mr. lungren: mr. chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups that support this bill. interestingly enough as debate started on the rule today we received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, including the american civil liberties union, national right to life and the sierra club. let me quote, if i might, from the aclu's letter that is dated june 17, 2010, because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are known for protecting the first amendment? the aclu says in their letter, "to the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." and they're referring specifically to this bill. the aclu welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by improving the information available to voters while some elements of thi

mr. lungren: mr. chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups that support this bill. interestingly enough as debate started on the rule today we received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, including the american civil liberties union, national right to life and the sierra club. let me quote, if i might, from the aclu's letter that is dated june 17, 2010, because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are known for protecting the first amendment? the aclu says in their letter, "to the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." and they're referring specifically to this bill. the aclu welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by improving the information available to voters while some elements of thi

mr. lungren: mr. chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups that pport this bill. interestingly enough as debate started on the rule today we received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, including the american civil liberties union, national right to life and the sierra club. let me quote, if i might, from the aclu's letter that is dated june 17, 2010, because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are own for protecting the first amendment? the aclu says in their letter, "to the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." and they're referring specifically to this bill. the aclu welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by improving the information available to voters while some elements of this bi

mr. lungren: mr. chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups that support this bill. interestingly enough as debate started on the rule today we received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, including the american civil liberties union, national right to life and the sierra club. et me quote, if i might, from the aclu's letter that is dated ne 17, 2010, because ch has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are known for protecting the first amendment? the aclu says in their letter, "to the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." and they're referring specifically to this bill. the aclu welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by improving the information available to voters while some elements of this bil

mr. lungren: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, a valued member of our committee. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. for how long? mr. harper: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harper: if there is anything in the hearings on this bill and subsequent discussion taught us, it is that the bill is far from clear. theeauthors of the bill say it does one thing, the experts says it does another. the majority's own witnesses have said it will be up to the f.c.c. to decide what the language means. this conclusion and am big gute would be bad enough in any bill, but it is especially bad here. this bill has implementing language that makes it take effect 0 days after enactment. regardless of whether the f.c.c. has published regulations. indeed one of the majority's witnesses said at a hearing it would be next to impossible for the s.e.c. to promulgate regul

mr. lungren: mr. chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups that support this bill. interestingly enough as debate started on the rule today we received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, including the american civil liberties union, national right to life and the sierra club. let me quote, if i might, from the aclu's letter that is dated june 17, 2010, because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are known for protecting the first amendment? the aclu says in their letter, "to the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." and they're referring specifically to this bill. the aclu welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by improving the information available to voters while some elements of thi

mr. lungren: if the gentleman would yield. frankly, i don't know. that has not been presented to us at all. mr. walden: it would seem to me the clerk works for the house and if the majority party wanted to ask the clerk to put a link on the website. it should be able to be done. it shouldn't be a problem. beside that i want to get to the real issue here which is where's the budg? taxpayers, every april 15 they are required by law to file their taxes. and this congress is supposed to come up with a budget. and if you go back to 1974 which is when the budget act was passed, every year the house has at least had a vote on a budget. not always on time, but at least you have aays had a vote. we don't even have a budget. so we are spending time here arguing about whether the clerk should link to the c.b.o. site when we ought to have a debate on the budget. when i was home over this debate i talked to a lot of people who are fearful and angry about the run away deficit spending. they understand the implications on their kidand grandkids. they don't believe

mr. lungren: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: there is discussion about whether we're going to bring up the disclose act in the rules committee or on the floor this week. and the reason is the special exemption has been to just a select number of groups. starting with the national rifle association. but also not including the gun owners of america including the humane society but not including other agricultural groups in america. in other words, we're saying that free speech's free for some but not all. and as i looked at this exemption that's been given, you have to have over a million members, you have to have members in all 50 states, you have to existed for more than 10 years. it's obvious we've now gone from too big to fail to too big to file. in other words, if you got enough juice here you're not going to be included. but if you do you're going to be excluded and you're going to be allowed in this election period to fully -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: first amendment ri

mr. lungren: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, this week the united states supreme court actually decided a constitutional question of extreme importance. and it had to deal with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. the interesting thing was they reached this conclusion by looking at the text of the constitution, the words of the second amendment. what a shame we didn't do that last week when we were dealing with the disclose act. where we essentially eviscerated the first amendment. the first amendment protection for political speech. instead of saying that it exists for all, and that we should protect it for all, we decided that some are are more equal than others. we auctioned off parts of the first amendment last week. let us hope that the senate will not repeat that mistake and that we understand that perhaps the best way to understand what the constitution means is to actually look at its words. sometimes you can find the rights expressed there far more easily than looking at the numbers and those t

mr. lungren: once again we have discovered there appears to be some glitch in the majority's effort to bring the so-called disclose act to the floor. and apparently it is over how many people get exempted from the disclosure rules that otherwise prevail. we have had the n.r.a. exemption which was for organizations that have over a million people who actually existed more than 10 years, people in all 50 states, d.c., and puerto rico. and have less than 15% of their funds from corporations. now we understand they dropped it to half a million. madam speaker, we did not take the oath to the constitution to only uphold part of the constitution. it is time that we stop auctioning off the first amendment and understand that we here are supposed to protect the first amendment not parcel it out, not deny it to some and give it to others. the first amendment is for all americans not just those favored by one party or another. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minu

mr. lungren: we are setti new records here this congress anin thi governt. we areow aroachi ife han't alrey leapedovert the $rillionar for e nationalebt. $1 trilli it doesn't just kin of tp off youre. 's huge number. it a nuerhat is difficul to contemplate. d yet we sit he worg very diligeny on susnsion calendar billsoingally nothingut the nional debt exceptdding tot da after daafr day. you were have aousehold inco and youere tyi to derminat to with your hfir smso t thing would iyouwoul you would adt buet to try fige out your income, you penses, how mu du' gog to h we have been ot even i we n going to start wh at ts ye. wereoing toget abot even cominup wth a budet. gues bause war so baassed out e nus th wou b in there. let'at l adopt a udg and then keep it. thkeo temp f wh pur does thgentlen omexas ris >> unimoon taddrs e e for one minu the eaker pro tempore: without jection. mr. smh: mr. sker, it prent am12 days t vit the gulf coastil spi. ctrt,ed visited new ans juour days afr hrane katrin t thnationaldi harshly critized his resnses being to. for re tan a

mr. lungren. mr. lungren: thank you, mr. speaker. obviously if youttempt to speak on the floor and your microphone is not near you, or they have turned it off, you can't exercise your right to represent your constituents here. i yield myself such time as i may consume. that is the problem with this bill. it does not allow the free exercise of the first amendment right to speech. the constitution of the united states refers to that first amendment and unfortunately, in many, many decisions by the supreme court thaverbing talked about everything other than political speech. yet in the citizs united vvrsus federal election commission case, the court finally got it right. the majority opinion says the first amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints, prohibited, too, are restrictions prohibiting different speakers, allowing speech from some and not from others. that's exactly what this bill does. benjamin franklin stated, whoever would overthrow e liberty of a nation must again by subduing the freeness o