ms. eshoo. we chose to make that amendment in order which is virtually identical to the one my friend from houston offered. so as my friend from lawrenceville, georgia, my rules committee colleague said, mr. speaker, here we are, we made 15 amendments in order for consideration allowing virtually every idea to be considered. my friend from california, mr. rohrabacher, has his amendment made in order. and so the idea of somehow criticizing the rules committee and the action that we have taken is just way off base. we have, mr. speaker, 15 amendments made in order under this bill, 10 amendments have been made in order for the energy and commerce legislation that's come before us. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. conyers: thank you. my friend, we are not criticizing the rules committee. the cut-go violation which you have not even seen the c.b.o. letter that described the $1.1 billion -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. let me just say i asked my staff about this and they were unaware of exactl

andrews: an amendment is similar so what ms. eshoo offered. as one said, sunlight is the great anti-septemberant of democracy. mr. chairman, you and me and every other member on this floor must disclose every dollar we raise and every dollar we spend in the pursuit of our politics. so must the democratic campaign committee. so must the republican campaign committee. so must for the people running for united states senate and office of presidency. i think our democracy is strengthened by this. now, we have a disagreement over whether there should be limitations on what people may spend. i frankly believe that limitations is appropriate, but i know that some of our colleagues who follow libertarian principle believe that limitations on what someone may spend is a violation of someone's right of free speech. i respectfully disagree but i understand it. there should be no disagreement, though, over a universal requirement to disclose who has spent what. if you're proud of what you say, then you ought to let people know who said it. but instead we

quigley of illinois, amendment number 7 by eshoo of california, amendment number 8 by ms. capps of california. amendment number 9, by ms. hochul of new york and amendment number 10 of mr. schrader of oregon. the chair will reduce to five minutes after the first vote. the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-111 by the gentlewoman from california on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report number 112-111 offered by misspear of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [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

ms. eshoo: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to speak about what i think is a very, very important undertaking. it deals with our democratic system and what works against it. my amendment would require that anyone that receives an appropriation a contract, doing business with the federal government produce full disclosure relative to political expenditures. i raise this because i think there is a dark corner of our system that is not being addressed. and it is an issue that is about -- as much about deficit reduction as it is about our democracy. we know that there are political expenditures that are made. some are disclosed, some aren't. i think it's important to state that i think -- i really believe that this could have been a bipartisan agreement. it's important to remember that our republican colleagues were for disclosure before they were against it. in 2000, senator mitch mcconnel asked, quote, why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure. in 2007 on "meet the press," speaker joh

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. eshoo of california for the week of june 13, 2011, and mr. stivers of ohio from june 13 through june 24. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair lays before the house a communication. cloipt honorable the speaker, house of representatives, -- the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, this is to notify you formally that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the superior court of california for testimony in documents. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena is not a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court. the superior court itself has quashed the subpoena. see attached docket summary. signed, sincerely, brad sherman, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. according