mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to jared polis, thgentleman om colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: people enjoy their constitutional rights but corporations aren't alive, their sons can't be sent off to war. corporations are political zombies only knowing the pursuit. the econommc reason that corporations exist. but in the political context, there is negative civic value to such advocacy, especially withouthe reasonable expectations that was tossed out in the supreme court decision in citizens united.. when they give them an advantage over their competitors, everyone suffers and it undermines the confidence of liberals, conservatives, all citizens. that's why the disclose act is so needed, the flood of special interest money in our political system and to protect the free speech of individual americans and i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleadsed to recognize mr. hall from new york for one min

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is the most disturbing debate that i have engaged in in the 111th congress, and to hear what i have already heard from one of the most distinguished members of the judiciary committee is a little bit dismaying to me. let me say this. i'll answer one of his questions. what does the bill do? i agree. i'd love four hours. perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote regardless of its outcome. this bill rolls back the decision, blatant decision of citizens united and the supreme court by using the three tools that the court said that we could do to make their decision different. first, we can increase disclosure. two, youan require disclaimer requirements on advertise -- advertisements. and three, we can limit foreign influence in our elections. one, two, three. now, the danger of citizens uned decision, the most shocking decision i have re

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is the most disturbing debate that i have engaged in in the 111th congress, and to hear what i have already heard from one of the most distinguished members of the judiciary committee is a little bit dismaying to me. let me say this. i'll answer one his questions. whatoes the bill do? p agree. i'd love four hours. perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote regardless of its outcome. this bill roll back the decision, blatant decision of citizens united and the supreme court by using the three tools that the court said that we could do to make their decision different. first, we can increase disclosure. two, you can require disclaimer requirements on advertise -- advertisements. and three, we can limit foreign influence in our elections. one, two, three. now, the danger of citizens united decision, the most shocking decision i have read

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is the most disturbing debate that i have engaged in in the 111th congress, and to hear what i have already heard from one of the most distinguished members of the judiciary committee is a little bit dismaying to me. let me say this. i'll answer one of his questions. what does the bill do? i agree. i'd love four hours. perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote regardless of its outcome. this bill rolls back the decision, blatant decision of citizens united and the supreme court by using the three tools that the court said that we could do to make their decision different. first, we can increase disclosure. two, you can require disclaimer requirements on advertise -- advertisements. and three, we can limit foreign influence in our elections. one, two, three. now, the danger of citizens united decision, the most shocking decision i hav

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to jared polis, the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: people enjoy their constitutional rights but corporations aren't alive, their sons can't be sent off to war. corporations are political zombies only knowing the pursuit. the econommc reason that corporations exist. but in the political context, there is negative civic value to such advocacy, especially without the reasonable expectations that was tossed out in the supreme court decision in citizens united. when they give them an advantage over their competitors, everyone suffers and it undermines the confidence of liberals, conservatives, all citizens. that's why the disclose act is so needed, the flood of special interest money in our political system and to protect the free speech of individual americans and i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleadsed to recognize mr. hall from new york for on

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is the most disturbing debate that i have engaged in in the 111th congress, and to hear what i have already heard from one of the most distinguished members of the judiciary committee is a little bit dismaying to me. let me say this. i'll answer one of his questions. what does the bill do? i agree. i'd love four hours. perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote regardless of its outcome. this bill rolls back the decision, blatant decision of citizens united and the supreme court by using the three tools that the court said that we could do to make their decision different. first, we can increase disclosure. two, you can require disclaimer requirements on advertise -- advertisements. and three, we can limit foreign influence in our elections. one, two, three. now, the danger of citizens united decision, the most shocking decision i have read and the supreme court and many, many years --

mr. conyers, no by proxy. mr. burman, no by proxy. mr. towns votes no. mr. cummings votes no. mr. bacchus votes no. mrs. kapatow votes aye. mr. garrett votes aye. mr. smith, aye by proxy. mr. -- >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, the ayes are 9, the nays are 13. >> the amendment is defeated. i think there were two more amendments. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> amendment no. two. i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and the germans recognized for five minutes. >> given our previous conversation, i will not need to 5 minutes. this amendment would strike the provision of the house offered to the definition of section 201 that would define the term financial company specifically to exclude fannie mae and freddie mac from eligibility under title to's orderly liquidation authority. the amendment would also explicitly state that fannie and freddie are eligible for fdic receivership and orderly liquidation under the title just the same as any other financial company. given that my next amendment also dealsswith fannie and freddie, perhaps we ca

mr. conyers votes aye by proxy. mr. burman votes aye by proxy. mr. cummings votes aye. ms. velasquez votes aye by proxy. >> the clerk will go to the republicans. >> mr. bacccus votes no. mrs. kapatow votes no. mr. garrett votes no. mr. lucas votes no by proxy. mr. barton votes no by proxy. mr. smith votes no by proxy. mr>> madame clerk, i do have a proxy for mr. schuler. he votes aye. the clerk will report the tally. >> there are 20 ayes and 11 nays. >> i am pleased to be able to report to you that we send you the approval of the financial reform bill. >> we congratulate you on a terrific job. house members will now vote on the senate side. the ayes will have it. [laughter] i asked the clerk to call the roll. >> mr. chairman, aye. mr. johnson, aye. mr. schumer, aye. ms. lincoln, aye. mr. leahy, aye by proxy. mr. harkin, aye by proxy. mr. shelby, no. mr. corker, no. mr. gregg, no. >> the clerk will report. >> the votes are 7 aye, 5 nay. the bill is passed. >> i thank my colleagues, immensely. [applause] >> will the house and senate conferees in favor of passage of the bill,

mr. conyers boats aye by proxy, mr. townes votes aye by proxy. mr. velazquez votes aye by proxy. >> the clerk will go to the republicans. >> mr. back as the votes no, mr. royce boats no, mrs. capito boats no, mr. hensheling votes no. mr. barton votes no by proxy, mr. smith the its no proxy. mr. issa boats and no by proxy. >> madame clerk, i have a proxy for mr. schumer and evokes aye by proxy -- and he votes aye by proxy. there are 20 ayes and 11 nays. >> the house send you its approval of a financial reform bill. >> thank you very much, chairman frank and let me thank you on a traffic job. house members will vote on the senate side and all those in favor said aye debate ayes appear to have it. [laughter] i will ask the clerk to call the roll them mr. chairman, aye, mr. johnson aye, mr. reid, aye, mr. schumer aye by proxy. . licoln aye, mr leahy aye, mr. ahrkin aye by proxy, proxycorker no, mr. greg no. the votes are seven ayes, 5 nays, the bill is passed. >> i thank my colleagues immensely. [applause] >> conferees in favor of passage of the bill, i

mr. conyers is bringing back. we will see how that decision has been made. it will probably be taken how it is already -- for example, the spill act and insisting that these people be made whole. they testified at the hearing on monday, -- a man testified at the hearing on monday. his man is in the fishing business. they have documented that last may, $27,000 was what they made. bp file the claim. they had all the documentation and all of the rest, and they send him a check for $5,000. this man is 63 years old. he has four sons -- five sons in the business, and five families depending on that -- he has four sons, five families dependent on that. the law requires that it should happen before they pay any dividends. i did not know it does something that you paid off before you took care of your expenses. >> [unintelligible] >> my concern is that we have passed in committee legislation that talks about more unification to the united states congress beyond the high chair, the ranking member in the house and senate. in the house, congressman anxious has -- congre

mr. conyers, the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble. we had hoped the senate would take up and pass the house version of the joint resolution and then send it over to the president for his signature before tomorrow's korean war commemoration in statuary hall. however, the other body made a number of technical corrections to their version of the joint resolution subsequent to last week's house action and as a result, the only viable means for us to get the joint resolution to the president in a timely fashion was for the house to take up and pass the joint -- the senate joint resolution, which is the legislation before us today. madam speaker, i urge all my colleagues to support this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: at this time, i would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, th is the most disturbing debate that i have engaged in in the 111th congress, and to hear what i have already heard from one of the most distinguished members of the judiciary committee is a little bit dismaying to me. let me say this. i'll answer one of his questions. what does the bill do? i agree. i'd love four hours. perhaps we'll be debating this bill after the vote regardless of its outcome. this bill rolls back the decision, blatant decision of citizens united and the supreme court by using the three tools that the court said that we could do to make their decision different. firs, we can increase disclosure. two, you can require disclaimer requirements on advertise -- advertisements. and three, we can limit foreign inflnce in our elections. one, two, three. now, the danger of citizens united decision, the most shocking decision i have read anthe supreme court and many, many years -- in man