ms. murphy.>> mr. chief justice may it please the court. contribution limits are an attempt to legalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process by prohibiting contributions that are within the modest space of congress imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption. these limits simply seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits cannot be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns it hypothesizes are addressed by the multitude of direct and dice are conventional conventional -- >> how is that? >> it imposes numerous measures. for instance we have few american traditions on the air making contributcontribut ions for a candidate. we have coordination restrictions on coordinated expenditures with a candidate. their proliferations restrictions on creating multiple pacs designed -- >> all of those were one but for one of ugly versus valeo and i guess the court thought something could happen like

ms. murphy? >> mr.it court, the aggregate contribution limits are an impermissible attempt to limit ndividuals' ability to participate in the political modest base in the limit congress imposed, these limits simply seek to prevent from engaging in too much first amendment activity. justifiedts cannot be on circumvention grounds because f concerns the government hypothesizes have already addressed by more direct circumvention measures. >> how is that? >> bicker imposes numerous measures, ear marking for earmarking candidate, s for a coordination restrictions, there restrictions ion on creating multiple pacts that are designed. these were there but for one were there at the time, fileo.y versus and i guess the court thought omething could happen like the following -- candidate smith. you can only give him $2600. has a lot of supporter else. and they each -- 40 of them gets brainstorm. and each of the 40 puts on internet, a little sign that says -- sam smith pact. this money goes to people like smith. grea

ms. murphy, can you give us an idea of who is expressing -- is at stake. most people couldn't come even near the limit. -- is thereentage any information on what percentage of all contributors are able to contribute over the aggregate? ondon't have a percentage who is able. we are talking about more individuals than when the first rights.t that fish percently prohibits two -- but it is a speech of two percent of the country is ok. >> absolutely not. >> we haven't talked it about the effect of the aggregate limits on the ability of owners to give the minimum amount to as many candidates as they want. the effect of the aggregate limits is to limit someone's hunter mission of the maximum amount to about nine candidates. >> that's right. >> is there a way to eliminate that aspect while maintaining some of the aggregate limits? is that a necessary consequence of any you have, bit -- you have aggregate limits? is certainly a necessary consequence where there is a distinct aggregate limit on contributions to candidates alone. i think that the aggregate limits alo

ms. murphy, you have three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. a few quick points. we have not heard the solicitor general talk about circumvention. i think that is because the argument just doesn't really work. it is already addressed by all of the prophylactic measures that are contained to the extent that those are not sufficient, there are much tailored ways narrowly tailored ways as the chief justice pointed out. what we are hearing today is a corruption argument. as the questioning reveals, once you accept the corruption theory that the government is putting forward here, there really isn't a way to continue to draw a line between independent expenditures in the $3.000000 check to all of these different individual citizens small limited amounts because there will certainly be just as much gratitude to the individual who spent $6.5 million strictly supporting a candidate through ads on the candidate's behalf. so what we have is a system that is forcing money out of the transparent way possible which is directed to the candidates and the parties and the tran-two

ms. murphy, at the end of the argument justice kennedy said, are you saying that we should go along with this system just because it is the long? almost 40 years. to you want buckley reversed? >> we don't think that aid needs to be reversed. we think that these limits are unconstitutional under the current system because in this system they impose impermissible burden is on people's ability to contribute to ten candidates instead of nine and contributes to parties instead of making independent expenditures. you don't need to change the entire system to hold these limits constitutional, but the questioning today revealed that there are some questions about the system itself. >> if the aggregate limits are unconstitutional because they limit the number of people they can give to and the way in which you can give, why not the actual contribution limits themselves? >> the case is not about the base, to the -- contribution limits. those of bin justified on grounds that have to do with the direct relationship between candidates and people giving them contributions. when you're talking about an

ms. murphy? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- bicker's aggregate contribution limits are an impermissible attempt to equalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process. by prohibiting contributions that are within the modest base limits congress has already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption, these limits simply seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits cannot be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns the government hypothesizes are already addressed by bicker's multitude of more direct anti- circumvention measures. >> how is that? >> because bicker imposes numerous 3 alderson reporting company official subject to final review direct circumvention measures. for instance, we have earmarking provisions on earmarking contributions for candidate. we have coordination restrictions on coordinated expenditures with a candidate. there are proliferation restrictions on c

murphy. >> thank you. ms. campbell when healthcare.gov went live on october 1 it was not possible to browse the site in order to see the prices. you had to register. who made that decision? >> c.m.s. made that decision. >> who within c.m.s.? >> i don't have the exact name of the person. i would say henry chow from c.m.s. >> are you aware of any white house involvement in that decision process? >> i am not. >> ok. so what challenges arise when you switch a website where individuals can browse, just browse versus one where you first have to register? does this require substantial amount of work? >> it definitely puts a different -- additional burden on the system. >> do you have to write a new code to make that happen? >> for us to turn it up it was putting a flag in our system. >> how much more time does this take to test the system like that once you have made those decisions? >> it became part of the normal testing process. >> but you never tested the whole system, right? >> c.g.i. did not. >> mr. slavitt, wh

murphy. >> thank you. ms. campbell when healthcare.gov went live on october 1 it was not possible to browse the site in order to see the prices. you had to register. who made that decision? >> c.m.s. made that decision. >> who within c.m.s.? >> i don't have the exact name of the person. i would say henry chow from c.m.s. >> are you aware of any white house involvement in that decision process? >> i am not. >> ok. so what challenges arise when you switch a website where individuals can brows -- browse, just browse versus one where you first have to register? does this require substantial amount of work? >> it definitely puts a different -- additional burden on the system. >> do you have to write a new code to make that happen? >> for us to turn it up it was putting a flag in our system. >> how much more time does this take to test the system like that once you have made those decisions? >> it became part of the normal testing process. >> but you never tested the whole system, right? >> c.g.i. did not. >> mr. sl

ms. crapapple. she was also on the popular series murphy brown.ha wall as was 70 years old. >>> sandy hook is being torn down. they expect to take at least a month to finish the work. they are committed to building a new school on the same site. >>> an estimated 8,000 children are reported missing each year. many abduction statistics show at the hand of family members but john terrett shows, sometimes missing. >> ingrid's daughter went missing in 2004. >> it felt like a hole in your stomach. tiamba was just 13 when she disappeared from home in irvington new jersey. >> the feeling of despair, i felt the feeling of being hopeless for a second and yet bounce back saying i'm not going to give up. >> ingrid desperately wanted to care for her own child. she searched the neighborhood every night putting up posters. it turned out, tiamba had run away from home. she is crossed state lines. tiamba's disappears made the papers but as days went by, she lost way to despair. >> i had experienced what parents who had lost a child had gone through, to go day to d

ms. brown: i yield that to mr. murphy. mr. murphy: the project would move more water safely out instead of to the east and west causing damage to the environment and local economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and support the common sense, bipartisan brown- frankel-crenshaw-posey amendment that would allow the army corps to complete its work on authorizing several important projects in the final stages of approval. i spoke on the floor earlier today about the importance of acting now. on initiatives that will help address the environmental crisis occurring in our area. today we have that chance. my constituents and our waterways cannot wait. defeat the previous question and support the brown amendment. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady. ms. brown: yes, sir. if we defeat the previous question we can bring up this amendment right now and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. has

murphy. >> thank you. ms. campbell when healthcare.gov went live on october 1 it was not possible to browse the site in order to see the prices. you had to register. who made that decision? >> c.m.s. made that decision. >> who within c.m.s.? >> i don't have the exact name of the person. i would say henry chow from c.m.s. >> are you aware of any white house involvement in that decision process? >> i am not. >> ok. so what challenges arise when you switch a website where individuals can brows -- browse, just browse versus one where you first have to register? does this require substantial amount of work? >> it definitely puts a different -- additional burden on the system. >> do you have to write a new code to make that happen? >> for us to turn it up it was putting a flag in our system. >> how much more time does this take to test the system like that once you have made those decisions? >> it became part of the normal testing process. >> but you never tested the whole system, right? >> c.g.i. did not. were you

ms. frankel, mr. garcia, mr. murphy, mr. radel, mr. yoho. other members in attendance, mr. cantor, ms. pelosi, mr. hoyer, mr. mccarthy of california, mr. young of alaska, mr. sfwren, mr. rogers of kentucky, mr. wolf, mr. visclosky, mr. bishop of georgia, mr. calvert, mr. mckeon, mr. frelinghuysen, ms. jackson lee of texas, mr. lay them, mr. price of north carolina, mr. aderholt, ms. granger, mr. sessions, mr. carter, mr. cole, mr. king of iowa, mr. gohmert, mr. roe of tennessee, mr. nunnelee, and r. womack. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00 p.m. toda house when members return at 4:00 p.m. eastern. off the floor lawmakers are holding a number of hearings ing problems with healthcare.gov. you can see the hearing live tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. wednesday, kathleen sebelius appear before committee about problems on the website. 9:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday. this morning we spoke about several congressional reporters, and this is just over 40 minutes. host: a lot of activity going

murphy: thank you, mr. speaker groan, for organizing this special hour and i thank mr. poe, ms. edwards and mrs. ellmers for their leadership on this important issue. i rise today to speak out against domestic violence and to demand that congress act in a bipartisan manner to fight back against this plague on our country. the domestic violence statistic rates in our country are staggering. one out of every threewomen will be the victim of domestic violence in their lifetime. four are murdered by their intimate partner every day in the united states. further, a woman is battered in the united states every 15 seconds. do the math, that's 240 incidents every hour. we as a society have a responsibility to work to protect the most vulnerable among us and must do everything we can to address these unacceptable rates of domestic violence. that is why one of the fers pieces of legislation i co-sponsored as a member of congress was the violence against women re-authorization act. protecting people from violence by their partners should not be a partisan issue. and it was appalling in the last congress th