lungren. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. chairman. if it hasn't been requested already, i would ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the chair: it's already been requested in the house. we can move on. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 359 which terminates the taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. at the outset i want to mention in response to something that s said by the other side, this is absolutely nothing to do with the citizens united case decided by the supreme court. that changed not one eye oata campaign finance law. corporations still cannot make contributions to campaigns or candidates. it does not change that. citizens united had to do with the estion of whether or not one los his or her first amendment protections of free speech, particularly with respect to expressions of

lungren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. last week, gabby giffords did speak the words of the first amendment on the floor and they talked about the right of citizens in the united states to come and plead their case to their members of congress and to seek the redress of their grievances. and i think they -- our founding fathers anticipated that we would be involved in robust and vigorous debate. but they also hoped that we would utilize some sense of civility as we did so. i would like to read an email that i received from a constituent that would bring a smile to the lips of gabby giffords and responds in some way to what the gentleman from michigan has just said. dear representative lungren, i write to share with you my feelings of hearing the news of the terrible shooting. i find i'm overwhelmed by emotion. in the past and i suspect in the future, i have disagreed with you on many of the political things that you have said and done. i have voted against you. i have even felt expressed frustration and anger about you. i

congressman lungren, to you first. let's explore further this jobs argument that the republicans making. the title is repealing the job- killing health care law. your republican colleagues are arguing it's going to destroy or is is destroying 650,000 jobs. what is the evidence of that? >> well first of all there's not a single economist that believes that raising taxes in the midst of this economic downturn even though some call it a recovery makes much sense and adds to job recovery. secondly you've already seen that hhs is is looking at 200 different major companies who have asked for waivers saying that they cannot go forward with what's imposed on them under this bill, lest they lose jobs. that's over 200 already. hhs is already talking about extending a number of those waivers. if in fact it doesn't have the effect of killing jobs those waivers would not be requested. in fact, we would not have the secretary suggesting that they be done. it makes no sense to allow the federal government to have that ability to say

lungren: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner. a member of the transition team. mr. gardner: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gardner: mr. speaker, today i'm glad to support a resolution that puts away the knives of politics and instead pulls out the shears of budget cutting. thank you to representative walden, mr. walden, for your work in the transition committee to again restore accountability and transparency by leading with example in one of the most historic institution this is world has ever witnessed. throughout my time in the state legislature of colorado, throughout the past several months, i have talked to constituents around the fourth congressional district of colorado about the lead to -- need to lead by example, need to start in our own backyard first. to cut our budgets. to make sure we are leading by example. just a co

member brady and chairman lungren for their support on this matter. mr. speaker, let me emphasize that this bill is in the a criticism of the g.p.o., nor its hardworking employees. the g.p.o. does and does well what congress directs it to do. we're simply looking for ways and opportunities to reduce the cost of government. since its establishment in 1860 the g.p.o. has been the print over record for our congressional record, committee reports, the well-respected constitution annotated, the federal register and many other historic and necessary documents that this institution and our government need to do our collective work. but mr. speaker, in this 112th congress, well into the 21st century, in an age of ipads and kindles and blackberries and iphones, it is simply no longer necessary to require excess printing and the delivery to our office of thousands and

lungren: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today in support of this resolution. the thoughts and prayers of florida's second congressional district i deliver, our hearts are broken over the events of sat. we want to deliver today our thoughts especially to those families who lost their loved ones, the six families who were today memorializing them and planning those details. you know, i also want to make sure that i express my appreciation for the short time that i had a privilege of speaking with representative giffords. you know, last thursday, shortly after we were sworn in, i walked just outside the floor and she met me outside and she extended her hand to me and she said, hello, she said, i'm gabby giffords. mr. southerland: she said, you must be new. i said, well, i am new. i'm steve southerland. she said, where are you from? >> i said, florida. she said, well let me introduce you to some people that will help you. mr. southerland: and she walked down the ha

lungren: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 359 which terminates the taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. at the outset i want to mention in response to something that was said by the other side, this is absolutely nothing to do with the citizens united case decided by the supreme court. that changed not one eye oata campaign finance law. corporations still cannot make contributions to campaigns or candidates. it does not change that. citizens united had to do with the question of whether or not one loses his or her first amendment protections of free speech, particularly with respect to expressions of political nature, merely because they associate with another person. the supreme court told us that you do not in fact lose your first amendment rights because you happen to say it jointly with someone else. so, as a matter of fact, they pointed out that some people with the least amount of influence in a society actually expand their influence in t

lungren: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in support of the request for the yeas and nays will rise, a sufficient number having raisin, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 410, the nays are 19. 2/3 of those present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent to have extraneous materials and a statement intrt into the record directly after the reading of the constitution. the

lungren: mr.chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 359 which terminates the taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. at the outset i want to mention in response to something that s said by the other side, this is absolutely nothing to do with the citizens united case decided by the supreme court. that changed not one eye oata campaign finance law. corporations still cannot make contributions to campaigns or candidates. it does not change that. citizens united had to do with the estion of whether or not one los his or her first amendment protections of free speech, particularly with respect to expressions of litical nature, merely because ey associate with another person. the supreme court told us that you do not in fact lose your first amendment rights because you happen to say it jointly with someone else. so, as a matter of fact, they pointed out that some people with the least amount of influence in a society actually expand their influence in the politica

lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in the scope of the american constitutional system of governing, the congress is a body whose power is defined within the context of imnumerated powers and this is more than a matter of structural mechanics because it goes to the heart of the issue of governmental power. or of if one prefers the slip side of the coin, personal freedom and responsibility. if government has the power to require that you buy item a, it means that you are less able to buy item b, c, d or anything else. now economists would call this the opportunity costs or foregone goods or services. but the fundamental question is the question of freedom to choose how we as individuals will spend the fruits of our labor. certainly the commerce clause lax the elassitiesity that would accommodate a requirement that every american buy health insurance which conforms to the dictates of the federal government and the federal government would change it on a yearly basis. such an interpretation would render the nation

lungren? boehner. lynch? pelosi. mccarthy of california? boehner. mccarthy of new york? pelosi. mccall of texas? boehner. mcclintock? boehner. mcdermott? pelosi. mcgovern? pelosi. mchenry? boehner. mcintyre? schuler. mckeon? boehner. mckinley? boehner. mcmorris rodgers? boehner. mcnerney? pelosi. mack? boehner. maloney? pelosi. manzullo? boehner. marchent? boehner. marino? boehner. markey? boehner. -- pelosi. matheson? schuler. matsui? pelosi. meehan? boehner. meeks? pelosi. mica? boehner. michaud? schuler. gary g. miller? boehner. geroge miller -- george miller? pelosi. miller of florida? boehner. miller of michigan? boehner. miller of north carolina? pelosi. moore? pelosi. moran? pelosi. mulvaney? boehner. murphy? pelosi. murphy? boehner. myrick? boehner. nadler? pelosi. napolitano? pelosi. neal? pelosi. neugebauer? boehner. noem? boehner. nugent? boehner. nunes? boehner. nunnelee? boehner. olson? boehner. olver? pelosi. owens? pelosi. palazzo? boehner. pallone jr.? pelosi. pascrell jr.? pelosi. oastir i -- pastor of arizona? pelosi. paul? boehner. paulsen? boehner. payne? pel

lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in the scope of the american constitutional system of governing, the congress is a body whose power is defined within the context of imnumerated powers and this is more than a matter of structural mechanics because it goes to the heart of the issue of governmental power. or of if one prefers the slip side of the coin, personal freedom and responsibility. if government has the power to require that you buy item a, it means that you are less able to buy item b, c, d or anything else. now economists would call this the opportunity costs or foregone goods or services. but the fundamental question is the question of freedom to choose how we as individuals will spend the fruits of our labor. certainly the commerce clause lax the elassitiesity that would accommodate a requirement that every american buy health insurance which conforms to the dictates of the federal government and the federal government would change it on a yearly basis. such an interpretation would render the nation

lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in the scope of the american constitutional system of governing, the congress is a body whose power is defined within the context of imnumerated powers and this is more than a matter of structural mechanics because it goes to the heart of the issue of governmental power. or of if one prefers the slip side of the coin, personal freedom and responsibility. if government has the power to require that you buy item a, it means that you are less able to buy item b, c, d or anything else. now economists would call this the opportunity costs or foregone goods or services. but the fundamental question is the question of freedom to choose how we as individuals will spend the fruits of our labor. certainly the commerce clause lax the elassitiesity that would accommodate a requirement that every american buy health insurance which conforms to the dictates of the federal government and the federal government would change it on a yearly basis. such an interpretation would render the nation

lungren? boehner. lynch? pelosi. mccarthy of california? boehner. mccarthy of new york? pelosi. mccall of texas? boehner. mcclintock? boehner. mcdermott? pelosi. mcgovern? pelosi. mchenry? boehner. mcintyre? schuler. mckeon? boehner. mckinley? boehner. mcmorris rodgers? boehner. mcnerney? pelosi. mack? boehner. maloney? pelosi. manzullo? boehner. marchent? boehner. marino? boehner. markey? boehner. -- pelosi. matheson? schuler. matsui? pelosi. meehan? boehner. meeks? pelosi. mica? boehner. michaud? schuler. gary g. miller? boehner. geroge miller -- george miller? pelosi. miller of florida? boehner. miller of michigan? boehner. miller of north carolina? pelosi. moore? pelosi. moran? pelosi. mulvaney? boehner. murphy? pelosi. murphy? boehner. myrick? boehner. nadler? pelosi. napolitano? pelosi. neal? pelosi. neugebauer? boehner. noem? boehner. nugent? boehner. nunes? boehner. nunnelee? boehner. olson? boehner. olver? pelosi. owens? pelosi. palazzo? boehner. pallone jr.? pelosi. pascrell jr.? pelosi. oastir i -- pastor of arizona? pelosi. paul? boehner. paulsen? boehner. payne? pel

temperatures will be nice. 68 richmond, 67 san francisco, los 60s concord, because of that valley fog lungren up in the delta that's why we are not getting out of the '50s there. mid to upper 60s for everybody else. 70 forecaster weekend as the clouds rolling in. more of our marine layer pushing onto shore. bringing cooler temperatures. temperatures dropping your 60. we go from 70 today down to 60 for the weekend. temperatures rebound once more the end of next week. >> 8 02 a.m., tracking some hot spots. highway 4 ride fog is a factor this morning. typically slow traffic here. through antioch and pittsburgh. you see the red which means below 25 got miles an hour. not so typical is the slowing in the will pass. 680 southbound into walnut creek are bound to get worse there is a report of black accident blocking lanes. it had been slow through here. westbound 24 ride also slow. check out this san ramon valley. in extremely heavy in the southbound direction leading into danville. northbound there was some minor problem with the stall, now northbound around el costa there is the report of off mult