through committees back and forth so we don't have any effective disclosure. let me end for just a few recommendations for the committee or for what congress can do from now on. first, congress should make every effort to pass the disclose act. let's get some reasonable disclosure. second, the senate should hold public hearings and this committee on the dysfunctional federal election committee and look to reform it to make it a easonably functional body. third, for every hearing that we see on the purported scandal at the i.r.s., which is trying to apply the law now which says that organizations called 501-c-4's should be exclusively social welfare organizations, we should have a wearing on the real meaning of social welfare organizations and the need to clarify those regulations. . sfourt, the senate should pass a rule to make it a violation for senators or senior staffers to solicit the large contributions

for party committees now allowed under mccutcheon. next, you should consider the broader reform of the campaign finance system, and i'm delighted there will be a vote on senator udall's constitutional amendment. we need -- we have a lot of work and heavy lifting to do. the next huge scandal is going to bring about a new drive for reform, but before that i fear things will get worse. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. senator roberts, senator udall, i appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about these important issues. i know, mr. chairman, that you have said that you'd like the focus to be on the mccutcheon case and issue of disclosure and lack of disclosure. i would make two brief points in response to testimony and contents today about the mccain feingold law. first, i was pleased to see the

endorsement by my colleagues on this panel, in their written testimony today of the mccain-feingold coal of prohibiting, quote, six and seven-figure contributions, end quote, to national party committees, quote, in exchange for access to executive branch personnel as well as members of congress. i agree such huge contributions were and are potentially corrupting and give rise to the appearance of corruption. and thus are bad for our democracy. i worry that they will resurface after the mccutcheon decision through the device of contributions to party committees participating in joined fundraising committees. i also worry that the supreme court's majority in citizens united and mccutcheon does not share the same concern about a corruption inherent in congress

or the executive branch selling access that mr. mcgann, mr. reef, mr. ornstein and i do. my second point about party committees under mccain-feingold is that they have actually done quite well financially. look at the picture of two elections, 2000, the last presidential campaign before mccain-feingold, and 2012, our most recent. in 2000 the two political parties and their presidential candidates raised and spent a combined total of $1.1 billion in that election. a huge sum. today adjusted for inflation that would be $1.45 billion. compare that to the amount spent in the most recent election by the parties and their candidates, 2012, the total was $2.5 billion. double the actual amount, up 80%

in inflation adjusted dollars. it is true that outside groups also spent significant sums in 2012, but the national party committees and their candidates clearly were well resourced, better than before mccain-feingold. in terms of disclosure or the lack of disclosure, my written testimony describes how we have ended up in a situation where the supreme court stated in citizens united that the importance to our democracy of full disclosure of the sources of campaign funding, but we have less and less of it. my written testimony says that the f.e.c. has deadlocked repeatedly on whether to issue a notice of proposed rule making to deal with the question of disclosure after citizens united. that is correct, the commission appears to still be deadlocked on this issue. however, i would like to note for the record that the commission in late 2011 managed to issue a citizens united rule

making notice that did not mention disclosure. the commission even had a hearing, but that is the end of the story. no new regulation, no action on disclosure. mr. ornstein's written testimony demonstrates how dramatically disclosure of the sources of funding of public advertising has fallen. in 2004, the first election under mccain-feingold, 98% of outside groups running campaign ads disclosed their donors. a few years later that number was down to 34%. in absolute dollars, the amount spent on advertising only 40% was disclosed as the course in 2012 by these outside groups. why is this a problem? let me turn to justice kennedy's explanation in citizens united. he said, with the advent of the internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide

shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. shareholders can determine whether their corporations' political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits and citizens can see whether elected officials are, quote in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. so justice kennedy said the deal was, unlimited independent expenditures, but full disclosure of funders. today we have only half the deal. and as justice kennedy says, speaking for eight justices, that is a problem for our democratcy.

how can -- democracy. how can shareholders hold their corporations accountable for the shareholder money spent in political campaigns if they have no idea what is being spent and for and against which candidates? how can voters hold elected officials accountable if they do not know which moneyed interests are financing those officials' elections. finally, how can the electorate, voters, make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages, as justice kennedy says, something that the court says is important to the functioning of our democracy, if voters do not know who is financing the constant barrage of advertising run by these groups. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. potter. our next panel member is ann raffle, former chair of the california fair political

practices commission and currently vice chair of the federal election commission. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member roberts, and senator udall. thank you for inviting me to testify today. as indicated i am the vice chair of the federal election commission, but i am not testifying in that capacity today. nor am i speaking for the commission. instead, my testimony concerns a case pursued during my tenure as chair of the california fair political practices commission, fppc, to expose dark money in a california election. fppc versus americans for responsible leadership and i'm going to use the word of the day, is a byzantine story of campaign contributions being funneled all over the country in an apparent effort to avoid revealing to the public who is

behind political campaigns. we discovered that networks of nonprofits, anonymously injected millions of dollars into our election by using shell corporate entities, wire transfers, and fund swapping. this allowed donors to skirt disclosure laws and cloak their identities from the public view. just a few weeks before the 2012 election, a california political action committee, which was focused on supporting one and defeating another ballot measure, received an $11 million contribution. this was the largest anonymous contribution ever made in the history of california elections. the contribution came from an arizona nonprofit, americans for responsible leadership, or arl, which had never before spent a

dime in california. after a complaint was filed with the fppc, we attempted to determine whether a.r.l. abided by the requirements of california law to disclose the source of the contribution. we eventually had to seek relief in court. the california supreme court ruled unanimously on an emergency sunday session that a.r.l. had to hand over its records. because of this the day before the election a.r.l. revealed that the sources of the $11 million were two other nonprofits, one based in virginia, and other in arizona called cppr. a.r.l. admitted that its it functioned solely as an intermediateary to receive the

money from the two nonprofits and funnel it to the california political action committee. this is a clear violation of the law that prohibits making contributions in the name of another. after the election, a full investigation found that approximately $25 million raised from california donors who wished to remain anonymous went to the virginia nonprofit and then was transferred to the other nonprofit, cppr. there was a tacit understanding that cppr would direct other funds back to california in the same amount or more through an intricate web of groups. after passing through multiple nonprofits around the country, $15 million was then returned to california to the original political committees to spend on the ballot measures.

$11 million of that money was funneled through a.r.l. and $4 million through an iowa nonprofit. because of the fppc litigation that was pending, the remaining $10 million of the original $25 million raised from the california donors was not anonymously pumped back into the california election. the fppc, which is a bipartisan commission, unanimously leveed a record setting fine of $1 million, and also sought discoveragement from the recipient committees of the $15 million in improperly disclosed funds. the fppc's investigation and litigation demonstrates clearly that public officials from both parties can work together to uphold disclosure laws.

but the story of fppc vs. a.r.l. also shows that dark money is a national problem that is best solved on the federal level. i would be glad to answer your questions about this case. thank you again for the opportunity to speak. >> thank you for joining us today. finally, neal reef, as i mentioned, lawyer here in washington, and former deputy general counsel for the democratic national committee. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'm here today as practitioner in the field of campaign finance law and i represent over 40 democratic state party committees. as a recent article explains, mccain-feingold has had a profound effect on state and local party committees. i would like to provide examples that illustrate how the law is federalized, most of the state party activities in connection with state and local elections. as mr. mcgann said, it ought to be revisitted. in our article, we agree national party soft money ban and limitation on solicitations, federal candidates and office

holders achieve the goals to address soft money practices at the national level at the time of its passage. however, congress could have and should have stopped there. instead, with little forethought to its consequences, mccain-feingold extended its reach to state and local party committees, who unlike national party committees, were thoroughly invested and active in state and local elections. under mccain-feingold state parties have been subject to a lab brinth of investigations to seek to intercept all their activities and force them into the federal system, regardless whether those activities have any relation to federal elections or candidates. mccain-feingold federalized all elections through introduction of new form, term election activity. which subjected local activities such as voter registration to federal regulation. the implementation of this concept has proven rocky. when passed, it was claimed to be a narrowly targeted measure. defensible followed suit and minimize the reach of the new law. after the law was upheld,

supporters changed their tune and argued that the federal election commission, the agency charged with enforcing the law, was not reading the new mandates broadly enough. additional litigation ensued and courts instructed the feck to rewrite and broaden the rules. for example, under recent f.e.c. redefined definition of get out the vote, essentially all public communications undertaken by a state party committee, even those made totally independent of any federal cab date involved, are subject to federal law. merely by escorting the voter to volt for state or local candidate. therefore, in a party committee wishes to air a television or laido ad to vote for smith for governor, federal law may mandate this advertisement be paid for entirely or in part with federally regulated funds. prior to mccain-feingold, state law governed state and local candidate spromplet today parties are governed by federal law, whereas nonparty group could run the same advertisement free of such federal limitations. in addition, under the fppc get

out the vote, if a party sends out a mailing on behalf a candidate and merely informs the voter on when the polls are opened, the location of the polling place, or how to obtain an an sentee ballot, federal law limits the funding of the mailed piece based upon prote vision in the mailer. even when it makes no reference to any federal candidate. it is common practice for state parties to avoid including such information in mailings in order to avoid federalizing those communications. simply put, party committees have been muzzled when it comes to their ability to inform voters of the most basic voting information if they want to avoid being subject to federal regulation. we cannot conceive of any policy just if i quation that would support this. particularly when other groups who engage in the exact same sort of activity do so without such regulation. mccain-feingold has had other detrimental effects. its federalization of state parties has created a disself for state parties that feature the entire party tict.

prior to mccain-feingold, it was commonplace to pay for candidates from the top of the ticket to the bottom. in addition, state and local candidates have bypassed party committees when engaging in advocacy and get out the vote activities to the incapability of federal and state law. the current structure of the law has cause add demise in funding as sources seek out other organizations such as federal, state, and local superp.a.c.s who may spend money without any restriction on how communications are funded and how much information they can provide. the demise of parties have had serious implications. party committees have played a vital role in grassroots campaigning. historically parties have been instrumental in delivering positive party messaging and increasing turnout in american elections to grassroots voter contact methods. what some may characterize as a single issue, outside groups have filled a void. although the activities are legal, it seems to be the opposite of what was envisioned

by proponents of the reform. recently the association of state democratic chairs passed unanimous resolution at its meeting in november of last year that calls on congress and the f.e.c. to re-evaluate how state and local party committees are regulated. we have provide add copy of this legislation and recommendations made nor your review. none of the proposals made advocate for any repeal of any contribution limit. rather they seek commonsense regulation that balances the need to have vital party organizations along with the need to provide safeguards against political corruption. although mr. mcgann and i have a number of ideas and suggestions regarding changes to the law, we both believe any commonsense depth to help revitalize state and party committees would be helpful. finance simplify the existing volunteer exemptions for grass root activities to make it easier to use and consider expanding them to other modes of grass root activities. repeal the mccain-feingold provision that is have needlessly nerlized joint and

nonjoint activities undertaken by state party committees. modify the f.e.c.'s current interpretation of the existing rules that essentially federalizes all party campaigning. 2350eu7b8ly, in-depth contribution limits to party committees. as they were excluded from the contribute shun indexes provisions providing for by mccain-feingold. similar to the extend that expenditures are still required, update those limits to more closely reflect modern economic reality. in the short time we have today we can only briefly touch about the byzantine nature of federal regulation a state party is subject to. thank you for the opportunity to present our views. >> thank you. we'll have seven-minute question rounds. and i'd like to begin first the term byzantine has been used a couple of times. there's a -- this is a chart prepared by the center for responsive politics that is a chart of money in 2012.

i think we are insulting the byzantines, frankly, by likening this to their conduct. this chart will be available in larger form, but it's ill strayive of what's going on. -- it's ill strayive -- illustrative of what's going on. there's millions of dollars flowing through. they have come up with a name, a disregarded entity. that's kind of -- i don't know -- it's an oxymoron i would think. mr. ornstein, in preparing for this hearing to coin a phrase, my conclusion was, it's worse than i thought. we got a report just yesterday from the wezz leian media project, which is a very interesting project that doesn't try to track contributions because a lot of them aren't disclosed but tracks ads on television all over the country and attributes a value to them based upon -- estimated value

based upon the air time in the media market. of course it's only air time. it's not production or other costs. but the startling thing, this is spending by nondisclosure groups cycle to date. in other words, to april 29. yesterday. and what struck me is the gigantic growth in these independent expenditures. that's what i meant in my opening statement. this isn't a little incremental change, this is a revolutionary change. this is ame thing goes nondisclosure money cycle to date, this is outside spending cycle to date, and the -- these are the off-year elections. u can see between 2010 and 2014 an enormous growth, almost 10 times more. would you say that this is an

accelerated problem and that's one of the reasons we should have to address it? >> it's an exploding problem, mr. chairman. i think what we have seen is a set of very often explicit efforts to try to hide where the money is coming from. it's not only through these -- i won't call them byzantine, bizarre sets of arrangements. and i think described very well how this can play out across many state lines. i only briefly alluded to the role of the i.r.s. in all of this. one thing that we know is that moving towards 2012 there was another explosion which was applications for 501-c-4 status from groups that in many cases, and we knew leading up to this, were moving into influence elections and were using that i.r.s. status simply to hide the names of donors. we know that american crossroads created another entity, crossroads g.p.s., and basically

the head of it said very clearly, this is for people who don't want to disclose. lots of groups moved into there. the i.r.s. in a pretty ham-handed way tried to deal with this explosion by using code words. of course the reality is if you have a group that has the name party in it, and they say in their application that they want to influence elections, they should be registering under section 527 of the code. and now the i.r.s. is moving to try and come up with commonsense regulations that keeps these sham groups that are not social welfare organizations in any way, shape, and form from doing what the law intended. they are being attacked. >> we all remember the swift boat veterans for truth in 2004. that was a 527. but that required disclosure of donors. that as i understand it, that vehicle has atrow feed and very rarely used. now it's the 501-c-4's which don't require disclosure of donors and that's where the

money seemsing to go, is that correct? >> that's correct. some of the other 501-c's may be used as well. we know before mccain-feingold congress did move to try to require disclosure -- more disclosure from 527's. it's also important to emphasize what trevor potter put very eloquently into his testimony, which is so much of the problem here is not based on either the law or the court, which is very much in favor of disclosure. it's a federal election commission which has tried to redefine, take a pat moynihan's term of defining deviancy down. they tried to define disclosure down to make it moredy. that's a root of some of the problems. >> mr. potter, as i went back and looked at citizens united and mccutcheon, it was clear the whole holding was based upon a premise of vigorous diskwlow sure. that was -- disclosure. that's how the two courts justified eliminating the

lifments, but they posited -- limits, but they posited a disclosure regimen that doesn't exist. >> i think as an outsider one of the mysteries to the supreme court's decision in citizens united is the very is strong language by justice kennedy where he says, until today we have not had a systemle with unlimited corporate spending but full disclosure. and now that we have corporate spending allowed in federal elections, and the full disclosure, he goes on, as i quoted, citizens will be able to figure out who is spending the money. shareholders will know what the corporations are up to. the question is why did justice kennedy say that? i think the answer is pretty clear because he's looking at the law. he's looking at mccain-feingold, which requires disclosure of the sources of spending of advertising if somebody gives

more than $1,000 to the groups that are doing it, or if it's done through a separate group they set up for that spenged. >> a -- before my time expires, the issue about disclosure is -- as i have heard it articulated, if people -- donors' names are disclosed they'll be subject to intimidation and threats, and those finds of things. my old colleague from virginia law school, who i know as nino scalia, i now understand is antonin scalia, stand up for their political acts foster civic courage which democracy is doomed. in maine we have town meetings every spring. nobody is allowed to go to a maine town meeting with a bag on their head. if they make a speech, they have to acknowledge who they are. that's part of the information the voters need, it seems to me. mr. ornstein, what do you make of this argument that disclosure ll lead to reactions and intimidation and threats? >> i agree with justice scalia

very much. i must say, mr. chairman, as i have been watching the pictures from ukraine and you see these people not with bags but masks over their heads, it made me think about this a little bit. that there are societies where they try to hide identities. that's not what america's all about. and some of the discussion here that goes back to a case involving the naacp, is really not a very good mare lell -- parallel. it's one thing if you have threats of death and the like, but in a democracy where there is rough and tumble, and something that actually both senator roberts and senator cruz talked about, that's the nature of democracy, if you're going to be involved in this process and somebody's going to criticize you for it, there's nothing wrong with that. you have to have some reasonable limits, it is true. if you do have direct intimidation. but there are laws very much that guard against that already on the books. >> thank you. senator roberts.

> i would just like to reserve no one exercising their first amendment right to my knowledge is endorsing fire in theerts or pornography or noise pollution. i suspect, however, that many on both sides of the aisle have characterized their opponents as stating noise pollution or conducting themselves with regards to noise pollution. the other thing i would say is the exercise of free speech that one disagree was is not pornography, although we know it when we see it. when we put on our partisan glasses. nor is it necessary to label repeatedly to characterize those with whom you disagree as un-american.

mr. ornstein, norm, the i.r.s. is not moving to promulgate the regulation that is were in place the exact regulations that were in place that some of us believe caused the problem with the i.r.s. trampling on the rights, first amendment rights of some conservative groups, pry plare the tea party. -- primarily the tea party. they are not moving because they received over 200,000 comments. by law you have to go through them. they have stopped. they have also stopped because senator flake of arizona and myself at least suggested to the new commissioner of i.r.s. that it might be a good thing to withhold writing the regulations until the finance committee of the united states senate, ways and means committee in the house and inspector general would get one with the investigations. problems like every other investigation with redaction and

other things. we are persevering and trying to do it in a bipartisan manner, more especially with the senate finance committee. so they have held off right you no and i think that's a good idea. i think once we finish the investigations, we can determine what actually happened. i have some feeling about that as to where that came from, and i think it came from more than a number of senators writing basically to the i.r.s. stating that they felt the activities of various groups were not in keeping with what they envisioned the provision to call for. but that aside i just wanted to the n that you reference hatch act. yesterday it was announced that an f.e.c. attorney resigned for admitted violations of the act. according to relief from the office of special counsel, the employee posted dozens of partisan political tweets,

including many soliciting campaign contribution to the president's 2012 election campaign and other political campaigns despite the hatch act restrictions that prohibit the f.e.c. and other further restricted employees from such activity. the employee also participated in a hufferington post live internet broadcast via webcam at an f.e.c. facility criticizing the republican party and the presidential candidate of the republicans at that time, mitt romney. i think you can understand why reports of this nature make republicans somewhat wary of the f.e.c. and their ability to regulate their behavior. are we to believe there are not others at the commission who shared these views but haven't been caught expressing them? and i mentioned you, norm, but that question is directed to miss raffle, who i think could ravel.-- a vell --

>> i can't speak on behalf of the f.e.c. but i will tell you that the f.e.c. responded very quickly to that when it came to the attention of people within the agency. and understood that it was totally inappropriate behavior on behalf of an employee. and further there's been an investigation internally and there is no reason to believe that this is exfencive -- is extensive or goes beyond anybody except this one individual who has since been terminated. >> that was my next question, you have already answered it. my question was in your experience at the commission are any negative views of the republican party widespread among the employees there or members of the f.e.c.? even sitting around and having coffee saying my god what are

those crazy republicans doing now? >> senator, i -- or what robert's doing. >> i have never heard your name mentioned. >> thank you. >> at the f.e.c. >> at least i'm not part of that dark money scandal. >> no. as i indicated i was speaking on behalf of relating to an i.n.s. e dent at the -- case at the fppc, but in my six months at the f.e.c. have never heard any partisan communications by either employees or commissioners. while we all are appointed based on our party -- >> that must be one agency that's an island in the sun. mr. mcgann what do you think about this? what was your experience in this regard? should we view this as an

isolated incident or evidence of a broader problem? >> i saw the news and i was very troubled by it. when the f.e.c. has had issue, i think it's very serious. i think it certainly calls into question what many of the reform lobbyists have said for years, there is this idea of nonpartisan staff that can exist divorced from politics and provide advice and that sort of thing. that being said, what i can say is most of the folks at the f.e.c. played it straight. they show up on time. do their job well. they are committed to their job. they don't have an agenda. but there are some folks who seem to get a little carried away with themselves from time to time. i think that's troubling. the cure for this is one, hatch act. two, keep in mind what the f.e.c. is and what it isn't. it's not an independent agency composed of career staff. it is actually six persons appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. it's not a nonpartisan agency.

it's a bipartisan agency. under the statute in order for the commission to take action t. takes four of six commissioners to confirm that. so staff get a little carried away, that's not good. but in my view the commission is then -- this is a reason why commissioners need to remain vigilant and exercise the power of the congress has given them under the statute to run the agentcy. the idea that commissioners want to delegate to staff and that thing i have never been a big fan of that. i think the unfortunate release that came out yesterday is evidence that my view of the law is found and that really it shows the wisdom of the original system of the f.e.c. where the commissioners have to act in a bipartisan manner to avoid one party esectionly -- essentially targeting the other party. >> my time has expired. >> thank you. senator udall.

senator klobuchar, welcome to the hearing. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. hi two previous hearings including the joint economic committee. so i apologize for getting here now. i think this is an incredibly important topic. i thank you for holding this hearing. i thank justice stevens for his testimony and his support for constitutional amendment. i also thank my colleague here, senator udall, for his work in leading the constitutional amendment which i'm a co-sponsor. i'm very troubled by the recent supreme court decisions, mccutcheon decision extending the damage citizens united caused in my mind. i looked back, i was cleaning out a backroom in my house in minnesota last week, and found a bunch of things from my campaign for county attorney where, mr. chairman, we had $100 limit on contributions in the off election years, and $500 in the election year. i found letters where we returned $10 if people had gone

over the $100 limit. i then thought of my first days, i found a bunch of stuff from the 2006 senate campaign where i knew no one to ask money from nationally. i literally went through my entire rolodex and i remember setting the all time senate record of raising $17,000 from ex-boyfriends. those days are behind us as we head into this new era after the supreme court decisions and i'm incredibly troubled by these decisions when you can have a few thousand people be able to give hundreds of thousands of dollars. i just think it destroys our campaign finance system. i guess i'll start with you, mr. potter. there's been a lot of discussion about what the real world impact of citizens united has been and how mccutcheon will affect it going forward. can you describe what trends or major shifts you see in campaign finance since the citizens united ruling and how mccutcheon will impact those trends in the

future? >> yes, thank you, senator. i think the first trend which was noted in the chairman's question a moment ago is that contrary to what the supreme court said in citizens united, we are seeing secret spending. the court's assumption was that although we would have new sources of spending, corporations, and then unions, that it would be disclosed and that shareholders and citizens would know who was speaking, could evaluate that speech. and that's what's not happening now. because of the f.e.c.'s position on what has to be disclosed, because of this proliferation of tax exempt groups that do not disclose their donors, we have ended up with a parallel avenue of spending in elections so that essentially if someone wants to influence an election, if they are being solicited for money, the first question is, am i willing to have my spending

disclosed, or not? and if not, then you look at all these vehicles that are available to spend the same money to run the same ads, but not have it being a matter of public record so that -- >> i remember the $99 contributions in my $100 race for county attorney. i know that. but this is taking it to a whole different level as you point out when there is no disclosure. and the effect that will have. i guess the other question, you took this even a step further mr. ornstein when you talked about how the definition of corruption is so narrow in the supreme court case. it says, that we can only regulate donations to prevent actual quid pro quo bribery. i do think this is problematic and should we be able to regulate this? >> first of all let me say you were a great county attorney.

beyond that i -- anybody i think who has been around the political process at all knows what happens when you have money intersect with power. and the many ways, indirect and otherwise, that you get corrupting influences. i have had some your colleagues tell me in the aftermath, not just of citizens united but what i think was an equally corrosive decision speech now that followed that created the explosion of the superp.a.c.s and other ways, say they are visit bide somebody who says i'm representing americans for a better america. and they've got more money than god. pouring in $10 million in the final two weeks of the campaign to destroy somebody, that's easy. they really want this amendment. and i don't know what will happen if somebody opposes them, but that's the reality. they leave. and human beings are going to think it's one little amendment. or we'll think, i better raise $10 million not just what i need for my campaign, but as an

insurance fund just in case because i can't do that in the final two weeks of the campaign. that's just one set of examples. now in the aftermath of mccutcheon i can imagine a bunch of people coming in and waving checkbooks and sending each one of us has checks that can total $3.75 million now that we'll give to the hundreds of committees, joint fundraising committees, spread it around, and of course we'll have candidates we prefer. the motion that this will actually keep the individual limit is out the window. we will all write these checks, but there's one little thing here in the legislative arena that we want in return. you don't have to say it directly, it won't be on videotape. this is corrupting. we saw it in the gguilded age, and i think what justice kennedy and roberts have done in these decisions is open up a new guilded age. >> you ack political scientist, not just a campaign expert here, understand one of the problems we have had people so polarized,

whatever special interest is to the left or right, one of the things i'm worried about as i looked at this mccutcheon decision, even more than the independent expenditures, is that it will just play to the polls t will make it even harder for people to do things in the middle where they have to compromise and be able to kind of go in the face of some of the people from their own base, from their own party if they are just going to be punished in a big way by major donors. do you think there's any truth to that? >> i think you get when it comes to big donors, maybe four categories of people. two that represents the polls, and they are trying to use their money as electoral magnets. >> that's a good aal gi. -- analogy. >> a third type they have peculiar interest. they use money to make money. i'm frankly surprised we don't have more spending by big corporate interests in washington because it's the best investment you can make.

put in $20 million that goes into funding of campaigns, maybe you'll get $1 billion contract out of it. we'll see more of that now. i think we are heading down a slippery slope of direct contributions by corporations to candidates. and then maybe you have a category of those who are just looking out for the broader public interest. i think that's a much smaller category than the other three. >> the last thing i'd raise, no question, maybe we can go back after you're done, this issue even when you're making a decision as on elected official to do what you consider to be the right thing for your state. maybe you have a lot of employees in a certain area and you think it's important or the right thing for the country, i think with the lack of trust with all these big contributions people still will look at it, even though you know in the heart you made the decision for the right reason, and they think you got money from these interests. i think even when you're doing it for the right reason, it completely breaks down trust from the public about why you're doing things. that's one of the major problems

and i support this constitutional amendment. >> thank you. a couple of follow-up questions. in listening to this and thinking about these organizations that essentially are designed to disguise identity, the term identity laundering comes to mind. that's what's going on here. it's a reverse on the old idea of money laundering. ms. ravel, that was what was going on in your case. mr. were donors in california who the money went to virginia to arizona back to california. it was all about laundering the identity out of that contribution. isn't that correct? >> yes, mr. chair. the nitial request for money in california was, if you want your identity to be known, you can give directly to a p.a.c.

if you do not want your identity to be known, and you want to remain anonymous, it can go to this virginia nonprofit. and so the money that went to the virginia nonprofit was specifically for the purpose of not revealing identity, and it was then moved circuitusly through all the other nonprofits for the same reason. >> mr. ornstein, thank you. that's the way it appeared. mr. ornstein, one of the situations is whenever you try to do something about an issue like this -- by wait i enjoyed this morning sitting literally in the center between senator roberts and senator schumer, but when you try to do something, everybody thinks of it in partisan terms. does this advantage my party versus the other party, my candidate versus the other. this data i referred to that came out yesterday indicates that the gap, the red more

conservative leaning groups, the blue are more liberal groups, and the gap between them is diminishing significantly. it's 85% or 90% conservative back in 2010, as you see here, still a dig disproportion in 2012. the gap is now 60-40. hopefully both sides are going to realize this is a danger. in snth a -- this isn't a partisan issue to me. this nondisclosed money is a danger to the republic no matter who it favors one year to the next. as the old testament says if you sow wind you'll reap the whirlwind. i'm afraid people are saying right now today this benefits my party. but next year or year after that it could benefit the other party and that's why i think we need to make a change like this. >> it's interesting, mr. chairman, that before mccain-feingold you did have a

bipartisan consensus on the need for more disclosure. indeed when congress was considering in 2000 requiring more disclosure of 527 groups, we had overwhelming bipartisan majority support it. one who didn't was the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell. but what senator mcconnell said at the time was, he didn't support it because it didn't require enough disclosure. including what he said was a requirement for disclosure from these nonprofit groups. now what we think of as the 501-c-4's. we have a very different attitude now. it has become more polarized. i don't see why disclosure should be a partisan issue at this point. i don't see why we can't cut through that. i do think that this is something where now that there are more avenues for monny, people who have interests, and that includes the polar opposites as well on both sides, are going to start to pour more and more money into it. and in many cases they are going

to try and hide where that money's coming from. one of the things we have seen is they will often use inappropriate vehicles, 501-c-3's, the pure nonprofits, to give grants of money to other groups that can go to other groups that can go to other groups that finally end up in a 501-c-4 that doesn't get disclosed. there are so many opportunities here to hide identities and hide money, how can voters figure out when a message is coming who is providing that message which is a requirement of context to know whether to believe it. >> one of the interesting data points in this thue study is that votes tend to put more credit to ads that come from these groups than they do from the candidates. even though they don't know who the groups are. the groups may be americans for greener grass, and voters tend to think it's not candidate ad. it must be more -- have more authority. but they don't know who the money -- who is funding americans for greener grass. i'm in favor of that.

>> one of the things as well, we have talked and senator -- excuse me, just continue stevens talked about a level playing field. one of the things that concerns me is the level playing field is moving very much away from the candidates of both parties and in a host of ways. candidates have to raise money in $2,600 increments, and groups that now can spend untold amounts that can pour it in at the end of the campaign when a candidate doesn't have an opportunity to answer those essages, have now, i think, an influence. it's not that money will necessarily be spent. the threat of spending unless something is done is enough. many cases we will see actions taken by government behind closed doors or by changing amendments that nobody will know about without a dime being spent under these circumstances as anonymous groups apply that threat. it's not a good way to run

business in a democracy. >> mr. potter, i felt one of the most interesting moments today was when senator cruz said unlimited contributions and immediate disclosure. react to that concept. >> i think there are two different issues here. one is the idea of full and immediate disclosure, which is the one senator cruz talked about i believe in the context in fairness to senator cruz, in the context of contributions to candidates. the other is the issue of how much candidates should be able to accept as contributions or party committees which are comprised of candidates without citizens thinking that they have been bought. and that's been the debate really since certainly watergate where you had million dollar --

>> if you have full disclosure the citizens can make that decision. look, my candidate took half a million dollars from x, y, z, and i don't like that. >> they can. that is where we were in the early 1970's when there were million dollar contributions to he nixon re-election campaign. the reaction was something is being sold or something is being bought for a million dollars. the supreme court in buckley said, it is not irrational, it is common sense that people will believe that huge contributions are intended to buy access, influence, results and that people who take them are in some way being bought. so that's why the court in buckley said, it makes perfectly good sense to limit the size of contributions to candidates and party commeemplets because -- committees because of the perception, danger and

perception that there is a transaction. so if you have an unlimited contribution that is fully disclosed, you still have the million dollars coming in. even the question i think will be for the justice stevens' question s. what about people who don't have a million dollars? they don't get to buy any access or influence? but that's been the justification for the contribution limits. the debate has been what size should they be? the assumption has been that those contributions will be disclosed and as far as we know they are all fully disclosed, but that the independent expenditures that the court allowed in the buckley decision, which the court said were not going to be corrupting because they would be totally, wholly, completely independent of candidates would also be fully disclosed. we have ended up in a way the worst of both worlds there which is contrary to what the court has said, they are not fully

disclosed as we discussed or need not be, there is an option there. secondly, they are not wholly, totally, and completely independent of candidates, either. the court's assumption they can't be corrupting because candidate and parties will have nothing to do with them. but the reality is we have seen is that many of these super p.a.c.s created are created by former employees of candidates relatives of candidates, they are in many ways tied to the candidates, candidates have appeared at events for these, thanked donors for giving to them. they are not totally wholly independent as the court expected. so it's not in that sense they are not fulfilling the role the court thought they would. >> we have used the word -- this is the subject that hasn't come up today. we have used the word perception a number of times. i don't think there's much question and polls support this that this whole money and politics is part of what is turning off the american people

to the process. it's part of what's undermining the confidence and trust in the system which is ultimately what our system rests upon. i think that's part of the -- it doesn't have to be a bribe. it just is unseemly and people realize that. it may be one of the reasons that our collective approval rating around here is below al qaeda. it just strikes me there hasn't been enough discussion of that. is the underlying distaste nor this whole system that is undermining trust and confidence in our government. senator klobuchar, you wanted to follow up? >> sure. i was listening to mr. potter so i'm a big fan of transparency, but i don't think in any way will it solve all the problems because i think what's going to happen, it's going to happen, i know it, certain people given certain states, maybe their

entity or what they have done isn't as unpopular and someone else will give money in another state. they'll find a way. i think with good disclosure law they'll have to disclose, but i don't think it's going to fix the problem of the trust that senator king just talked about. as well as the amount of money that can be spent in the -- not just unseemliness, it's a thin line between unseemly and a bribe. mr. potter, what do you think? do you think disclosure is enough? >> as you point out if you get full disclosure you now know what's happening. will people like what's happening? that's a different question. -- it may well be that full disclosure leads the american public to say, only a limited number of people are being able to buy access, these campaigns cost so much that members have to spend coach time raising monny, and they are going to spend it logically with the

people who have money. full disclosure doesn't get you everywhere. full disclosure is a start to a then fuller discussion of how do we want to finance campaigns? >> you think it's possible we need to do more than disclosure? >> absolutely. >> but i think that your argument would be that if you have disclosure then maybe that will more easily lead to other measures. >> right. my concern here, going back to the mccutcheon decision, my concern is that i think five justices in the court are in a position where they are saying congress, you can't do more. we have said disclosure is fine. internet disclosure is great. but unless it is bribery it's ok. so this intermediate area that the chairman talks about, it's unseemly, diminishes confidence in government, that used to be covered by quote, the appearance of corruption. the notion that congress could legislate as it did with soft

money, not because there was proof of quid pro quo bribe riff people going to jail, but because of the unseemliness of six and seven figure contributions often solicited in terms of, as mr. ornstein says, join the chairman's club, have a breakfast meeting with the chairman of the x, y, z, committee. congress said you can't do that because it's bad for the institution and bad for public confidence in congress. and what i worry about is that five justices on the court are saying, too bad. you can't fix that. you can't regulate that. if it's not actual outright bribery, congress can't prevent that sort of activity. and that seems to me to be a crisis for this institution and public confidence. >> mr. ornstein. >> senator klobuchar, i want to add a couple points . when we think about corruption it goes bothways. one of the problems with removing alt limits is that the

pressure on big donors who can no longer say with an umbrella of protection i have maxed out, being pushed to give more and more, or in some instances we have seen before being told that if they give to the other side then mayhem will ensue upon them in the legislative process is another part of this that's a very real problem. and then what i would also like to say full' give me permission is senator cruz said none of these reforms have done anything except increase corruption. i think it's important to set the record straight. in the sense that mr. potter talked about watergate and it led to a law that changed the way presidential campaigns were funded, and to me it's just incontrovertably clear that for decades after we changed the presidential system so there were voluntary spending limits and public grants. we had a much cleaner and better system. it fell apart because we didn't adjust those numbers and it became absurd there wasn't

enough money there. and to be frank, there wasn't enough public support for public money in the campaigns. now i think you're absolutely right, senator king, that -- we have lots of moles that show it, the sense that the public -- polls to show it, the sense that the public believes all of politics and particularly in washington is thoroughly corrupt, that citizens don't have much of a say here, that other interests are prevailing, is a corrosive -- has a corrosive impact on the ability of a democracy to function with legitimatecy. and that these two supreme court decisions pretty much latently push that aside to me is a really troubling development. >> i'm convinced that it's not just -- >> can you continue watching this hearing online at c-span.org. we'll break away here. the u.s. house is gaveling in next to begin work on the first of the 12 annual spending bills for fiscal year 2015. they will take up the bill

dealing with veterans' affairs and also the defense construction as well. that's coming up shortly on the house floor. meanwhile in the senate in just a bit they'll take a procedural vote on the minimum wage bill. this is a democratic bill that would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour over the course of two years. that procedural vote on moving forward coming up very shortly. can you follow that vote on our companion network, c-span2. now here on c-span, live hot house floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god we give you thanks for giving us another day. lead us this day in your ways that our nation may be guided along the roads of peace, justice, and good will. recent events, including the tragic murders in kansas motivated by religious bigotry and the unfortunate high profile racism displayed in los angeles, remind us that we as a nation still have work to do to guarantee that our founding documents and their soaring ideals are realized by all who dwell in our land. grant strength and wisdom to our speaker and the members of both this assembly and the senate, to

our president and his cabinet, and to our supreme court, as well as to us all, that all our institutions and all our communities fulfill the noble promises of our representative form of self-government. grant us the colonel to become whom you have called us to be, , so that the es united states may continue to be a nation worthy of emulation. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: will you join me in

the audience, 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 pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: last week we lerped the i.r.s. paid out bonuses and other rewards to more than 1,100 employees who owe back taxes totaling more than $1 million of taxpayer money. that's outrageous. this bonus scandal comes at a time when the i.r.s. is under

fire for toorgetting americans based on their beliefs and amid report this is a reveal i.r.s. workers broke the law by engaging in political activity on the job. simply put, the i.r.s. is out of control. i.r.s. employees are failing to comply with the very laws they were hired to enforce. worse, it further prove this is a washington doesn't respect nor care how americans' hard-earned tax dollars are spent. it's time for the i.r.s. to respect hardworking american taxpayers. that's why i am introducing a commonsense bill to prohibit the i.r.s. from providing bonuses to tax delinquent i.r.s. workers. i urge my colleagues to join in this effort. it's the right thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection the gentleman

from new york is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, yesterday the united states department of transportation released a proposal to spend $302 billion over the next four years on highway and transportation projects in our nation. though this is an improvement on the pathetically weak investment in roads and bridges it's not nearly enough to address america's broken infrastructure. mr. higgins: the american society of civil engineers gives the united states' infrastructure a d grade and predicts an additional $3.6 trillion investment will be needed by 2020 just to bring america's infrastructure to a state of good repair. making a good investment, going beyond the president's proposal is not only an investment in our nation, it's also an important investment in our nation's people. nation building here at home can't be outsourced and could create millions of jobs and dramatically lower the unemployment rate. i urge my colleagues to support large scale investment in america, supporting american

people and mesh businesses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognize for one minute. mrs. walorski: mr. speaker, tomorrow marks the 63rd annual national day of prayer. tomorrow morning i will join a bipartisan group of members to gather together and pray for our country. as we continue to face obstacles each day, both as a country and as an individual, i urge americans to join us in praying for wisdom and guidance, thanking god for the many blessings we have been given in this nation. our thoughts and prayers are with our brave service men and women in -- and their families who are serving overseas and here. protecting our freedom and putting their lives on the line for our curt. we pray they return home to our grateful nation swiftly and safely. let us also continue to pray for peace in our own communities. lord 145 promises that the

is near to all who call upon him an i urge you to join me tomorrow in observing the national day of prayer. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? without objection the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: i rise on national animal advocacy day to announce the introduction of the animal emergency planning tact of 2014. this bill would require entities regulated under the animal welfare act to develop a plan for how they will respond to and recover from emergencies. both natural and manmade, that would most likely occur in their facilities. regulated animal breeding facilities, commercial animal dealers, exhibitors and research facilities would be required to submit plans to the usda annually and train their employees on the contingency

plans and procedures. hurricanes katrina and sandy as well as other recent disasters have highlighted the need for planning to minimize the impact of these disasters on animals which can have devastating effects. local first responders, nongovernmental agencies and private individuals in the past have often ended up shouldering the cost and taking on the responsibility of protecting and caring for these an mals. it's only fair and reasonable to require emergency readiness plans from those in these businesses. so please join me in co-sponsoring this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today in support of making the research and development tax credit permanent. america has a long tradition of supporting research and development. the r&d tax which was first enacted in 1991 under president

ronald -- 1981 under president ronald reagan stimulates investment, creates high value jobs and drives economic growth. mr. marchant: but the r&d credit has never been made permanent. it expired at the end of last year which has caused significant uncertainty and hurts long-term investment for businesses of all sizes. the roller coaster of tax extensions, expirations and renewals should stop. businesses need to make decisions on what's best for their workers and companies, not the stop and go policies of an uncompetitive tax code. perm then soif the r&d tax credit will compel u.s. competitiveness and also help promote future investment, innovation and job growth right here at home. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today there are two million american this is a stand to lose everything they've worked for through no fault of their own. two million americans that are working americans, that get up every day and work hard to find their next job. mr. kildee: they're america's unemployed who have lost their extended unemployment benefits. they stand to lose everything. but rather than taking up h.r. 4415 which i introduced right after the senate acted on a bipartisan basis to deal with this problem of the unemployed in our country, to make sure that that unemployment compensation is there for them when they need it, rather than take that up, the house budget committee has said to this -- sent to this floor for its consideration a budget that would slash essential program that provide a safety net for those hardworking americans who stand to lose everything in

order to fund tax cuts, big tax cuts for america's wealthiest people. that is policy that we just can't tolerate. rather than taking up the needs of those two million, we need -- we have taken on the challenge of trying to provide more tax cutters in wealthiest americans. if this has happened because of a storm, we would act overnight. we need to take up h. reform 415. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. given the fact that 95% of consumers live outside our borders, the u.s. must continue to pursue trade opportunities. the u.s. actually had a trade surplus with our 20 trade agreement partners in 2012. trade agreements expand opportunities and fuel competition which benefits consumers and can strengthen and protect american interests

around the world. mr. smith: though trade agreements make sense strategically and economically, some nations are not playing by the rules. barriers to agriculture are the most pressing issue for my home state of nebraska but every the u.s.-- every -- if fails to lead, our exports will be placed at a competitive disadvantage to those from countries moving forward with aggressive trade agendas. to enhance u.s. leverage in the marketplace we need to pass the bipartisan trade priorities act. by renewing this act we would demonstrate seriousness about formulating enforcement, science-based rules and empower the rest of world to follow suit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? does the gentlelady seek unanimous consent? wogs, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, all you need to do is watch one ep sed --

episode of "madmen" to know women in the work force have come a long way. mrs. capps: while we'd like to say everything is better now we know that's not the case. on the central coast of california and across the united states, women continue to earn less than men for equal work. child care costs more than college tuition. access to earn -- access to earned paid family leave, maternity leave and sick days is lagging. these are barriers for women but they also have a ripple effect on their families and on our local economies. we're not powerless to address this. that's why i hosted an open community forum last week to explore the many ways we can support an economy that works for women and families. that's why we need a vote on the women's economic agenda, a slate of legislative proposal this is a strengthen the middle class and our local economies because

we know that when women succeed, america succeeds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognize for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week our nation observes the 63rd national day of prayer. to rs have been gathering recognize this day since 1952. we have been and still remain a nation under god. mr. palazzo: i will pray for my nays, i will pray for the people i serve with here in congress. i will pray for the people i serve in south mississippi. i pray that god will continue to bless this land. also my prayers and thoughts are with all those in my home state of mississippi and throughout the country affected by this week's storms. i want to thank my colleagues who have reached out to my office and to our delegation.

this week as we bow our heads once more to observe the national day of prayer, we also remember the 35 lives lost, the loved ones who mourn them, and the hundreds of communities picking up the pieces to rebuild their lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . mr. cohen: yesterday cloture was lifted with less than 60 votes. ms. litman will surely be confirmed by the senate today. she's now standing jurist to our recommended to the president. she was counsel to the university of memphis president, esteemed attorney in private practice, and the executive director of diversity

that brings people together. she was recommended by a bipartisan group of ad hoc lawyers in memphis as the highest qualified person seeking the position. she will serve the district well. commend president obama for his nomination. i thank senator alexander and senator corker for their bipartisanship in voting for the closure and voting for her today in helping this nomination come about. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? does gentlelady seek unanimous consent? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in honor of a holocaust remember remembrance day to pay respect to over 10 million people, including six million jews who were systematically murdered by the nazis. we learn how ordinary men and women can turn a blind eye to

massive suffering and death. this january i traveled to poland to observe the 69th anniversary of the liberation of the auschwitz concentration camp. we were joined by representatives, parliamentarians from 60 different countries, over half of the knesset from israel, and many, many survivors. the memory of the holocaust is seared forever into the consciousness of a generation of people who survived it. through their stories, the lessons of that dark time, serve as a warning to future generations. in the words of elie weasel, human suffering anywhere concerns men and women everywhere. t is with that sentiment i vow never to forget and never again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire seek recognition? >> thank you. i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute. >> wowed, the gentlelady from new hampshire is recognized for ne minute. ms. kuster: it astonishes to me by the time a woman graduates from college one in five will be the victim of sexual assault. colleges are institutions of higher learning, no student, especially young women, should ever feel threatened on the campus they call home for four years. i applaud the president for announcing a series of efforts to strengthen federal involvement and provide schools with the tools needed to end sexual assaults on campus. we must work across the aisle to put an end to this violence and to give victims the support they need. the new website launched yesterday not alone.gov will do just that, increase transparency through annual surveys and information on the prevalence of sexual assaults on campus. as a member of the third class of women ever to graduate from dartmouth college, i was proud to see the president step up to

address unsafe and inappropriate behavior on the campus and to he see the university of new hampshire recognized for their initiatives to reduce sexual violence on campus. we must continue to address these issues head on and insure a safe and secure environment for learning for all college students, men and women. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following encontrolled bill. -- enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 994, an act to expand the transparency act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in federal spending, and for ther purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 557 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 102, house resolution 557. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 4486, making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amount under the five-minute rule. points of order against he provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority and recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the coord designated for that purpose -- cord designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18, amendments so printed shall be considered as read. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule

18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 4487, making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. shall ment to the bill be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, be be considered as read, shall be

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3, pending the adoption of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015, the amendment provided for current law mandatory budget authority and outlays contained in the statement of the chair of the committee on the budget of the house of representatives in the congressional record dated april 29, 2014, shall be considered for all purposes in the house to be allocations to the committee on appropriations under section 30 -a of the

congressional budget act of 1974. section 4, during consideration of h.r. 4486 and h.r. 4487, pursuant to this resolution, the suballocations printed in house report number 113-425, shall be qurd for all purposes in the house to be self-allocations under section 30 -b of the congressional budget act of 1974. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: mr. speaker, on tuesday the rules committee met and reported a rule for consideration for the first two

appropriations bill that the house will consider for fiscal year 2015. h.r. 4486, the military construction and veterans administration appropriations act, and h.r. 4487, the legislative branch appropriations act. the resolution provides an open rule for consideration of h.r. 4486 so that all members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments on this important piece of legislation. the resolution also provides the structured rule for consideration of h.r. 4487, the legislative branch appropriations act, which is customarily considered in this manner. the structured rule makes in order eight amendments. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to present to this house the first of what i hope are many appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. because of the ryan-murray budget agreement late last year, the appropriations committee has been able to move expeditiously and report these

two bills for consideration by the whole house. in fact, this is the earliest that appropriations bills have been considered in this house since 1974. in addition, mr. speaker, both of these bills enjoy strong bipartisan support. both were reported out of committee by voice vote. and take into account updated priorities for the coming fiscal year. i'm proud, for example, that we are able to provide additional funding for our veterans who have given so much in service to our country. i'm also proud that these bills maintain the fiscal discipline this country so desperately needs. the milcon-va bill spends $1.8 billion less than fiscal year 2014, and the legislative branch bill provides for level funding. mr. speaker, i want to commend chairman rogers for beginning this process in earnest and look forward to consideration of additional appropriations measures at the appropriate time. i urge support for the rule and

the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i'd like to thank my friend from oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. mr. speaker, 4486, the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act for iscal year 2015 provides for $165 billion in appropriations for veterans programs. military construction project and other agencies and programs. h.r. 4487, the legislative branch appropriations act for scal year 2015, provides for $3.3 billion for legislative branch activities. this bipartisan effort, and i'd like to underscore that because clearly the parties working on

this matter worked together, and we need more of that in this institution. this bipartisan effort brought democrats and republicans together to draft legislation that appropriates funds to military construction projects, improves quality of life for veterans, and military families, and allows for the continued operation of essential functions of our nation's governing body. included within these measures is an increase of $8.8 billion for veterans benefits programs. guaranteeing those who have dedicated themselves to he defending our nation will receive the benefits that they earned. i'm very proud of the fact that mike is sitting with he me today and is one of those veterans that is working in my office and has prepared me for this particular day, and i'd like to thank he, tom, and all

the people that worked with us with reference to this particular part of the responsibilities that we have on rules. h.r. 4486 provides for significant reductions to defense department construction spending, which is in line with the president's fiscal 2015 request, but uses those savings to increase total funding for the veterans' affairs department by 7%. this shift represents the growing awareness that as we wind down the costly wars that we have been engaged in for over a decade, we must now turn our full attention to supporting those who will bear the cost of those wars for decades to come. last week i participated in a ceremony for world war ii vietnam, and korean war veterans where we were honoring

a gentleman that has spent a large portion of his career in making sure that veterans receive their proper due. it was telling to me that we had not done all that they anticipated that we could, and therefore i'm hopeful that we will take cog any zans of the fact that the -- cognizance of the fact that the veterans coming 40e78 from iraq and afghanistan will have tremendous need and hopefully this small advance will allow for us to attend them properly. the department of veterans' affairs has provided $158.2 billion in budget authority, an increase of almost 7% over last year. this legislation ensures full funding for essential v.a. compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational training and