. much of that will be in clean energy, health care technology, and things our workers can export around the world. this is a unique moment we have. all over the country, companies are investing. they are bringing back 2000 jobs with ford.

they are shifting production from other countries to michigan, ohio, and missouri. it was announced that after a long absence, general motors is now the no. 1 automaker in the world. we should all be proud of that. [applause] another great example from milwaukee is master lock. they realized their union workers in america were competitive with the workers in china. they're now exporting to china and europe. for the first time in 15 years, the milwaukee complex is running at full capacity. the ceo of the health care i.t. company called galaxies solutions have hired 150 workers. they plan on hiring up to 50. we want to work with you on

this. we will lay out ideas on tuesday. how can we create the atmosphere and incentives to make sure that companies will stay rooted in your communities and add capacity in your community? last year was a frustrating year in washington. one of the really troubling moments was that when the economy was already getting weaker, the economy began to slow into the summer. washington made it worse. it was a self-and lifted wound to our confidence and economy. it has taken a long time to dig out of that. the debt debacle never needs to be repeated in washington again. -- it was a self-inflicted wound to our confidence and

economy. we're heading into an election year. the election is still 10 months away. i am sure any of you do not have the luxury of not focusing on the task at hand every day. there is a sense in washington that it will be hard to get anything done in an election year and we will have to take these problems to 2013. demand of us and congress that is not acceptable. we will have an election. there will be plenty of time to have the to and fro. there is a lot of work to be done now. democrats and republicans at the mayoral level encouraged

congress to continue the tax cut for the middle class. your voices were enormously important. if you have not lifted up her voice, i think taxes would have gone up on everybody. you forced action so that taxes will continue to be cut this year. that will have a profound impact on every middle-class family and businesses. we still have work to do. we need your help to make sure that congress lands the airplane. that was a moment where the party was too late and too messy, but we finally came together. we have to make sure we extend a tax cut. we will continue to make the case that putting teetered back in the classrooms and officers -- putting teachers back in the classrooms and offices back on the streets is the right thing to do. we are in a great competition. the last thing we can be doing

if we are to compete with kids in singapore and beijing is to be shorting them in the classroom. we have to be pushing the accelerator down and not putting the brakes on. that has to be a central mission of this country. we will help you with that. there are job-producing ideas that have had bipartisan support that congress ought to work on. we may not solve all the debates this year. but we can do smart things to help you. we can do things to assist in the manufacturing sector that will help the middle class and small business. we can work on education and reform. we can do some things around immigration reform. it is a long year. it is important you hold washington's feet to the fire.

we have a lot of people hurting and a lot of opportunity. we will pursue every opportunity to work with congress. we have had some success. we have signed trade deals with columbia, panama, and south korea. we will be selling ford and chevy in south korea. we cut taxes at the end of 2010. we repealed don't ask, don't te.. tell.'t we will continue to look for every avenue where we can take action on our own. sometimes that is because there is gridlock. sometimes it is because it is a good idea. if you have ideas, if you have ideas for executive actions we can take, we are all ears. you will have better ideas because you are on the other end of it.

send them our way. we want to ask the customers and partners of the government for their ideas. we will continue all this year and hopefully the next four years after that to look at what we can do to help your community is coming your cities and towns, and help workers. the president will deliver the state of the union address on tuesday. he is working on it as we speak. the president gave a speech in kansas where he talked about the values needed to animate our country and economy, about fair play, and the make or break moment for the middle- class, and how we can create more good jobs and reversed the wage stagnation and have more people getting into the middle

class. it will take a long time. what he will lay out on tuesday is putting flash on the bones. he will play out his blueprint for how we can build an america that is here to last. at the end of the day, that is what people want and what the country needs. it is not a short-term economic moment built on bubbles or financial instruments. we need a durable economy and country with the real sense of the things we need to do in terms of the right education and skills. some of that requires reform. the government -- the president announced he is asking for accountability to have

reorganization authority. that means the president has the ability to give the congress ideas for how to make the government more efficient. we have a government that was built for the middle of the last century. it is not as efficient or strategic as it needs to be. it is not as customer friendly as it needs to be. we have made big improvements using technology. i hope you have seen a difference. we have more to do. we gave ideas last week. if we have the authority, we would do consolidating, and smarter work. we want to reform the government so it is built to provide you and your city is the

kind of government we need in this city. we have become ossified. policies and ideas are important. we will lay that out next week. in terms of skills, education, reforms, and more responsibility. that also needs to be directed here. we have to have big ambitions about the kind of reforms we need to bring to this government so that it is a true partner for you and with the private sector to unleash the power of our people. this will be an important year, not just for what will happen in november. we have an economy that is still challenged. 22 straight months of private sector job growth.

2011 created more jobs than any year going back to 2005. given the deep hole we find ourselves in, it is not enough. we have external challenges. there is turmoil in the middle east. we still have instability in europe. we have the expiration of the bush tax cuts at the end of the year and the question of how we will get $1 trillion more of debt reduction. hopefully this town will do it in a smart way. we cannot do anything here that would be another self-inflicted wound that was slow the economy. we need to do the opposite. in these tough times, what can we do in a collaborative way to play the role the government should to put more acceleration on the economy? the american people have been

remarkable. they have dusted themselves off. they went right back to work. they started new businesses. they've got a new skills. they are saving. some have even had to adjust their dreams. they are doing it without complaint. they need leaders. you are on the front lines every day. this is more about our national leaders. they need to see their leaders are keeping more responsibility -- acting more responsibly. we have big problems that will not be solved easily. there is common ground. i do not think the country wants us to wait until 2013 to make progress on our problems. the people on the ballot would

probably be better served if they can show they will make progress. we look forward to working with you. you always give us great ideas and insights. please keep them coming. we need to be better partners with you. we need to be more innovative. you are all doing innovative things. we want to take a look at all of them. hopefully we can continue to make progress and build an economy that will last for all of our citizens. thank you. [applause] >> many of the initiatives you have charted as priorities for the nation moving forward our initiatives we put together in our common sense agenda in september. they are extending the payroll

tax for the rest of the year. they are investing in infrastructure and school construction. we supported the trade agreements and said we need reforms to promote tourism. you will see virtually all that you mentioned are things that on a bipartisan basis this organization has gotten behind. we are looking for practical solutions. many of these initiatives were things where we went to democratic and republican think tanks to come up with this set of initiatives. they dovetail perfectly with the issues you have raised. we will be with you standing up

with republican and democratic leaders who want to put the nation first. thank you so much. [applause] >> and the house is about to dabble in a labor of legislative business starting at 2:00 and we will join them -- is about to gavel in. this is the rally taking place. and number of representatives were at a rally today. they are marching from the national mall to the supreme court in what has been a rainy day so far. here is a look.

>> we will show you the march and rally in its entirety later. the national organization for women also marred yesterday's roe v wade anniversary. we will be covering that event at 5:00 p.m. eastern later in the schedules, as well. in the background, you can see the right to life marchers making their way to the supreme court. the ap reports that a spokesperson for senator mark hurd had surgery this morning at

to reduce swelling around his brain. he suffered a stroke over the weekend and doctors are confident about his recovery. the u.s. house is about to gavel back in for what we think will be a brief session. at 4:00, they will return for twountil 6:30 p.m. this evening. more live house coverage when the gavel comes down here on c- span in just a couple of moments.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. father conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions in difficult times, with many forces and interests demanding their attention. in these days of the second session is poised to be fully engaged, give wisdom to all the members that they might execute their responsibilities to the

benefit of all americans. bless them, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led today by the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: join with me, please. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise?

does the gentleman ask unanimous consent? mr. johnson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, here's the simple truth. the obama administration is driven by a far left liberal ideology rather than the facts. this administration says it wants to put america back to work, but through its policies is doing the opposite. for example, because of the e.p.a.'s new train wreck of regulation, up to 160 direct jobs will be lost with the accelerated closure of beverly ohio's coal-fired power plant. this train wreck of regulation is the most expensive regulation that the e.p.a. has ever mandated. these costs will ultimately be passed on to hardworking families in the form of higher utility rates. this new disastrous regulation will also cost southern ohio many indirect jobs related to

the coal industry. no matter how you look at it, the president has declared war on the coal industry and the jobs that go with it. it's time for this administration to get serious about creating real jobs, creating an energy policy that puts america first, and end its war on coal. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, today we pause to mark the 39th anniversary of the supreme court ruling of roe vs. wade. no other supreme court case has so directly affected the lives of millions of american people, both those who have been touched by abortion and the millions of unborn children whose lives have been taken since 1973. i and many of my colleagues will continue to speak out on behalf of these unborn children

by supporting legislation such as the life at conception act. mr. palazzo: i'm thankful we have hundreds of thousands of friends in the fight that have gathered in the streets of washington this week. in memory of so many lives lost. i'm especially grateful to the 150 youth with the catholic diocese of biloxi who have made the trip all the way from my district in south mississippi. today i ask my colleagues to join with me and my friends in the march of life in marking this sad day and resolving to put an end to this practice of taking unborn life. i pray as christ did in luke 23:34, i will forgive them for they know not what they do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> to be recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to honor kleeon kim ber --

kimberlin, honored by animal science as the believe stock leader of the year. he's dedicated his life to improving livestock health, received a degree in veterinary medicine from colorado state in 1959 and since that time has made significant contributions to the science field. one of his achievements includes developing tests that contributed to the rad case of berculosis in the dairy industry. mr. gardner: his dedication to animal health started at a very young age when an outbreak of disease occurred on his farm. since that point he's dedicated a lifetime to veterinary medicine, stopping disease outbreaks and advocating prevngs. aside from his successes, he's an avoid cyclist. his business card states he specializes in both sheep health and bicycling. he completed a bike trip in

californiale to maine. his support for agriculture has helped many farmers and ranchers prevent disease and improve our livestock industry. these stories highlight and amazing man and i'm proud to honor him. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: madam speaker, congress now back into session and reconvening hitting a dubious milestone, the national debt is now large-e than the entire economy of the united states. earlier this month "usa today" reported on this and the numbers are daunting. the amount of money the federal government owes to its creditors tops $15.25 trillion. president obama's own budget from last year shows the debt increasing by $1 trillion a year over the next 10 years, topping out at $26 trillion a

decade from now. put into perspective other countries have similar situations, greece, iceland, ireland, italy, japan, the very conindustries responsible for the european debt crisis. at the same time, the administration over the last three years has pushed a very aggressive spending agenda which includes a government takeover of health care, banks, and $800 billion in stimulus funding. now, house republicans have passed well over 20 jobs bills last year that have yet to come up for a vote in the senate. i encourage the other body to take up these pieces of legislation. we've got to get our country back to work. we need to grow more taxpayers not raise taxes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? >> i do seek unanimous consent, madam speaker the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker.

this morning we learned that senator mark kirk suffered a stroke over the weekend. i know all my colleagues here in the house join me in expressing our thoughts and prayers not only to senator kirk but his family, his friends, and his staff for a quick and speedy recovery. as many of you know, i succeeded mark in this body. he served here for 10 years before moving on to the senate. mr. dold: he has been a friend and mentor and is to this day. one thing that i know about mark is that mark is a fighter. mark fought for 10 years to represent the people in the 10th district of illinois. battling human rights violations around the globe, battling for a strong u.s.-israel relationship, battling for the environment, battling for hardworking american taxpayers. as a senator, he's doing that for the people of illinois. as a commander in the united states navy, he's fighting to

protect our borders and our way of life. and today he is fighting to make sure that he can come back to the united states senate to do and work on the things that he holds dear. i join with all of my colleagues in hopes he will be back here shortly. i welcome the opportunity to walk across the aisle down here across the capitol and welcome my friend back. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? >> yes, ma'am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to welcome the tens of thousands of people traveling to washington, d.c., to show their support for the cause of life and give a voice to those who do not have one. since the ruling of roe v. wade 39 years ago, tragically over 50 million abortions have

occurred in this country. there are over 3,500 abortions a day, 146 an hour, and sadly one pregnancy is aboarded every 25 seconds. mr. yoder: each year the march for life gives americans who are heartbroken by these tragedy as time to come together and pray for these lost souls and the families and women hurt by the abortion epidemic in this country. as we renew our efforts to support legislation that will restore the sanctity of life, i thank all these americans who today chose to come together in support of life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. shuster: thank you, madam speaker. it is my privilege to rise today to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of donald schneider, a pioneer who transformed the transportation industry through his ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit.

mr. schneider was chairman emeritus and former president of schneider international, one of the nation's largest trucking companies. with over 1,200 tractors, 3,900 trailers, and thousands and thousands of employees. some of you may recognize those trucks painted in a distinct shade of orange that travel the highways and biways of america. he was a hardworking man that began his career driving a truck, mechanic's assistant at age 18 in his family business, he want to the wharton school of business in philadelphia and began working in the family business in 1961. over three decades mr. schneider expanded his fleet substantially using modern management techniques, acquisition of regional companies to grow his business. and again his leadership pushed schneider national to one of the largest trucking companies in america and one of the most successful, especially after deregulation which occurred in 1980. donald schneider was a great man who never lost his common touch. he insisted on being called by his first name and in 1970 interview was quoted as saying

my job is important but not as important as the driver or the people in the service center. that was what -- that's how he grew his business, caring about the common man, caring about the customer and growing his business to one of the greatest in america. he was a man who served with a true service heart and america has been enriched by his service to this country. i invite all americans to join me in celebrating his life. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00 p.m. today. >> we are expecting them back at 4:00 p.m. eastern for work on a couple of suspension non- controversial bills. those postponed until 6:30 p.m. this evening. we will have the house when they

return live here on c-span. now, live to an event looking at the influence of so-called super pacs who are allowed to advocate on behalf of candidates and positions during elections. this event is just about to get under way.

>> good afternoon. let's try this again. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> welcome to this conversation about super pacs. as everyone from comedians to candidates know, super pacs have changed the relationship between money and politics. this year alone they spent at

least $33.2 million as of noon today and raised even larger, all the currently on loan amount, some from original boehner as we will not able to identify. the focus today is on what the public knows and should know about super pac activities. we are going to look into the legal and policy implications of dark money flowing in a limited amounts into presidential and congressional elections, with particular attention to where more transparency is needed. today's event is hosted by the advisory committee of transparency, a project of the sunlight foundation. i would also like to thank the cochairs of for giving us this room. and i would like to thank c-span for coming and broadcasting this life. if you would like to join in if you are watching on tv, you go to twitter #super pacact.

i should disclose the sunlight foundation has disclosed a draft bill called the super pac act, not related to the twitter, which would tighten disclosure requirements. you are invited to comment on publicmarkup.org. and you can see reporting on super pacs at some lightfoundation.com/super pacs for moving on to our experts -- the mars candy from university -- new york university school of law. we have eliza newlin carney, staff writer for "roll call" and she covers lobbying and influence. and i have one good authority that he coined the term super pac. >> that is correct. >> to my immediate left. pretty cool, by the way. paul ryan, fcc program director

and associate legal counsel at campaign legal center. all the way to my left is allen dickerson, interim director and -- more information is developed -- located, and i am daniel schuman, policy council of the sunlight foundation and director of advisory committee on transparency. i have asked each panelist of about different aspects of super pacs and i will turn first to eliza newlin carney to talk about what is available at the public record, what is absent and how the information available affects the stories. >> thank you for the sunlight foundation are having this event. in the movie "all the president's men" the character known as deep throat tells carl woodward and bernstein to follow the money. even though it was not a line from the book, something a screen writer wrote, it became a rallying cry of generations of

people care about transparency and accountability. but i think it is fair to say it is more difficult now to follow the money as it once might have been. a number of reasons. the truth is, transparency has been eroding for some time now. not just because of the citizens united ruling. my own view is that the greatest threat to transparency, if you can call it, is the increased activism and political engagement of nonprofit groups. as i am sure you guys know, the internal revenue service does not require nonprofits to disclose the source of their spending. there are minimal disclosure and reporting requirements. that is probably for very good reasons. it dates all the way back to the civil-rights era when the irs wanted to protect groups active in issues like civil rights and protect the anonymity of their donors. but nonetheless, beginning with the 527 organizations in 2004, we have seen millions and

millions of dollars flow through non-profit groups of different types. to be spent in arguably campaign-oriented fashion. 527 in groups did disclose everything to the irs, so eventually use all the money and where it came from. would the advent of super pacs, i would argue there are a number of new transparency challenges that have been presented. it prevents special transparency problems for three reasons. one is the ftc disclosure regulations are arguably incomplete -- fec disclosure regulations. to some degree fec basically said unless a donor earmarks a contribution for a particular campaign expenditure, the organization, super pac, this not have the obligation to record that. so, you could theoretically have a donor give money to a group for overhead and say this was not really for a specific ad.

and so, we, the members of the public, would not necessarily know who founded the group even if a lot of the money went to a particular campaign ad. the latest crop of super pacs have found ways to at least delay reporting their receipts at key junctures. a great number of them -- excuse me, i want to say hi to mimi. >> hello. >> welcome. >> the super pacs, many of them have decided that instead of reporting on a quarterly basis, they will go to monthly reporting. having formed themselves -- which counterintuitive late meant less disclosure right on the eve of these very important early gop primaries. because when you disclose quarterly, you have to do a pre- primary report. if you disclose monthly, you do

not have to do that. going monthly they will now disclosed january 31, and lo and behold, a great many primaries will be done by then. that is a challenge. at the third is the use of nonprofits. a number of super pacs have established affiliated nonprofits. the leading example right now is the crossroads operation. there is a super pac known as american crossroads which has an affiliated non-profit of 501c 4 social where -- social welfare group, and these groups together, it is predicted they will raise and spend on the order of $240 million in the collection, actually twice as much as they would be spending originally. my guess is a pretty good chunk, maybe half or more, is going to go through the nonprofits. which means -- i should never say never because journalists have been pretty good finding out the source of many of these

donors and donations, but nevertheless, it is a lot more challenging and not immediately evident. there is another trend, which is that some super pacs have been accepting donations from nonprofits. so, even if the super pac discloses and says here are our donors, and one of the donors of x million dollars is this non- profit group, you still cannot know who founded the nonprofit. that is really the third transparency challenge. so, it is not as though following the money is impossible but it is a lot more challenging than it used to be. i do want to slightly but some of the election lawyers i talk to on the eve of citizens united -- because i would raise questions around transparency and that was frequently told super pacs disclose everything -- and i am just here to say, conventional political action committee, every dollar in and every dollar out, you are a journalist, you can go and look at.

that is not the case of super pacs, at least not now. with that, i will pass it on to mimi. >> again, apologies. obviously, most of our conversation today is forward- looking. the very important questions super pacs have raised about whether they should be regulated, how they should be regulated, and, in fact, whether basic assumptions underlying our campaign finance system makes any sense. but before we can fully grapple with these questions, i am here to push us back a little bit and look behind us and make sure we all understand where these super pacs came from, the legal theories and assumptions underlying them. and so, i am going to give you a little bit of a tale, it will

not be too long. if things actually started in 1976 with the supreme court said that -- decision. buckley v. vallejo. even though the decision is someone dated the main pillar remains the law today and there are three points particularly important for the instant discussion. first, the buckley court found that because money is needed for most forms of mass communication, restrictions on political spending should be heavily scrutinized just like restrictions on pure speech. it is important to note, this is not actually the same thing as saying money is speech -- although that is the shorthand that has come from the decision. but it has the same practical effect, meaning that the government must have a very, very good reason to regulate political spending.

the court in buckley then went on to decide that preventing corruption is basically the only very, very good reason the government can put forward to limit political spending. finally, the court decided, without citing to any evidence are really talking much about the realities of political campaigns, the buckley court decided that direct contributions to candidates pose a much greater risk of political corruption then independent spending that is meant to benefit the candidate. and the court specifically said -- and i will quote the butler decision for a second that "the absence of arrangement and coronation of expenditure but the candidate not only undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate but also alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for commitments from the candidate."

with that reasoning, the book record of how the contribution limits, limits on direct contributions to candidates, but struck down limits on how much an individual could spend to benefit a candidates. fast forward to 2010 and the citizens united decision. so, this decision, as everyone in this room surely knows, is best known for its holding. namely that it is unconstitutional to prohibit corporations from using general treasury funds for electioneering. the court, however, also discussed independent spending. an aspect of the decision that is more frequently overlooked. in the citizens united court, in fact, it expanded the logic of buckley significantly. and it proclaims, again, without looking at any factual evidence, that truly non-coordinated

expenditures "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." and so, in other words, to give a concrete example, this is the same as saying that multimillion-dollar campaign ad blitz funded by, say, bp oil to benefit members of the energy and commerce committee does not include any sort of threat of political corruption. so long as bp it decides to spend the money it without consulting with the candidates. with this, however, the court assumes that there was a robust transparency that would also act as a mechanism to prevent corruption. three months after citizens united was decided -- excuse me, two months after citizens united was decided, the d.c. court of appeals decided in a case called -- a promise, i am getting to the point.

the big question was presented. the plaintiffs in that case said, i am a political action committee. i only want to spend money on independent expenditures. i am not going to coordinate under the campaign finance rules with any particular candidate. therefore, it is unconstitutional for the government to still restrict the money coming into my organization. there is actually -- there is no benefit to restrict the money coming in if the money coming out is per se, non-correcting. the courts agreed and brought the limits to contributions to these types pacs aside. the fec created a new category of entities. he might have heard this term already.

the independent expenditure only multi candidate non-connected pac, which obviously is a mouthful and i believe was recoined my friend super pac. >> now you know why i came out with the term. >> i will let us move on to the other panelists. from that creation story, as it is, i just want to underscore 3 particularly troubling assumptions that super pacs are based upon. what is this idea that independent expenditures are not correcting. i mean, this notion is quite frankly, ludicrous, to anybody who has ever dealt with the realities of our political system. i mean, it delays all logic that an individual could give $5

million to buy closely affiliated super pac -- i know all about it -- that an infusion of money is given to me at a critical moment in my campaign and necessary for me to achieve a key win. it is crazy to think i will not feel indebted to that individual in some way. the second policy is this notion that coronation rules are sufficient to prevent true coordination the way you and i understand it. they are not sufficient. and finally, as eliza highlighted, the third fallacy is the idea that the current disclosure regime is sufficient to capture this new influx of political money. i am going to end at the last trading that -- stephen colbert, have you guys talked about him

yet? ? colbert of -- stephen colbert has been illustrating ridiculous aspects by creating a super pac, an affiliated 501c maine colbert -- to accept a mission that do not have been disclosed and can be shifted. with that rather sad tale, i will turn it to somebody else. >> hopefully you can -- i did not know if offer a ray of hope but hopefully explains some of the concerns. we should mention colbert does not have a super pac. >> definitely not a warning.

>> paul? >> i will talk a little bit about the broader legal concerns at play talking about transparency. as mimi and eliza explain, one of the major things coming out of citizens united was a declaration by the supreme court, five justices, that independent expenditure is do not correct. but one of the promises made by the court -- promise might be too strong a word -- but one of the suggestions is that disclosure and transparency would be a anecdote to any -- antidote to any corruption by corporate, and by extension, union money coming into the election system. eight of the nine justices signed on to a section of the opinion that stated, for example, a campaign finance system that spares expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today. later in the same aircraft -- with the advent of the internet, from disclosure of expenditures, provide shareholders and

citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their position and supporters. skipping ahead to the end of the same paragraph -- the first amendment protect 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 to different speeches -- speakers and messages. eight of the nine strongly stood behind disclosure. not the first time. in fact, eight of the nine justices have been strongly behind disclosure and all of the court's recent disclosure does related decisions. eight out of the nine justices in 2003, mcconnell commission, that upheld the campaign reform act and also stood firmly behind us with a pretty the only justice who has not supported disclosure is justice thomas. and also very recently in a case out of the state of washington, which was not pertaining to

disclosure money in elections but pertaining to disclosure of the identities of those who signed petitions to get measures on ballots, in that case, it out of the nine justices again stood behind disclosure and upheld the law. i want to read you a short passage from justice scalia's concurring opinion in the decision because it is perhaps the most strongly worded endorsement of disclosure that i have heard, from a supreme court justice. he wrote "laws against threats and intimidation and harsh criticism short of unlawful action the price people have been willing to pay for self governance, requiring people to stand up on public for the political ax, called the specific coverage without which our democracy is doomed. for my part i did not look forward in a society which, thanks to the supreme court, campaigns anonymously and even exercise director mark receive hidden from public scrutiny and protected from accountability of criticism. this does not resemble the home

of the great." that is a the legal backdrop. it's very consistent eight- justice majority on the supreme court, behind transparency and disclosure. as eliza explain, very accurately, we have a major deficit of disclosure in this year's election. why is that the case? she touched on the main points. one is that while it indeed is true that super pacs have to disclose all the money coming in, the entire universe of possible and legal donors to these pacs change with citizens united, and speech now, more specifically, coming a few months later, so for the first time it that in -- indicated it became illegal for entities, groups, corporations, to make unlimited contributions to these super pacs. what we might see at the end of the month when most of the super pacs that have been created have to file a first comprehensive report is filing of reports that state that a particular super pac received $1 million

from americans for apple pie. and that is made possible by citizens united combined with speech now. prior to these decisions, corporate entities like americans for apple pie, hypothetical 501. c4 it would be illegal to contribute. now they can contribute and that is all that has been disclosed because 501.c4 themselves and not have to disclose where they get their money. unless the donor is foolish enough to specifically designate their contribution to that c4 for the purpose of electioneering ads or independent expenditures. this particular deficit and disclosure, the fact that c41 in a collection hearing -- only when the donor specifically dedicate their money, that the

very dysfunctional and completely gridlock election system. there are players that have gone up to this point. the fec has played a big role, and the supreme court, despite promises we will have disclosure and it will prevent corruption and allow voters to make informed decisions and allow voters to hold corporations accountable, i don't think we are going to have that much information about the true source of the money going to these super pacs, even though they nominally it disclosed the money they raise and spend. i just want to mention a couple of possible ways to get at this problem. and before doing so, i will also mention that there is a countervailing interest here, public interest, that i am confident that allen will talk more about. it is indeed true that the supreme court has said over the decades in the concept of disclosure cases that if a particular donor to a political cause would suffer threats, harassment, or reprisals, as a result of them being disclosed,

they should be exempt from having their names disclosed. but this is an exemption from disclosure a bald in the context of the socialist workers party, naacp -- we are talking about extreme violence being -- people being victims of extreme violence and also -- also discrimination and threats of reprisals at the hands of the government itself. we will probably hear more about that. but a brief mention of some of the ways that the new super pac disclosure act, that the sunlight foundation has just announced last week, very similar to provisions that were in the disclose act that passed the house but failed the cloture vote in the senate in 2010. one of the ways they would get at what might referred to as the russian dog problem saying, yes, the super pac of the closing but they're getting money from another broke and we did not know where the money came from that went into that group. in this new model, super pac disclosure act, and in the

discos active that nearly failed to pass, enactment, there were new concepts that would have been or could be in the near future -- and headed into the law. that is to say build in some presumptions that if someone gives money to the spender and either that spender solicited the money, specifically telling the donor they would use it to make independent expenditures, electioneering communications, that boehner should be disclosed. if there is substantial discussion between the spender and donor, the true source of the funds, about the fact that money would be used for election at, that money should be disclosed. if the donor had knowledge money was going to be used by the standard for political ads, that the owner should be disclosed. finally, if the recipient of the money that is making these expenditures, if they have made substantial expenditures in past election cycle that would put

the donor on notice the money will likely be used again for expenditures, political and spinach is, then that the owner should be disclosed. those are some concepts that are not an hour laws but should be considered to be put into our disclosure laws. >> thank you so much. allen with a slightly different perspective. >> this is why i went to law school. i would use this one bid i will be playing the role of the loyal opposition today. already some much of it. i have a half page of notes of why it is the case but frankel

-- thankfully my co-panelists demonstrated super pacs have the exact same reporting requirements as normal ones. fairly substantial. i was not one to discuss these off the bat but since that is the direction this conversation is going, i will briefly pushed back. we have not yet seen at the russian doll problem. you are right, it might be at the end of this month we find out there are hundreds of millions of dollars just swirling out there. i find that extremely unlikely for a few reasons. mostly just economic. the fact of the matter is a c4 can spend money on political advocacy -- but at a minimum they cannot spend more than 50% of what they are actually taking in on and and the nation's and things of that nature. so, anyone who wants anonymity badly enough to take a 50% cut right off the top of the contribution, i just don't see that happening. second of all, and the of the money that is not spend actually is taxed. generally the money that is handled by c4 as non-taxable

income, contribution might be under a gift tax. but if you are spending 49%, as a worst-case scenario, of your c4 the nation as political at the same money, all of that is taxable. again, another hair cut coming off on top of the contribution. an extraordinarily inefficient way of influencing politics if that is what you are trying to do. i should also point out that a lot of the c4's -- i think people see them as shadow organizations like americans for apple pie, who are terrible people, let me tell you. but it is nra, sierra club, most of the people you would think as major advocacy organizations as c4's. but i think you have to keep in mind a couple of things -- one, a lot of the people who are c4 's jeter of the not make fortunes from billionaire

contributions. they take donations from a large number of people and they reflect a reasonable grassroots approach. so i think painting c4's as an enemy in this year's election is a mistake. i may be proved wrong, as i said, because there is so much disclosure. in england today i think it is very unlikely we will see all of us funneling of money through c4's. that is my shield. they're four separate people to rebut me. let me give you my overall view of how disclosure should work. i think this is a lot of what the supreme court had in mind. i tend to take issue with the idea that the supreme court said, here is our ruling on a major first amendment case but we really do not know what we are talking about with disclosure. citizens ninth and had an excess of briefs from everybody and their mother -- citizens united had amicus briefs from everyone and their mother. i did not think the supreme court was uninformed talking

about disclosure. they did not suggest particular changes, that future cases would turn on those enactments, and i am not sure it impacts the constitutionality of any sort of legislation. i would tend to think, and i am sure you all would agree, that most of the disclose suggestions brought to congress would possibly -- probably pass constitutional muster but it does not make it a good idea. we should not read the supreme court's opinion as saying, what you guys need to do is pass a new law and disclosure. the case is basically saying there is a lot of the school is out there and that is out of r.c. deals with the problems. an alternative view. in my view, it is a question of who should be disclosing a contributions. in my view, that should be the person controlling the content. this idea that will ever at any point in your entire chain of funding might have given a dollar, i think, is dangerous. a lot of people say, look, the chamber of commerce spends $30 million in 2010 and letson. we want to know precisely the

membership is if you give them the money. if you are going to go that direction yet to be consistent and say the nra also spends money and we should get their membership list. i think that sort of approach would pose great constitutional problems. and i think that -- i look forward -- to anyone in this table. as far as what is disclosed, this is a related issue. a colleague of mine i think that a very good idea, which is to take the dalbert standard and use it as a starting point. what it says broadly -- and trust me, you do not want to get into the details -- is information being brought in as expert testimony if it is enlightening to the jury in some way. i think it is a reasonable standard. i think there is a real danger we are giving all sorts of information clogging the tubes which no one will look up and not relevant to anyone's vote and just a burden on the people who have to do the disclosing. for instance, right now, the

pac/slink super pac disclosure limit is 200 -- $200. i cannot see how that can be considered a corrupting amount of money given the scale of politics in this country and i am not sure who has benefited being able to look up the name and address an employer of somebody who gave $200. i think that is frankly junk that is out there in the world, and people can look it up, but it does not really move anything, change any votes. it is not relevant to any of the standards the supreme court has put out there. as for when, this is the toughest one from my view, my side. i do see the point -- we had the election in iowa, and we are not going to know who is funding these ads after the straw poll and primary, whatever. that is a fair point. i wonder how many people who say we need to have -- disclosure

act to remove the word for a political committee or campaign. i am in a room of politician types. who has worked in the campaign? who did the filing work? none of you. that is not helpful for me. it really is an extremely difficult and burdensome process. i think the reasonableness of a 24-48-hour window, we do with expenditures, is manifest. i am not entirely clear on how you would go about getting around the problem -- spending money or taking in money the day before the election and then turn around in five minutes and posted on line. it does not strike me as a way you run a business or organization. similarly -- and i think this is almost as important -- you cannot only disclosing your donors but also your spending. you disclose your spending a moment it becomes an obligation. if you buy an ad and it will air a day before the election, you disclose it did the day you bought it, not the day before the election. the likelihood it will end up on

a report. , and gives money the day before the election, the money did not go to the ad that was being aired that day. the money it was going to go into another election. continuing forward. i think in practice it is less of a concern than people think it is. adding more of that spending is picked up that sort of the rhetoric would lead you to believe. but i am sure we will discuss that in some detail. finally, the question of where you disclosed. i am all for online disclosure. i think not having searchable databases, and having these terrible pdf's is horrid and there is no excuse for that given the amount we spend on all sorts of other ridiculous things. so, i definitely think it is common ground. we are probably not going to agree -- and this came up in the disclose act, and in the bill -- the advertisement itself.

you know the stand by your add language, where i am allen dickerson and money for dogcatcher and i approve of this message. maybe that has a certain role. i think in the area of independent expenditures it is less hopeful. just for a few reasons. one is saying, i am a candidate and approve this, it has content. i am crossroads gps i approve this, the not tell anyone anything, which the next step -- you include that. and this is an actual example from massachusetts. here is the organization who approved it. i am the general counsel for chief executive officer or prison. and this is my name. and i approved it. and here are our top 5 donors. i do not know how you are supposed to fit it into a 15- second radio ad or 30-second tv spot. unless you get the micro-machine gun show up and say it fast or none of the information is conveyed. you are taking half of your air time that you paid for that is

protected first amendment activity and taking it right off the top, because you will put in all the information that will probably not change a single person's vote in the commonwealth of massachusetts. i didn't look forward to the constitutional challenge to that both there and other localities -- i definitely look forward to the constitutional challenge. it would immediately make it into a case before the d.c. circuit's -- d.c. circuit, and it would also tie up a lot of people's hard-earned money. actually an entire page of commons and all of your stuff -- but i will wait. >> thank you so much. so, all four of you have raised important issues. of course, we will get questions from the audience in a bid as well. i want to pick up on one thing that allen was saying, which is, with the information not being disclosed, does anybody look at it as a valuable? or is it just a burden? i think i will start from eli --

with eliza, a reporter's perspective -- trolling through information, looking for stories -- please, talk. >> i probably spend a lot more time than i should looking through a campaign finance documents. i do want to acknowledge alan's point about nonprofits, and it would be wrong to send that -- at least i think nonprofits are the enemy. i think it is just a statement of fact that there is no disclosure are around nonprofits. talking about disclosure, we have to of knowledge that. and the also touched on an important point is when you go into requiring disclosure from nonprofits you are in a difficult and controversial area. there may be an argument, what we really need to do is get the irs being more aggressive saying to nonprofits, if you spend all of your money on campaigns, you are really not a tax-exempt group anymore. this to go to the question of disclosure and why it is useful to people like me, i really

don't think it is junk disclosure. you would be amazed how useful it is. how useful it is to be able to look at the reports to see who the treasurer is, to call the treasure, you cannot call the donors. even though disclosure that is there is not that comprehensive. a lot of times the place of unemployment is not listed. an amazing number of campaign finance reports that has 0000 -- like they found the report and there is no money. and a letter from the public record from the fec saying we request and the nation. an amazing amount of junk disclosure in the sense that it is not actual disclosure. but i think in the internet age, i really am a little hard pressed to see why it is so hard. and i would say from a legislative point of view -- and i want to say quite clearly that tois not "roll call's" call endorse legislation but to report on it. but to the extent that i have any kind of argument on the legislative front, if it is not

broken, don't try to fix it. don't try to fix what is not broken. and what i think is not broken is the current disclosure regime actually for political action committees. we are sitting here talking about all of these people knocking themselves out to avoid disclosure. there will always be people out there like that. but there are an amazing number of players who really want to just play by the rules. their whole thing is, just tell me what the rules are and let me follow them. so, if you are going to write legislation, i think there is a strong argument for keeping it pretty simple. i've been one of the reasons last year's disclosure act ran into trouble is it was a pretty complicated bill. keep it simple -- a symbol vehicle for people who've been not feel like using non-profit or super pacs and just want to spend campaign money the old- fashioned way, through political action committees. that is one thing i would not get rid of and i don't think it is junk disclosure. >> an additional point, one

question that was raised was what was going on at the state level. maybe mimi you can talk about that a little bit. >> sure. that is an incredibly hard question to answer because the states are all over the map. to tell you the truth, it can be wildly difficult. and i am sitting as an attorney who fields calls from state advocates around the country, from state lawmakers, asking questions about policy. and for me, it is extremely complicated actually to get through the various web of laws and all the different states. and i think it -- i understand it is extremely complicated for groups on the ground trying to comply. i guess i will say three main trends we are seeing and one recommendation. trends -- many, many states, i

think, found themselves flatfooted after citizens united. not everywhere, but a perception at least among many state lawmakers that the rules of the game were changed. there is a lot more money coming in in new ways, and their disclosure regime is not equipped for it at all. some of that is a correct perception, citizens united did change rules. some of it is just evolution in political campaigning, the natural course. but regardless, there has been -- i think there is a sense of urgency certainly in many states to enact new disclosure regimes and strengthening the existing laws. there has also been a push and a lot of places to bring things online, which i can agree with everybody on the table that it is a -- i mean, in a situation of campaign finance and voting and many other areas of the

laws -- automating, processes, getting things online, at actually attends -- tends to be more efficient and there are all sorts of benefits. a recommendation, but -- and , as gets to eliza's point struggle a lot with lawmakers and the state level that has the campaign finance disclosure bill that are frankly extremely it is difficult to know what to do about that, because i understand many of these people are working with very different staff and they are not experts in the field, and there are a lot of barriers. but i completely agree with what many people have said. one of the best things you can do as a policy maker is think about ways to achieve your policy goals that are straightforward, with clear-cut rules that are easy for everybody to understand. and then also have some sort of

enforcement mechanism, which is something people tend to overlook. >> i would like to ask the two gentleman, one of the issues that was raised a couple of times, in the opening remarks, has to do with coordinations and the appearance or actuality of corruption. there was a " that the dangerous and the danger of supertax is to favor the impact of large super pac contributors. large contribution to create your the actuality or the appearance of corruption, they may feel indebted to the people who are making the donations. at the same time, we see from the super pac side that many of them are being run by close associates of current candice. two examples, just to be

evenhanded, there is a major super pac fort mitt romney run by three of his age from the 2008 campaign. looking at mr. gingrich, his former spokesman is helping to run it. he said "we are new's super pak. we take our marching orders -- i do what newt tells me through the media, and it is always within the conference of law." -- within the confines of law." it seems like it certainly accretes indeed creates the appearance of a quid pro quo. whether the court nation rules are real, whether the corruption or appearance of corruption is answer is yes,he engin what is the proper response? >> if you go back in read

citizens united, which is good to do be have about 12 extra hours on your hand, one of the concerns is the fact that you need a bright line rule. if you don't say these people get to speak in these people don't, or these people get to use this type of vehicle. two things happen. one is that everyone goes around being scared to death of a federal investigation, or they have to hire one of us. >> you can speak for yourself on that. >> don't worry, i am pro bono. what one lawyer at an unreasonable amount money, you have to worry about these varying in greece. this is not a question of a nice, byner thing. right now the rule is, you contribute to a super pac, and does it take on infinite

expenditure? it is relatively straight forward under the current law. you are done, you pack up and go home. if the standard is, how close is too close for the candidate? is jonathan's father to close? is newt gingrich's former campaign manager to close? it is something that the citizens united majority was concerned about. part of what i am saying is that i don't know, because there's a nice, bright line in the current law that says as long as it is not coordinated, meaning that in tibet some of the actual spending of money you did not discuss x and y, then your fine.

>> there's a recent decision which upheld the government's power to bar contributions up from nonresident aliens. you can distinguish between one -- between people who are domestic and foreign, but then you have corporations that own parts of domestic corporations, and as bright line rule is being really helpful, it get smeared all over the table. as you discussed it, is it really a question that congress with, and makeing ye that kind of determination, as opposed to saying this is too much, to close or not close enough. that is why you have a regulatory process to make those decisions in the first place the people know what they are supposed to do. >> that is one of the reasons i think the fcc's rulemaking is so

broken. when you are talking about corporations, the preliminary debate is an interesting one, but i do see a difference. i agree with brad, not merely because i work for him. there is this idea, and citizens united, everyone says one of the big interests is that american citizens have a right to be informed by the broad range of views, including the corporations that are a big part of the economy. a lot of people say fine, what is the difference. if the right is held by the american people as voters, why should they not be interested in the opinions of the chinese government. it is because they take the " out of context. what the says -- what thecu says is you have the right to hear from everyone who reside within the community. this is a very old idea, where

we ought to sit there and talk amongst ourselves and people come together in opinion as a community. i don't find the concept weird that we are excluding the reduced of the chinese are the russian government. we do this all the time, whether you have to fall with the sec. we do it for tax purposes, for customs purposes, whether or not you are i.p. address falls under that. these are questions for people who make more than election lawyers. they have been fighting over it for decades. if you into it be -- if you went to any reputable law fora firm, you'll get a pretty solid answer. i take your point on needing a bright line rule, but what about this? you are asking a question of corporate law. i think there is an answer in

corporate law. >> one of the things i have found to be infinitely frustrating since the birth of the super pacs is consistent misreporting in the press of some notion, creating the impression that super pacs have to be independent from candidates. the law does not require thatak. llen alluded to that -- the lot does not require that. they cannot create discreet, specific expenditures with candidates, and that rule is, in my view, will with some resizable holes. another federal law says super pacs cannot solicit a limited contributions, and for reasons i will get into in a second, also very weak and modest provision. they are the only two provisions

i know that constrain the relationships super pac betweens and candidates. the cannot cornet on certain expenditures in the cannot solicit unlimited contributions under rule that is pretty weak. it is week because the federal election commission ruled last year that it cannot -- a candidate attending in speaking in being a featured guest at a fund-raising event does not constitute a solicitation. it is perfectly legal we have seen mitt romney showing up at a fund-raising event for restore our future. we have this notion built-in, don't worry america, this money is being spent independently of candidates, so it cannot corrupt the candidate. then you have mitt romney creating -- appearing at an event that is creating contributions and making comments to the press that he perceives those contributions as being made to him, which is another anecdote that gets to

the notion that we don't have a russian doll problem yet, but before i tell you that brief anecdotes, i want to talk about coronation rules for a second. -- about coronation rules -- coordination rules. while this is a blackout period of 120 days for a former employee of a candidate to go to work for a super pac, that provision does not apply if or unless that individual conveys to the super pac information that is material to the creation of a specific ad, and that inflation is not obtained from a publicly available source like the candidates website. to some degree there is a revolving door provision, but it is very modest in its application. allen made a remark that we don't have russian doll problem yet. this ties into some comments

mitt romney has made to the press about a million dollar the owner, from one of his friends. there were few super pacs in the cycle when the last comprehensive reports were due to be filed on july the 21, 2011. what a journalist fine when they began combing through the reports? three separate $1 million corporate -- contributions from corporations no one had ever heard of. one had been created last spring and made a million dollar contribution to restore our future in the spring, and that it was dissolved in july. the reporters dug-in and found out was associated -- the report could not find any information other than a manhattan address that was shared with the same building that the bain capitol office was then. we filed a complaint saying we don't know what is going on, but it looks shady and it looks like it may violate another federal

law that prohibits making a contribution in the name of another. what we speculated was that there was a human out there behind his corporate shell and then made a million-dollar corp. to this corporate shell. the classic russian dog problem, may or may not be prosecuted as a violation of the law. the fcc has a weak track record of enforcing federal law. i wake up on saturday morning and sometime in the friday night or saturday morning, a human being important said sorry, that was me. i believe it was the next day that mitt romney was on the campaign trail and he was asked about it. he said no harm, no foul, he is an old friend of mine, he gave me a million dollars, no problem, moving on. he had not given a million dollars to mitt romney, he had given it to restore our future. he had not given it its -- in

his own name. that is a russian doll problem. that demonstrates there is a russian doll problem, in my view, but these candidates who are supposed to be living and existing independently of these super pacs% these super pacs as being their own money. it poses just as much from a corruption for democracy as if it were legal for not only -- for an actual business corporation to cut a million- dollar check directly to an individual who may be the next president of this country. >> and is wanted to dovetail on that, to go back to something allen said. it is undoubtedly true that there are many fabulous 501c4's.

pick your favorite. many of them are funded by a lots of small donations. i don't think many of us at this table would claim that to be a problem. the bigger problem is when c4's are used to shield these corporate entities or other rich individuals. i think the chamber of commerce has similar rules. they spend a huge amount to influence elections, and we understand as a community that they represent "business interests," but we have no way to know in given circumstances they are giving a $5 million donation from walmart to target a very small election, to blow out of the water some person who is against changing the zoning

laws to allow walmart in. that is a huge problem. it is only earmarked if you are stupid enough to say it is earmarked. there are lots of ways to convey -- we are all human beings. you can convey what you want someone to do something without running afoul of legal rules. and there is the concern about as shamsing these c4's art shell organizations. i think that is more of an enforcement problem, but we have not seen any enforcement from the fcc, the irs, or the justice department. i cannot think of another entity that would have jurisdiction, but there is a very real ability to create a 501c4 organization for the very purpose of

funneling money to pay super pac or other political entity, dissolve it, and the american people don't really know what hit us. >> i would just say briefly about these and nonprofit groups, the vast majority of these groups are the salt of the arts groups that you might contribute money to. this is one of the reasons why it is very, very challenging to regulate, but i think it is worth saying that the irs has a reputation for not having the necessary resources to make sure that nonprofit groups actually are serving a purpose around social welfare as opposed to campaigns. we arei don't think going to have abuses by nonprofits in this area, that seems a little naive to me. if you look at groups like swift boat veterans for truth, very

influential in the 2004 election. when that group first kick hit the airwaves, nobody knew what they were about. organizations like the new york times dug around and found that information, but at a time when we have an economic downturn and a news industry that is going through great change and tightening its belt of fronts, i don't think we can really count on investigative reporters like woodward and bernstein to go out and get the story the way they did in the watergate era. >> i want to make one more point about the c4'sallen. alluded to the 50% reduction in efficiency. they cannot have as their primary duty to get involved in elections. i don't agree your cutting your efficiency in half. i agree there is an irs rule saying that election influencing cannot be the primary activity of ac4.

there are democratic and republican groups. karl rove said of american crossroads as a super pac. he said oakley to the press and his donors, if you are willing to be disclosed, go to my super pac. if an individual gives money, they are going to get this close. if you don't want to be disclosed, make out your check to my super pac. crossroads gps is using 49% of their money to run ads saying vote for candidate x or y. they are running issue ads in close proximity to the elections in battleground states using broadcast media. it certainly appears as though their principal goal is to

affect elections, even with a 51% of their money they are spending on so-called issue ads. when you look at the battleground state targeting, they are very good lawyers. weak trackhe irs's record of enforcement. go to a crossroads gps website and ask yourself, is this really a major, 50% reduction in efficiency of electoral influence in dollars? i don't think so. >> usually get to reserve time for rebuttal in court. where to start? i take your point on issue adds. everyone at this table and many people here know there has been a long debate about what exactly an issue that is. -- what exactly an issue ad is. >> any of these phrases the

supreme court has come up with, you have to understand why they have those phrases. it is back to the direct lines issue. you have to be able to differentiate -- maybe you don't, which is a different question. but if you are going to regulate campaign speech and differently from other types of first the ministry -- first amendment speech, every single time the court has tried to do this over the last 30 years, that have ended up in a morass, because people are smart. as a result, we have jurisprudences says this is an electoral communication and this is not. i understand people may not be comfortable with that. there has to be some amount predictability. this is where the supreme court gets more flak than maybe they deserve. this is a tough question, and

have to draw the line somewhere. that drew the line in a way that protects the maximum amount of speech. i don't think it is fair to call pickwick issue haad congress did address this problem. it was tailored to the issue. if you are going to run a broadcast at within 30 days of our primary or 60 days of a general and spent more than $10,000, you have to file a disclosure report saying it spent the money. or filing a report saying the spentx dollars on x day. anyone who spends more than two dozen dollars on the type of ad, it is easy to know if you are inside or outside of that line. you have to disclose all

contributors who contributed more than $1,000 to that organization. fec passed regulation with very little notice in 2007 saying the only time the c4 has to tell us where you got your money, we don't require the name of all contributed is who contribute $1,000 or more, only the names of contributors who gave you $1,000 or more for the purpose of furthering that specific ad, who gave that money specifically designated to run in that ad. i think congress effectively dealt with the bright line issue. >> i have one more question and then we will open up questions from the audience. the thinking if there is something you would like us to address. questions around the naacp

decision that had to do with why associations are particularly protected in terms of having to disclose the membership. the one i would like to ask of the folks up here, there are a number of different attempts and venues in which people are trying to address the issues. we have heard about the fec, the fcc has a piece of this as well. if anyone would like to condemn or to praise something that should be brought to the attention of the people here. >> i would just highlight one effort that i don't think has been raised yet. that is the sec. there has been a petition and much talk of a new rule that would require publicly owned

companies the money they spend on advertising, and it would have to be disclosed to the public record. there are variations of a, but it would have to be disclosed to the shareholders. one variation, you could tell these companies that they had to get -- in the shareholders would have to give approval to the corporation before it would be able to spend money in that manner. that is something else to keep your eye on. >> there is really only one bill i am willing to say i liked right now. that is the one that has to do with the federal communications commission. the fcc already tells us what is being spent, and that is a great way for reporter such as myself to know what is being spent. that is one of the reasons why

we can say 30 plus million dollars has been spent by super pacs. that is a pretty simple and not interested way to say here is the number of ads that were bought, and here is who bought them. that would be pretty easy an illustrated and helpful in getting a grip on what is being spent and by whom. i will be provocative and say that i actually think that this is such a difficult area to legislate in for constitutional and free speech reasons, that i advocate of correction via a culture change. i think that nonprofit organizations should voluntarily disclose their donors, and i think there should be growing public pressure on groups to voluntarily disclose their donors. i think those who do not disclose should be embarrassed. that is the only way we will ever fully correct this problem. i do want to say that to the

degree the disclosure rules are challenging or perceive to be impossible or ineffective, there is a surprising model out there which is the lobbying disclosure laws. a lot of people say those are incomplete and not enough lobbyists are captured, and lobbyists say they need to be fixed. interestingly enough, they don't seem -- they are very illustrative. they shed a lot of light on the industry. there has been a lot of self correction within the lobbying industry. i don't think the abramoff scandal would not have come to life without the lobbying disclosure laws we have in place. i think simple, basic disclosure laws that require reporting in a way that is not hard to understand, that draws bright lines, and does not burden people unnecessarily, if it is not broken, don't fix it. those things work for lobbyists and pacs.

let's keep that model and not mess it up. if you want to give the irs will extra money to decide who is really a non-profit, that probably would not hurt either. >> i have to say three things, one because our communications director will be to me if i don't. the sum might foundation has its own draft -- sunlight foundation has its own draft call the super pac act. the second is that the advisory committee on transparency held an event last year on lobbying reform. it is worth looking at. you can watch the video at transparencycaucus.org. the sunlight foundation discloses all of its contributions and expenditures to other entities that we fund. it is certainly something we encourage other organizations to do, although i will not put anybody on the spot about that

at this table. whether you look at lobbying disclosure or disclosure of super pacs are other things along those lines, there are a lot of holes in the rules in the way things are formulated. >> in terms of legislation, there is a really good content in the super pac act that daniel just mentioned. it is stripped down without many of the bells and whistles that got hung on to the disclose act. i would like to see legislation introduced this year that is a much streamlined version of the disclose act without a lot of the bells and whistles. fec is where i spend most of my professional time monitoring and engaging with. i don't have a lot of hope for the federal election commission. three times and 2011 that deadlocked 3-3 on a document

that would begin to undo the loopholes that the commission created in 2007. i was just explaining a couple of minutes ago, one that says you do not have to disclose all your contributors. three times in 2011 that deadlocked on party lines. they said let's open it up for public comment and revisited. three democratic commissioners who voted against it three times in 2011, and five of our current 6 federal election commissioners are serving an expiring term. five of them could be replaced by the president whenever he wants to. he has completely failed on this front to exercise the initiative necessary to overhaul the fec and turn it back into a functioning regulatory agency. one other hope on this front is a lawsuit we are involved in.

we are representing been hauling, who has sued the fec bridge their arguments to weeks ago in federal district court. the best case scenario, which is not a super strong posture, is that the court orders the federal election commission to revisit this rule and consider once again whether the loopholes created in 2007 was a good thing. we have our fingers crossed in the holidays, that is all we have got. critics in holland case. >> i completely agree with you on a culture shift. a lot on my side of the spectrum do not have a problem with this closure as long as it is voluntary. to the extent that any group that finds itself so uncontroversial it can do that, sure.

but obviously the first amendment is to the other groups. i agree that i don't have a lot of hope for the fec, and we'll encapsulate the problem free. go to the website and look up super pac forums. there is not a single regulation that super pacs exist. fec has not been able to get together and write -- there is no form. which take is a regular pac form and philip out and then right on your letterhead that you are actually a super pac and the new staple it. until the fec can handle the easy questions, i don't have any faith they can handle the hard

ones. i am a corporate litigator by training, which works your mind permanently. i disagree with you on the fec initiative. there has not been rulemaking effort on it yet. the problem have with it is this. it is true that shareholders, company or lease the residual value of it, or however you want to characterize it. the thing is, citizens united talks about shareholder democracy as a way of handling these things. there has been shareholder democracy. there were 25 elections last year were shareholders were asked, would you like us to disclose our critical spending? every single one of those elections failed. fec is coming on and saying the shareholders cannot take care of their own interests, so we will force this disclosure. the shareholders do not want this type of disclosure, for obvious reasons.

it basically means that every single annual meeting turns into a referendum on the political role being taken by the corporate world in general. obviously that is a distraction. it is not good for shareholder value, and shareholders probably do not want it. secondly, to the extent that it creates transaction costs for the spending of political money by corporations, it essentially is a unilateral, political disarmament by the boat be due by the business community. i am not taking a normative position on this. to the extent that shareholders don't want this information and don't want to turn their annual meetings into a circus, they have a responsibility to respect that. that is my view on the. >> let me just rebut that very quickly. >> i think it is extremely disingenuous to say that shareholders are not interested. the fact is, most of us don't

know where all of our shares are. and i am not a corporate litigator, so you understand the structure of these investment vehicles better than i did. but i do know, you have a pension being invested on your behalf. there are all sorts of ways that money that could be yours is being invested in corporations and you don't actually know. i am not saying a change to the rules would be a silver bullet, nor do i think that is the only change that should come about. i do think that it strikes me as extremely low hanging fruit, publicly owned corporations are transparent in many, many ways, and i can understand the debate about having to vote on specific expenditures, but making these corporations disclose their

political spending and giving shareholders at least the ability once a year to say, i am comfortable with my money being used for political purposes, or no, i am not comfortable with my money being used for political purposes. i think it is hard not to support that, in my opinion. nor do i think that is a silver bullet. >> i will not use the word disingenuous, but i do think it is difficult to draw the line exactly on what is political when you talk about a corporate budget. the fact that $10,000 in direct political spending should somehow be disclosed to shareholders, and a multimillion-dollar negotiation with the union is not. i think that is a weird line. corporations do things all the time that are hugely politically risky. i think you have to have

everything else. that is no way to run a corporation, which is why we don't do it that way. >> open to questions. one of my colleagues is running around with a microphone in just a moment. sometimes you need is in the back of your head. we will start of the there was a gentleman in a sweater. >> if we could move beyond theory for a second, we have a primary in florida in eight days. how'd you crack at that, when you move beyond the big guys? >> i wanted to just comment briefly. the topic of this forum is will super pacs determine the 2012 election? that is the one question we have

not answered. i do not think that will determine the presidential outcome. i think to the degree they play a role, they have accelerated existing trends that will not be definitive. i think where they could really play important role is in close house and senate races. if you talk to any member of the house or senate, candidates who lost in 2010, a number of them will point to super pac expenditures in very large amounts. many of them are very shocked. i think super pacs are important, but i would say keep an eye out for other vehicles that will be utilized shortly. >> here it is. in the 2010 election, 80 super pacs spent $9 million in the 2010 elections.

only a handful of them were particularly active, putting in millions and millions of dollars. >> you can go to the fec web sites and see the disclosure reports for the actual discrete expenditures. the rule on whether they have to tell who made expenditures, whether they gave the money for the purpose of father -- furthering the ads is a subject of that disclosure report. you will not get any information on the donors until the end of this month when have to file their first report of this calendar year. no good information on where the money is coming from prior to the florida primary. slightly better information hopefully, moving forward. >> taking all these points, and this is more of a whimsical observation. when that information does come out, no one is going to be

particularly surprised. that is part of what is funny about this debate. everybody is saying, who put a ton of money into rick santorum's super pac? i saw an exchange on tv may be a week ago were summoned said, what is in there that is going to change anyone's vote? what is big oil get a bunch of money to rick santorum? no one voting for rick santorum is bothered by big oil. i am not saying that eviscerates anything else that has been said here. at the end of the day, it is not going to be that surprising. >> if that is the case, it begs the question why all these groups at the last minute change their reporting so there would not have to report it. one not just come out and say where the money came from, if it is not a big deal?

-- why not just come out and say where the money came from? ,> i am wondering about 527's as most people understand the term. there has been some speculation that maybe super pacs are yesterday's 's527's. now if super pacs are available for unlimited contributions, as the panel -- does the panel -- will those now go away or be less prominent in favor of groups like super pacs? >> thank you for the crs report. i have your chichi in front me to help keep all these entities straight. -- i have your cheat sheet in front of me. texted very odd answer to

question in as,527's and super pacs are typically one and the same. super pacs refer to an fec label that they stick on you if your primary purpose is to influence election results. major purpose. >> the irs standard is primary activity. greg's the very confusing thing is, you still have to organize reorganization under some thread of the tax code. most of them organize as 527's that have the primary purpose of influencing elections. super pacs had not changed much. what has changed is, with a

swift boat in an earlier resistingwe saw 527's being labeled as a pac. they were resisting the contribution limit that largely don't exist anymore, and the source limits on prohibiting them from taking money from corporate station -- from corporations that lonellargely't exist anymore. >> i think the simple answer is yes to your question, super pacs are taking the place of 527 groups. the reclining to register to ebay contribution limits and source restrictions on corporate money. that is all now legal. groups got into some trouble.

they violated federal campaign finance laws, but now all that activity is legal. there is no more incentive to stay away from the fec. >> if anything, maybe you have .een a shift to the 510c4's they are skirting the line on their primary purpose and they can hold on to that designation before the irs would get together to investigate. they can do the same thing, but avoid disclosure on top of it. >> certain types of groups for political organizations as defined by the internal revenue service, but not political action committees. the way they did was not using terms like voting for or voting against. the 527 organizations were very different from super pacs in that they did not engage in

specific campaign messages. they did disclose eventually to the internal revenue service. they are great example of one way to approach disclosure because initially they did not disclosed. members of congress like john mccain said we want them to disclose, and we will do it through the irs. the fec has a reputation for making public records available to journalists and helping them go for them, and the irs does not have a tradition of disclosure, probably for good reason. having said that, after the fines that were imposed against a lot of leading527 organizations including the swift boat group, a lot of donors said we are not going to play this game anymore. they were spooked. they did not think it was effective. now that there is a super pac

option, i don't think you'll see people spending their money in that way. if there is an alternative to the super pac, it will probably be a trade association or social welfare organization. >> there was a question over on this side. i am getting the impression that investigations don't seem to be all that likely. is that accurate, or are they still going to investigate this behavior? >> first of launching an investigation is getting for votes among six commissioners to find reason to believe that the law was broken. its staff identifies what may be a violation, they go to the commissioner and say before you start an investigation -- that has happened with less and less frequency and the last three or four years and we have seen

increasing deadlocks. >> so it is similar to the lobbying rules, were basically no one ever gets prosecuted, although not quite as extreme. >> my question is about what mr. dickerson was saying about the 50% efficiency cut in political contributions. from my perspective, it seems as if there is still a great investment in political contributions. high rates of return, given the fact that the federal government as all can influence your profit margin potentially by hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of dollars. number two, the fact that because of the enormous wealth concentration, there is not that much of a risk of a dollar to new gingrich as a billionaire, the $5 million to gave was a drop in the bucket for him. i am just curious as to your perspectives as to how good of an investment donating to these

independent expenditures would be. >> i am trying to figure out how to address that. it is an excellent question. i am going to zoom out in answering it. i think a lot of the confusion is about the concept of corruption. when the supreme court talks about corruption, they are talking about something specific. this was alluded to by everyone on the panel. we are talking about a quid pro quo agreement, where i am giving you contribution are doing something for you, and you are doing something in return. a lot of that is covered by robbery statutes. the supreme court has recognized that the there are ways to hide this. they decided to draw a bright line rule on contributions. where are running to con -- into trouble project where i run into

trouble is, it is not about whether someone feels that 0 you their election, or someone feels a certain amount of gratitude for your support. it is about whether or not there was an actual, corrupt bargain. and now that sounds like splitting hairs, but think about it. at the end of the day, all democratic politics involves a certain amount of trading of support. it is unquestionable that when was elected withtaki support of unions that it never supported him before, he felt a lot of obligation or support our gratitude towards those unions. i am sure it is true that when speaker boehner was elected, he felt certain gratitude towards people who had helped fund the majority. that is just politics.

if you try to make that illegal, you destroy the ability of people to have an -- a functioning democracy. if you dig down, maybe you could find a fair rule that distinguishes between actual corruption in the sense of, i give you $5 million and you prove my walmart in your home town. i think we all agree that as massively illegal and people should go to jail for that. i don't know how to draw that line. i don't know if that answers your question. >> isn't the phrase corruption or the appearance of corruption? it is not just about doing wrong, it is giving people a reason not to trust the democratic system. >> i think that is an extremely valid point. i think a lot of the problem with this area of the law is, all this stuff goes up from preliminary injunctions, someone

has an affidavit that is three pages long. the supreme court has never been asked to pass on the question of what constitutes the appearance of corruption. but academic work has been done -- it has suggested that there is this worry about corruption, that when you drill down, the amounts of money people are talking about are not $200 or $500. >> these decisions, congress goes through hearing process to make a number of findings. the make a determinant -- termination about the law and passed a law and the corps will give some deference to the determinations made by congress. so it is the role of congress to do the investigation to find out where the lines are. they are the ones most subject to these pressures anyway.

>> you will notice that often -- the debate was over the part of the challenge to all these laws, going back to buckley, the question of is the contribution limit to low? is $1,000 in $1,976 corrupting? the court has occasionally hinted that it might not be. it is probably true that $1,000 does not by anyone, thank god. but we don't have a scalpel to probe whether $5,000 or $10,000 is appropriate. i think the phrase "the appearance of corruption" is a dangerous way of doing constitutional law. >> i think it is undoubtedly the case that five justices on the

supreme court would agree with allen's definition of corruption. that was not the case as recently as 2003, when the court not only defined corruption as the appearance of corruption, they said undue access and influence the results in the making of big contributions creates corruption. that is corrupt. the referred to the definition of corruption as -- what changed was, justice o'connor retired and justice alito join the court. in citizens united you see a narrowing of the court of what had been defined as corruption, meaning and to access and influence, as well as actual quid pro quo stuff. that is a pretty recent development. >> i completely agree that our democratic system is premised on individuals trying to

influence other individuals to push policy in some direction. clearly, we will always be more willing to listen to our friends that our enemies. i do think there is a huge difference when you are talking about a for-profit corporation spending money to influence election results. a for-profit corporation is extremely different than uni. we are very complex creatures with all sorts of motivation. we also have larger senses of wanting to make our community and our country a better place. a for-profit corporation, by law, has one goal, and that is to make money. that is not a bad king. making money is a great thing, and there -- but i don't think that gold should be confused when making policy. that is an extremely dangerous

situation to be in. >> contribution limit is actually $2,500, not $1,000. i think that is one of the very good things that happen with the mccain fine old law, the effect of bringing more regulated money into the system. i think it should be noted that the same lawyers and advocates who endorsed and championed at citizens united are now pushing for a whole new set of changes in the law. they are challenging the existing contribution limits to candidates and parties. mitt romney has been very candid about this. he says the super pacs have all this power and money, i want to have all that power and money, too. that would level the playing field. that puts it to the high court on whether they want to go against what buckley said. the supreme court said we believe there is a sufficient public argument in favor of

limiting contributions to candidates and parties, but we are going to let these laws stand. i am not sure whether from a constitutional perspective this court would approve or disapprove or should approve or disapprove contribution limits being eliminated. but based on the reaction of citizens united, i would be very surprised if this nation accepted that. i think there is a limit to how much the voters can swallow. i don't think they want to see us go quite that far. i see a lot of dissatisfaction with citizens united already. i think if you try to get rid of the contribution limits to candidates and parties, members of congress would hear such an earful from their constituents that they just would not accept that. >> there was a survey that just came out on january 17 that said that 54% of registered voters are aware of the supreme court's decision allowing unlimited independent spending on

political ads. 65 percent think the changes in the rules are having a negative effect on the 2012 presidential campaign. but that, unfortunate, we are out of time. i would like to thank all four of our payless for doing a fantastic job today. -- all four of our panelists. i probably should thank stephen colbert for helping bring attention to this issue. we will focus on access to legislative data in our next event. where information will be available on the c-span website. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> america's best days and democracy's best days lie ahead. we can perform great deeds and take freedoms next step. and we will. we will carry on the tradition of a good and were the people, who have brought light where there was darkness, food where there was honker, and peace where there was -- food for their was hunger, and peace for

there was only bloodshed. we did everything that could be done, we finished the race, we kept the faith. >> find state of the union address is going back to 1952 at the c-span video library. watch president obama deliver this year's address tuesday night. it is washington, your way. >> the u.s. house is about to gavel in for legislative business starting in about a minute. they began working on a couple of bills. votes are coming up at 6:30 this evening. we will join the house as soon as they began. on the road to the white house, in light campaign schedule for most of the presidential candidate. all prepared for tonight's debate. rick santorum held a meeting today in florida.

newt gingrich was on the road in tampa after finishing first in the south carolina primary on saturday. rick santorum, in which gingrich, ron paul, and mitt romney will take part in tonight's debate in tampa. we are planning to record that and we will have it tomorrow morning.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the

vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1141. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 111, h.r. 1141, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic and limestone forest sites in rota, commonwealth of the northern mariana islands, as a unit of the national park system. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. witman, and the gentleman from northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself so much time as i

may consume and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wittman: madam speaker, h.r. 1141 authorizes the secretary of the interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic and limestone forest sites on rota commonwealth of the northern mariana islands as a unit of the national park system. the island of rota contains cultural and natural resources including caves with picket graphs and several other prehistoric relics as well as sites from the 20th century japanese occupation. additionally, rota has a natural limestone forest that is habitat for endangered species native to the island. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from the northern mariana islands is recognized.

mr. sablan: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1141, the rota cultural and natural resources study act. the bill authorizes the secretary of the interior to determine whether it is suitability and feasibility to -- suitable and feasible to have natural resources of the island of rota in the northern mariana islands to the national park system. this same measure was approved by the house in 2010 without dissent and i hope my colleagues will approve its passage again today. i want to thank chairman hastings and ranking member markey of the natural resources committee for their support of h.r. 1141. i also want to thank chairman bishop and ranking member grijalva of the subcommittee on natural parks, forest and public lands for their help in bringing

this measure to the floor. we all understand that resources are limited and that we must not act so that our children and grandchildren will be responsible for tomorrow. at the same time, we owe a debt to our descendents to preserve and protect those resources that we hold and trust for them today. therefore, when considering adding a unit to the national park system, we have to balance these two requirements and we have to -- a well-established policy for doing so. the national park service began this process on the island of rota in 2004. a study team assessed the village and other sites of the ancient rota people who first inhabited the marianas in some 3,500 years ago. the team explored a cave containing over 90 pictodwraffs of prehistoric arin -- pictograph of prehistoric origin. home to the critically

endangered scroll and endangered rota bride al white eye. having completed these few reconnaissance in september of 2005 the park service issued a report that concluded there are cultural and natural resources on the island of rota that are of national significance. the park service recommended the next step in designation of a new unit of the park system, a suitability and feasibility study. and h.r. 1141 authorizes the secretary of interior to take that next step and conduct the necessary study. i would like to note that the people of rota look forward to the possibility of having areas of their island added to the national park system. it was then senator diego of rota who first encouraged the park service to conduct a reconnaissance of the archeological sites on his home island and to determine their importance as part of america's legacy. rota representative has also

testified before the natural resources committee supporting a national park in rota. rota has had to support onto the record, as the senate president who also hails from rota. of course during a study, the people of rota will continue to have ample opportunity to consider along with the park service the suitability and feasibility of including any particular areas of their island and park status but the people ought to understand the importance of their culture and of the natural resources and want to pass these values onto their children and grandchildren. they also understand that preserving the remains of ancient culture and plants and animals of the limestone forest of rota has value today. because visitors from elsewhere in the world want to see that which is unique and experience what only rota has to offer.

last week president obama announced new initiatives to create jobs and spread economic growth in america by improving our visa system and by providing national parks, wildlife he refuge and historic sites to international travelers. being the closest part of america to the merging economies of asia, the northern mar anas are eager to see new countries added to a visa waiver program. we want to have the unique culture and natural resources added to the national treasures the president intends to promote. we know that having areas in rota designated as part of the national park system will help create jobs in ecotourism, transportation, hotels and restaurants for the people of today. we understand that protecting and preserving these nationaly significant resources in rota will also help ensure jobs for our children and grandchildren in the future. i urge my colleagues to support passage of h.r. 1141 and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: madam speaker, i would ask the gentleman if he has any additional speakers. mr. sablan: madam speaker, no, i don't. i yield back. mr. wittman: madam speaker, i have no additional speakers and therefore yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1141. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to -- mr. wittman: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: madam speaker, on that i would ask the vote be taken on the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 purr further proceedings on this question will be postponed. -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mr. wittman: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3117 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 255, h.r. 3117, a bill to grant the secretary of the interior permanent authority to authorize states to issue electronic duck stamps and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, and the gentleman from northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, madam speaker. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five

legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wittman: thank you, madam speaker. in 1934 the congress enacted the migratory bird hunting stamp act. this law required hunters to purchase a federal duck stamp in order to hunt migratory water fowl. proceeds from the sale of these samples have been used to preserve vital wetlands and habitat across the country. every years hunters, bird watch,s and stamp collectors visit the post office. their national wildlife refuges or sporting good stores to purchase their duck stamp. for the past four years, eight states have participated in an electronic duck stamp pilot program. instead of having to visit a brick and mortar store, hunters and collectors could purchase the duck stamp online. by all accounts the program has been a tremendous success.

many americans have enjoyed the convenience of buying a federal duck stamp over the internet. i am the author of this legislation and would like to see that it continued to allow hunters to electronically purchase the annual federal duck stamp required to hunt migratory water fowl. it is time to make this permanent feature a federal law for a more efficient and faster process. similar technology is already embraced by states that allow sportsmen to obtain their hunting and fishing licenses online and by the way many states who require a duck stamp also allow their hunters to purchase the duck stamp online and as i have spoken with a number of hunters, they also indicate an interest to be able to do this and especially hunters that may at the last minute decide to want to pursue a hunting activity the next day if they are not in the area where a post office is open, then they are not able to enjoy

a day on the water hunting water fowl. as a member of the migratory bird conservation commission and an avid water fowl hunter, i am proud to sponsor this legislation to modernize the distribution of the federal duck stamp program without burdening the taxpayer. i want to compliment the lead co-sponsor of this bill, congressman ron kind from wisconsin, for his leadership, for his commitment and his passion on sportsman's issues and water fowl conservation. anybody that knows representative kind knows how strongly he feels about this and he has worked on this issue for a number of years and i thank him for those ongoing efforts. h.r. 3117 is supported by the congressional sportsman's foundation and ducks unlimited. i urge support for this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from the northern mariana islands is recognized. mr. sablan: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3117 which would allow the secretary of sbeeryoor to continue the sale of electronic duck stamps and expands the program to include all 50 states. the migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp commonly called the duck stamp must be purchased and carried by all water fowl hunters 16 years and older while hunting migratory water fowl on both public and private lands. 98 cents of every $1 is generated by the sales of the duck stamp goes to purchase or lease wetland habitat for the national wildlife refuge system which benefits migratory water fowl. in some areas, purchasing duck stamps can be difficult with hunters having to wait a significant amount of time to receive their official duck stamp. electronic stamps come with a unique identifying number that serves as a proof of purchase and allows hunters to hunt for

45 days until the actual stamp arrives via the postal service. in october at the hearing of h.r. 3117, the fish and wildlife service supported the program. i commend my colleagues, congressman wittman, and congressman ronds kind, for introducing this bill and for their leadership on this issue. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. . mr. wittman: i'd ask the gentleman from the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands if he has any more speakers. mr. sablan: no, i don't. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: with that, madam speaker, we have no further speakers and i also yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 3117, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. wittman: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wittman: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays and yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3261. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately

6:30 p.m. today.

>> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern. watch the president's speech along with tweets from members of congress. after the address, more reaction from senators and house members. >> the supreme court ruled unanimously today that police must obtained a search warrant before using gps tracking

devices to track the movements of a criminal suspect. the decision overturns the drug conviction of a nightclub owner in washington, d.c., who argued that police violated his fourth amendment rights when officers placed a gps device on his car to track movements on public streets. this argument in front of the supreme court from november.

>> since this court's decision, the court has recognized the basic dichotomy under the fourth amendment. what a person seeks to preserve as private in his own home or in a private letter or inside of this vehicle when he was traveling, it is the subject of fourth amendment protection. what he reveals to the world, such as this movement in a car on a public roadway, it is not. this court applied that principle to hold that visual surveillance of a vehicle traveling on the public roadways in french no fourth amendment expectation of privacy. fringed no for the

amendment expectation of privacy. >> that was 30 years ago. the technology is very different and you did a lot of information. >> the technology is different, mr. chief justice, but a crucial fact shows this was not simply amplified visual surveillance. the officers -- the driver began to do a certain a u-turn and the police broke off a visual surveillance. they lost track of the car for a full hour. there were only able to discover it by having a deeper receiver and a helicopter. >> that is a good example of the change in technology. that is a lot of work to follow the car. they just sit back and the station and a push a button whenever they want to find out where the car is, they looked at data and find out everywhere it

has been in the past month. that seems dramatically different. >> it does not expose anything that is not already exposed to public view for anyone who wanted to watch. that was the crucial principle -- >> could you put it on the man's overcoat? >> probably not, justice kennedy. this court specifically distinguish the possibility of following a car on a public roadway from determining the location of an object in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation. >> this is a special device that only measures streets and public buildings. >> in that event, justice kennedy, there was a question about whether the installation of such a device would implicate a search or a seizure. the public movement of somebody do not implicate. >> i have serious reservations

that -- about the way in which this was installed. you can get to that at your convenience. >> i would like to get to it now. [laughter] i have to give a little prologue to my question. when the wiretapping first came before this court, which held that it was not a violation of the fourth amendment because the fourth amendment says the people shall be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and a facts. -- if facts. >> -- effects. >> later on, we reversed ourselves. it established the new criteria, is there an invasion of privacy? are you obtaining information

that a person had a reasonable expectation to be kept private? >> we will not over will that. however, it is one thing to add that privacy concept to the fourth amendment as it originally existed. it is quite something else to use that concept to narrow the fourth amendment. it seems to me that when that device is installed against the will of the owner of the car, that is unquestionably a trespass. rendering the owner of the car not secure. against an unreasonable search and seizure. it is attached to the car against his will. it is a search because what it obtains is the location is the car from their forward. why isn't that correct? do you denied that it is a

trespass? >> it may be a technical trespass, but it was a trespass and the united states versus carol. >> the owner of the can consented. that is not this case. there is no consent by the owner of this property. it was done surreptitiously. >> that does not make it a trespass. >> it may be a sneaky thing to do, but every sneaky thing is not a trespass. >> this trespass thought it was a technical trespass' -- discord that it was a technical trespass. >> we have narrowed the fourth

amendment. >> the privacy rationale does not expanded, but narrows it. >> a change as it -- it changes it. the case that illustrates the distinction is oliver versus the united states, the case that reaffirmed the open field document. the police committed a trespass under local law. they crossed fences, they ignored no trespassing signs. this court held the interest protected by trespass law are distinct from the interest protected by the fourth amendment. >> the rationale of that case -- >> there was no search. the rationale was that open fields are not among the things that are protected by the fourth amendment. the court was very focused on the distinction between trespass law and fourth amendment law. >> if you put a gps device on

all of our cars, monitored our movements for a month, the think they are entitled to do that? >> the justices of this court? >> yes. [laughter] >> the justices of discord, when driving on public roadways, have no greater expectations. >> then your answer is yes. you could put a gps device on every one of our cars, all was for a month, no problem under the constitution. >> if the fbi wanted to, it could put surveillance agents around the clock on any individual. >> that seems to get to what is really involved. the issue of whether there is a technical trespass. it is a ground for deciding this particular case. the heart of this problem is presented by this case and will be presented by other cases

involving new technology. is that in the pre-internet age? most of the privacy that people enjoyed was not the result of legal protections or constitutional protections. it was a result of the difficulty of traveling around and gathering up information. with computers, it is so simple to amass an enormous amount of information about people. information that was made available to the public. if this case is decided on the ground there was a technical trespass, i do not have much doubt in the near future it will be possible for law enforcement to monitor people's movements on public streets without committing a technical trespass. how do we deal with this? nothing has changed so that all the information that the people exposed to the public is fair

game? there is no search or seizure when that is obtained because there is not a reasonable expectation? isn't there a real change in this regard? >> i do not think there is a particularly dramatic change in this case from what went on in the other cases. it is possible to envision broader advances in technology that would allow more public information to be announced and put into computer systems. the remedy for that to come that if this court agrees with the principles and applies them to this case, the remedy is through legislation. just as when the court held that amassing register data, all of the numbers you dial on your telephones, the court was confronted in that case -- >> kick was a third party involved in that case -- it was

a third party involved in that case. you answered the question -- the government's position would mean that it's any of us could be monitored whenever we leave our homes. the only thing secured is the home. that is the end point of your argument. >> we are talking about monitoring somebody's movement in public. we're not talking about is monitoring their telephone calls, the interior of their cars, their private letters or packages. >> what people are driving had to is that if you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the

police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the united states. the difference between the monitoring and what happens in the past is memories are fallible, computers are not. nobody since -- with a machine, you kind. if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984. it still sounds like it. what protection is there, if any, once we except your view of the case from this futuristic scenario that has just been painted?

>> this is exactly the argument that was presented to the court. if you go back to 1983, the beeper technology in that case seemed advanced and there was a potential for it to be used. >> that is true. they do have a limit. in this case, they say, a single journey. let's say it involved for journeys in today's. this involves every journey for a month. whatever the line is that is going to protect us, it is short of every journey in a month. i am not asking -- i accept your point. what do you say is the limit? >> i want to address the suggesting you could draw a line somewhere between amonte and a trip and have a workable standards for police officers to use. police officers use a variety

of investigative techniques. it produces an enormous amount of information. they look at financial records, they conduct a visual surveillance. under the principle old law that says one track is ok, but 30 trips is not, there is no guidance for law enforcement. >> there is the same kind of guidance that you have in any case of this court that uses the techniques. i think it is used in the bribing the judge case with campaign contributions. you drop out a limit. you cannot go beyond that. there is no standard within that. we leave it for the lower courts to work out and we will review it over time. that is not necessarily desirable, but that is a method this court has sometimes used. even if it is wrong, are you saying there is no limit? are you suggesting one? >> i am saying the accord does the same thing. this case does not involve 24

hours surveillance of every citizen. it involves one drug dealer, less than a month because the beeper technology failed. >> you are moving away from your argument. your argument is that it does not depend on how much suspicion you have. your argument is you can do it, period. you do not to have -- you do not have to have any reason. right? >> that is correct. >> this is a normal way that we draw these limits. how intrusive a search can be, how long it can be by having a magistrate spelled it out in a warrant. >> when you are talking about the movement of a car on a public roadway, there is no fourth amendment search. >> we are talking about the difference between seeing yellow tile and seeing a mosaic.

what gives you the information and one does not. >> all those things are not searches. >> there was a warned and the limits were not followed. do this in 10 days, and they took 11. they were supposed to do it in d.c., but instead, they did in maryland. they could have gotten permission to conduct this search. i take it that the practice has been in the electronic surveillance manual, better get a warrant. when this kind of surveillance is wanted by the government, was the -- was very difficult to get in the warrant? >> there would not have been any

difficulty getting a warrant. the warrant authorized things just beyond monitoring the car. it also authorized monitoring if the car in any location where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. this case is only about monitoring the car on a private street. the principle used for this kind of surveillance is when the police have not yet acquired probable cause, but how the situation that does call for monitoring. i would like to give an example. if the police did an anonymous phone call that a bomb threat is going to be carried out at a mosque by people who work at a small company, the threats will not provide reasonable suspicion under this court's decision you can hardly expect the fbi to ignored its credible detailed sounding piece of information like that.

>> if they did an anonymous tip there is the same bomb in somebody's house, do you get a warrant or do just go again? >> you do neither. without probable cause, you cannot enter -- >> why are you asking for a different role in this situation? >> police have the traditional means available to investigate the source of tips. they could put teams of agents on all the individuals. and follow them 24-7. >> you are suggesting that it would be ok to take a computer chip, puts it on somebody's overcoat, and follow every citizen everywhere they go out indefinitely? under your theory, you could monitor and track every person

that threw their cell phone. today, the smart phone in its signals that police can pick up and used to follow someone anywhere they go. your theory is so long as the person -- as long as what is being monitored is the movement of person, they have no reasonable expectation that their possessions will not be used by d.o.. that is the bottom line. -- will not be used by you. that is the bottom line. >> i think that goes farther than our position. our position is not that the court to overrule the united states should -- that is off- limits. monitoring an individual through

their clothing poses an extremely high likelihood they will enter a place where they have a reasonable expectation. >> it happens here. >> a car that is part in a garage does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> what is the difference? >> once the effect is in the house, there is an expectation of privacy that cannot be breached without a warrant. we are not asking the court to overrule. >> tell me what the difference is between this and a general warrant.

>> a warrant authorizes a search. this authorizes the ability to track somebody's movements and a car on a public roadway. this court said that no individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy because when they go out in their car, their car is traveling on public roads. anyone can look. the police have no obligation to avert their eyes. >> i give you that that is in public. does the reasonable expectation of privacy trump that fact? in other words, do you think it violates your right to privacy

to have this kind of information? everybody says yes. is it a response that it takes place in public, or is that the reasonable expectation of privacy? >> something that takes place in public is not inherently off- limits to a reasonable expectation of privacy. you go into a fund does, you are in public making your calls, it is subject reasonable expectation of privacy. discords -- this court recognize surveillance of the vehicle traveling on the public roadways -- >> you can see that if you ask people, doesn't violate your privacy to be followed by a beeper, you might get one answer. today, doesn't violate your privacy to know the police can have a record of every movie made in the past month, they would see that differently.

>> gps only gets to the approximate location of the car as it drives on the road. >> and speed as well. >> approximate speed, location, that is what the gps provides. it does not show you where the car stopped. it does not show you who was driving the car. >> this court held that when the police have probable cause to stop someone for a traffic violation, they can do that. >> that is when the police came upon the violator. this is all on the computer. we want to find out more about x. see if it is an indication that

he was speeding in the last 28 days. >> it is not hard for police to follow somebody and find a traffic violation. to answer the earlier concern, about limiting principles, at this court recognized that although the fourth amendment is not a restriction on discriminatory or arbitrary stops, the equal protection clause is. the first amendment also stands as a protection this court agrees and there is a shield of monitoring people through gps. >> the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. here is the fourth amendment, the fourth amendment says if i

am on a public bus and the police want to feel my luggage, that is a violation. this kind of monitoring, installing the gps, monitoring the person's movements whenever they are outside the house, there is something about it that does not parse. >> i am quite sure if you ask citizens whether the police could freely pick up their trash for a month looking for evidence of a crime, or keep a record of every telephone call they made, or conduct visual surveillance of them, citizens would probably also find that to be -- >> they will not. and probably could not

physically. start with the other end. what would a democratic society look like if a large number of people did think the government was tracking their every movement over long periods of time? once you reject that, you have to have a reason under the fourth amendment. what i am looking for is the reason and the principal that would reject that, but would not reject 24 hours a day for 28 days. that is what i am listening to find. >> the line drawing problem that the courts would create for itself would be intolerable. better that the court addressed the so-called 1984 scenario if they come to pass a rather than using this case for a vehicle for doing so.

>> gps technology today is limited by the cost of the instrument. it is so small that it would not take that much of a local budget to place a dbs on every car in the nation. >> -- gps on every car in the nation. >> it would be virtually impossible. >> don't we have any legislators out there that could stop this? " the legislature is a safeguard. if the court believes there needs to be a fourth amendment safeguard as well, we have urged the fallback position of the court to adopt a reasonable suspicions standard which would allow the police to conduct surveillance of individuals and their movements on public roadways, which they can do visually. and would allow police to investigate tips that arise under circumstances where there is not probable cause. >> it is the police at the front

end. it is the courts at the back end. if there are motions to suppress evidence. it does court concludes consistent with its earlier cases that this is not a search, it all americans find it to be 1984, congress would stand ready to provide appropriate protection. >> thank you. we will give you the full time. >> i want to talk about the one issue that the united states did not talk about. this case could be resolved in a very narrow basis. what are the consequences when the police, without a warrant, install a gps on a car of any citizen of the united states and

want to use the evidence in a criminal trial? that is a seizure. >> what is the size of this device? >> the record does not show in this case. but we learned last week, there is a gps on the market that weighs 2 ounces and is the size of a credit card. the cow easy it would be for any law enforcement agent -- think how easy it would be for any law enforcement agents. >> what if it was put on a license plate? would that be a technical trespass? >> a license plate is the property of the state. driving is a privilege. it is not a technical trespass. >> i do not allow my license plate? [laughter] i paid for my license plates.

>> live free or die. >> what i am saying is this. the issue is -- everybody agrees that jones had the right to control the use of his vehicle. was the interference -- >> i did not hear an answer. what is your position on the placement of the gps device on the state on license plates? >> they cannot do it, your honor. >> it is the state's license plate they require you to have. your trespass' theory falls apart in regards to that particular scenario. >> you would probably see the gps -- >> it is the size of the credit card. >> in the particular case, the

distillation of the gps is a seizure. what makes it meaningful is the use. >> you give the state permission to put the license plate -- to have your car carried a license plate. you do not give anybody permission to have your car carry a tracking device. whether it is put directly on the car or directly on something that the car is carrying does not make any difference. >> i thought it made a difference under your theory, which focused on trespass. this is not bound by the individual. -- all owned by the individual. it does not seem ridiculous to me. >> if you put it on somebody is car, you have -- >> i do not understand the

argument. a trespass is accomplished a matter what you put on somebody's car or overcoat or what have you. you could put a non working device in somebody's car and it would still be a trespass. the same constitutional problem is not to raise. how'd you get from the trespass to the constitutional problem? >> as i said moments ago, what makes it meaningful, what makes it a meaningful deprivation is once the gps kids captivated. we look at reality. -- did captivated. we look at reality. >> it does not make it a seizure, it makes it a search. i do not see how it is a seizure. you have to bring something within your control. you have to stop the person or stop the vehicle. what has been seized if you slap a tracking device on the car? >> data is seized that is

created by the gps. what the government did was surreptitiously -- >> the close case, the court called a fourth amendment violation. >> it is unreasonable search. the same is true of seizure. >> that is right. >> why do you care? whether it is a trespass does not really matter. is it reasonable? that is the question we have been debating. i'd like to know from you, the

parade of horribles we can worry about when it comes up, the police have many people they suspect of all kinds of things ranging from kidnapping to terrorism to all kinds of crimes. they're willing to go as far as reasonable suspicion in a pension. at least with that, we will avoid the "1984" scenario. they probably put it to better than i did, but i would appreciate your views on that. >> reasonable suspicion is something the court has adopted for a limited intrusions. every 10 seconds of the day, 28 days, it is by no means a limited intrusion. what's happened here in this

society does not to view as reasonable the concept that the united states government has the right to take a device -- >> suppose the police department says, we could put 30 deputies to watch this person, or we can have a device with a born to -- with a warrant. >> what difference does it make? >> the police have the capacity to engage in grave of the use of individual and group liberties. >> they can get the same from 30 to deputies. is it a constitutional violation? >> any placement of a gps on

anybody's part -- >> we are assuming there is no initial trespass. that is the problem in this case. you are saying is the quantity of the information seized and the time for which it is seized. it seems to me that what you are saying is the police have to use the most inefficient methods. >> your argument has no principled distinction -- >> i think i can help you with that. we are not asking to make the police less efficient. the use of gps as threats of abuse to privacy, people have an

expectation, justice kennedy, that their neighbor is not going to use their car to track them. jones had control of that car. control of the vehicle meant that he had a reasonable expectation -- >> he would not be protected against a surveillance camera. that could get information. is this really different from the surveillance camera? >> yes. a first of all, you have the physical innovation. you have the -- invasion. it has always been viewed as more invasive than your visual surveillance. even with a camera, we are not

saying the police are prohibited from having individual video cameras or several video cameras. what we are saying is this device enables limitless, pervasive -- >> what is the difference? i am told that if somebody goes to london, almost every place that person does, there is a camera taking pictures. the police can put together a snapshot of where everybody is all the time. why is that different from this? >> i would not want to live in london under the circumstances. >> it must be unconstitutional if it is scary. >> those cameras in london enables them to track the bomber who was going to blow up the airports and to stop him before he did. there are many people would say that kind of surveillance is

worthwhile. there are others, like you, who will say, that is a bad thing. that is not the issue in front of us. >> that is correct, your honor. >> why not? >> oh, my goodness. the existence of a physical trespass is only marginally relevant to the question of whether the fourth amendment has been violated. however, for an active trespass, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to accept the constitutional violation. you can talk if you would like, it is your hour. i would be very interested in hearing you on the assumption that the real issue is whether this is reasonable. >> id is not, your honor. -- it is not, your honor. the installation was consented to. the package came in by virtue of somebody looking for the

government. the installation was unlike this case, where it was surreptitiously -- >> you are mixing two things. the initial trespass was not important. now we ask you -- that is not a responsive answer. >> the technology is dramatically different. >> is going to be dramatically different in the next step. there are satellites that look down on your home. those cameras are going to be able to shut give the entire world and let you trapped somebody on the camera from place to place -- track somebody on the camera from place to place. is that the case for