mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank the chairman. i want to emphasize, as justice stevens pointed outn his dissent, the supreme court decision did open the door to foreign controlled corporations spending money directly in u.s. elections. if you have a sub -- if you have a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign corporation, when the supreme court said all corporations could spend money in u.s. electton they opened the door very clearly to that and it's an area where it's also clear congress can move to legislate. number two it's no surprise you have lots of organizations on the right and tte left, love what they stand for or hate what they stand for, that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. that's not a surprise at all. that's why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean organizationand clean campaign elections like the -- like the league of women voters and common cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it. let m

mr. van hollen, mr. castle, mr. jones, and especially bob brady for their hard work on this important and critical piece of legislation. by making funders identify themselves in ads, the disclose act takes a significant step in giving people the information that they need to understand who is funding the ads. but, mr. speaker, shouldn't people know where these ads and the money to fund them are coming from? let me give you an example. halliburton pays for an ad endorsing a politician. shouldn't the voters know that not only the company paying for the ads but also that it is based in houston, texas? people have a right to know if people or companies outside their state are trying to influence their elections. my amendment, mr. speaker, is a commonsense addition that both republicans and democrats should support. whether living in bristol, pennsylvania, or bristol, tennessee, people should know who is trying to impact their vote, and this amendment is very simple. it enhances the ad disclaimers by including the locati

mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank the chairman. i want to emphasize, as justice stevens pointed out in his dissent, the supreme court cision diddopen the door to foreign controlled corrations spenng money directly in u.s. elections. if you have a sub -- if you have a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign corporation, when the supreme court said all corporations could spend money in u.s. electton they opened the door very clearly to that and it's an area where it's also clear congress can move to legislate. number two it's no surprise you have lots of organizations on the right and tte left, love what they stand for or hate what they stand for, that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. that's not a surprise at all. that's why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean organizations and clean campaign elections likethe -- like the league of women voters and common cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it. let me s

mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank the chairman. i want to emphasize, as justice stevens pointed out in his dissent, the supreme court decision did open the door to foreign controlled corporations spending money directly in u.s. elections. if you have a sub -- if you have a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign corporation, when the supreme court said all corporations could spend money in u.s. electton they opened the door very clearly to that and it's an area where it's also clear congress can move to legislate. number two it's no surprise you have lots of organizations on the right and tte left, love what they stand for or hate what they stand for, that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. that's not a surprise at all. that's why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean organizations and clean campaign elections like the -- like the league of women voters and common cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it. l

mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank the chairman. i want to emphasize, as justice stevens pointed out in his dissent, the supreme court decision did open the door to foreign controlled corporations spending money directly in u.s. elections. if you have a sub -- if you have a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign corporation, when the supreme court said all corporations could spend money in u.s. electton they opened the door very clearly to that and it's an area where it's also clear congress can move to legislate. number two it's no surprise you have lots of organizations on the right and tte left, love what they stand for or hate what they stand for, that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. that's not a surprise at all. that's why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean organizations and clean campaign elections like the -- like the league of women voters and common cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it. l

mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. the purpose of the wall street accountability bill is very clear. never again should the american taxpayer be asked to foot the bill for bad bets made on wall street. never again should millions of americans have to lose their jobs because of reckless conduct on wall street. and never again will we allow the american economy to be held hostage to bad decisions on wall street in the financial sector. unfortunately, mr. speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven't gotten that message. . having stood in this chamber and voted to help rescue wall street and the financial sector, they are not there for main street today. and i think some headlines are instructive. "wall street journal," february 4, 2010, g.o.p. chases wall street donors, quote, in discussions with wall street executives, republicans are striving to make the case that they are the bank's best hope of preventing president barack obama and congressional democrats from cra

mr. chairman. i yield the gentleman from maryland, chris van hollen, author of the legislation, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to start by thanking chairman brady and ms. lofgren and the other members of the committee as well as chairman conyers and mr. nadler and those on the judiciary committee. and to mike castle and the other co-sponsors of this legislation. phich addresses the very serious threats to our democracy, created by the supreme court's decision in citizens united. which in a very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the united states, will be treated like american citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited millions amount of money in our elections. this bill addresses this issue in three ways. first we say if you are a foreign controlled corporation, if you are british petroleum, if you are a chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation her% in the united states, if you are citgo controlled by