Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 96 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 96 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4784-H4794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5175, DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED BY
CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING IN ELECTIONS ACT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1468 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1468

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5175) to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal
elections, to prohibit government contractors from making
expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish
additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending
in such elections, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House
Administration now printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment
to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
Each further amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a

[[Page H4785]]

demand for division of the question. All points of order
against such further amendments are waived except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with
such further amendments as may have been adopted. In the case
of sundry further amendments reported from the Committee, the
question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros
and without division of the question. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on House Administration or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of June 25, 2010, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The
Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority
Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for
consideration pursuant to this section.
Sec. 4. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of June 25, 2010, providing for consideration
or disposition of a measure that includes a subject matter
addressed by H.R. 4213.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Berkley). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr.
Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate
only.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material into the Record on House Resolution 1468.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

{time} 1040

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R.
5175, the DISCLOSE Act, under a structured rule. The resolution waives
all points of order against consideration of the bill except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1
hour of debate on the bill. The resolution provides that the substitute
amendment, recommended by the House Administration Committee, modified
by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, shall
be considered as adopted.
The resolution makes in order five amendments printed in part B of
the Rules Committee report. The resolution waives all points of order
against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit without or
without instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion to
rise only if offered by the chair of the House Administration Committee
or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion
to strike the enacting words of the bill.
The resolution permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend
the rules through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, 2010.
The resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote for same day consideration of a report from the Rules
Committee through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, on a measure
that includes a subject matter in H.R. 4213.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong
support of the underlying bill. During my time in Congress, I haven't
had a single constituent say to me, ``You know, Jim, I think there
should be more special interest money in politics.''
Obviously, the conservative activist judges that now make up the
majority of the Supreme Court don't live in my district. Because in
January, the court tossed aside decades of established law and legal
precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited
amounts of money in Federal elections.
As Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the decision
``would appear to afford the same protection to multinational
corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.''
It is a sad state of affairs when Swift Boating has entered the
language as a verb. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision makes
Swift Boating easier for the special interests. Large multinational
corporations would now be able to create shadowy groups and pour
millions and millions of dollars into supporting or defeating
candidates. If BP doesn't like somebody, they could create ``Americans
For Sensible Energy'' and run attack ad after attack ad after attack
ad.
While we cannot undo the court's decision, we can and we must try to
minimize its impact. That is why the sensible, bipartisan legislation
before us today is so important. The DISCLOSE Act will go a long way
toward restoring openness and transparency in our political process. I
want to commend Chris Van Hollen and Mike Castle for their work on this
bill.
The legislation does several important things. It requires the heads
of these third-party organizations to stand by their ad, just like
political candidates are required to do. It requires the organization
to list its top five contributors onscreen at the end of the ad.
It would ban U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign
interests and foreign companies like BP from making political
expenditures in our elections. I know there are some on the other side
who have been apologists for BP who may be troubled by that, but I
think most Americans believe that foreign influences should not dictate
our elections.
And it would prohibit entities that receive large amounts of taxpayer
money like Wall Street banks and Government contractors from pouring
money into politics.
The bill is supported by the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen,
Common Cause, and other national reform groups.
To be sure, the bill isn't perfect. It contains an exemption for
certain, long-standing organizations that take a small amount of
corporate or union money. I know a lot of us are not particularly
pleased with that change, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of
the good.
Moving forward, I would urge my colleagues to examine a bill offered
by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mike Capuano, the Shareholder
Protection Act. This bill would give shareholders a voice in how
companies spend their money.
Opponents of this bill that we are considering today have already
begun making noises about challenging it in court. I would remind them
that polls show that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive
of this reform. We must do all we can to bring more openness and
transparency to our political process. The DISCLOSE Act before us today
is a vital step. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
I rise today in defense of the First Amendment to the Constitution
and to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for H.R. 5175, the so-
called DISCLOSE Act, and the underlying bill.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor), the Republican whip.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding.
Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the previous question
motion and in support of the latest YouCut spending reduction sent to
the floor directly from the American people. This week's proposal,
sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), will restore $15
billion to the American taxpayer by stopping new IRS funding for the
purpose of hiring employees to enforce a controversial individual
mandate under the Democratic majority's health care overhaul.
To the Democratic majority, who has worked tirelessly to discredit
the YouCut movement, Madam Speaker, I continue to urge them to join us.
But I would also like to give a wake-up call. This week we received the
one millionth vote, an amazing milestone that

[[Page H4786]]

reflects the discomfort from coast to coast about Washington's runaway
spending spree.
Sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore
the will of the people and their desire to see us act with the same
responsibility with their money that they do around their own kitchen
tables.
America is at a crossroads. Our message to the Democratic leadership
is crystal clear: Stop ignoring the American people. Stop spending
money we don't have. Stop ruining the next generation's future. It is
time for us to come together to cut wasteful spending now. I urge a
``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just want to point out to the
previous speaker that the American people want us to fix this economy,
which we are trying to do. And I would also point out that we have
created more jobs this year than in the entire 8 years of the Bush
administration. I think what we are doing is the American people's
work.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the
distinguished Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for making the
point he just made.
Madam Speaker, I also would like to make a further point, which is
that 87.5 percent of the American people support what the DISCLOSE Act
will do, which is to shed light on elections.
Madam Speaker, nearly a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis wrote about the dangers of corporate interests dominating our
economy, stifling competition, and harming our Nation. And he reminded
us in the face of these forces that sunlight is the best of
disinfectants.
Today, many of us will rise, and I do now in that same tradition, to
shed sunlight on our democratic process and preserve the integrity of
our elections, to call on my colleagues to pass the DISCLOSE Act, and
in doing so to protect the voices and the votes of the American people.
I want to acknowledge key leaders on both sides of the aisle who have
taken leadership on this legislation. Chairman Chris Van Hollen
certainly has been tireless in his efforts to pass this DISCLOSE Act,
as has Chairman Robert Brady, chair of the House Administration
Committee. I also thank Congressman Mike Castle and Congressman Walter
Jones, who early on supported this legislation.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedents
in a court case called the Citizens United case. The decision
undermines democracy and empowers the powerful. It opens the floodgates
to corporate takeover of our elections and invites unrestricted special
interest dollars in our campaigns. And it even left open the door to
donations from companies owned by foreign governments. Imagine.
In response, Congress and the President immediately went to work on
the DISCLOSE Act.

{time} 1050

This legislation restores transparency and accountability to Federal
campaigns and ensures that Americans know when Wall Street, Big Oil,
and health insurers are the ones behind political advertisements. The
bill requires corporate CEOs to stand by their ads in the same way
candidates do, prevents corporations controlled by foreign or even
hostile governments from spending money in Federal elections, and keeps
government contractors and TARP recipients from making political
expenditures. Imagine a TARP recipient getting taxpayer money to bail
them out, using that money to impact elections. And it compels
corporations and outside groups to disclose their campaign spending to
shareholders, members, and the public.
In the spirit of Justice Brandeis, these landmark provisions will add
sunlight to our campaigns, which is why the DISCLOSE Act has gained the
support of good government advocates such as the League of Women
Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Democracy 21, and Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, to name a few. These
organizations, like so many Members of Congress, agree with the words
of the President's State of the Union Address this year when he said,
``Elections should be decided by the American people.''
The DISCLOSE Act reaffirms a fundamental American value: The right to
vote is afforded to the people, not the special interests. With this
bill, no longer will corporations be able to drown out the voices of
ordinary citizens. By voting ``yes,'' we are putting power back into
the hands of the voters.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' today on this legislation.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I will now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, our national debt is over $13
trillion and our annual deficit is expected to be nearly $1.6 trillion
this year alone. The American people have had enough of this out-of-
control spending. And today House Republicans offer another measure to
cut spending that was chosen by the American people in the YouCut
program.
This provision will cut funding for the IRS, which is authorized to
hire thousands of new agents to enforce the unconstitutional individual
health care mandate. This cut will save taxpayers up to $10 billion.
The purpose of the health care law was supposed to be to reduce costs
and to make health care more affordable. Does anyone truly believe that
thousands of new IRS agents will really reduce health care costs? The
new IRS agents' job will be to verify that you have acceptable
government-approved health care, or they have the authority to impose a
fine of up to 2 percent of your income.
What we need to do is to help to create new jobs, not hire an army of
new IRS agents to impose job-killing taxes, new mandates, and new
penalties on the American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that
we can make this commonsense cut in spending under our YouCut program.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My Republican colleagues claim that they have the best interests of
the American people at heart, that they want to help the taxpayers. Yet
I find it somewhat ironic that they propose that we cut money for jobs,
money for health care, money for senior citizens, and then at the same
time they defend British Petroleum and tell the American people that
the American people should pay for the cleanup of that terrible oil
spill and not British Petroleum.
Look, what we are talking about here is a bill to require disclosure
so that companies like British Petroleum, other foreign-owned
companies, can't come into the United States and influence elections.
Now, I don't know why that's so controversial. I guess if a particular
interest was overly generous to me, like Big Oil is to my friends on
the Republican side, that they would have objections. But look, I think
the American people overwhelmingly want transparency and disclosure.
If some oil company is going to come into my district and Swift Boat
me and try to hide who they are by saying that they are a committee for
clean oceans, that's deception. The American people ought to know that
it's being paid for by Big Oil. We have, right now, all across the
country, ads that are distorting the health care bill that was passed
here in the Congress. But they are all paid for by the insurance
industry, yet you can't find the words ``insurance industry'' on any of
those ads.
People deserve to know who is spending millions and millions of
dollars on these ads. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you
ought to be for transparency. And that is what this bill is about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, every citizen in this country, in fact,
every school child above the fifth grade ought to know what the First
Amendment of the Constitution says. But we know that our education is
lacking these days, so I am going to read the amendment. And I am
hoping that as our speakers speak, we keep it on the floor so people
can read it, because I think folks need to be reminded of what it says.
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and

[[Page H4787]]

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' It's very
simple, but it's very important.
I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California
(Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I am sorry the
Speaker is no longer here because she, frankly, hopefully
inadvertently, misstated the law. She said that with the decision by
the Supreme Court, it would allow companies, even those that are
controlled by foreign countries or foreign governments, to affect our
elections. That is absolutely dead wrong. It did nothing with the
prohibition that remains that does not allow and has not allowed for
decades foreign governments or foreign nationals to affect our
campaigns. This decision by the Supreme Court does not.
The problem with this is I haven't found a single person on the other
side of the aisle that read the opinion. If they did, they would know
what they are saying is absolutely wrong. They call it the DISCLOSE
Act. It is, in fact, the disguise act. It was designed in secret. No
effort to bring those of us on the committee on the Republican side
into it. I asked for copies of it. They refused to give it to us. We,
in fact, got their last manager's amendment 2 hours, yesterday, before
we had to go to the Rules Committee to talk about our amendments. They
disallow, in this rule, a single amendment brought forward by any of us
on the committee that held the hearings.
I had five amendments I asked to present. Several of them would
require the unions to be treated the same as corporations. That was
denied. They don't want you to have a chance to level the playing
field. Look, in ``Alice in Wonderland,'' it is said, ``If I had a world
of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is,
because everything would be what it isn't. And contrarywise, what is,
it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?'' That
basically sums up the Speaker's statement.
If I had the chance under the House rules to speak to the public,
this is what I would say. This is your First Amendment. It's not my
First Amendment. It's not the Democratic leadership's First Amendment.
And yet they are auctioning off parts of this First Amendment by this
bill. Why do I say that? Some people are more equal than others.
If you happen to be a special interest that's existed for 10 years,
if you happen to have a certain amount of money in your coffers that
come from corporations, if you happen to have a certain number of
members--it was a million, but some special interest said, We don't
have a million; let's bring it down to 500,000. Okay. Now it's 500,000.
So those people, those interests are exempted from all of the
disclosure requirements in here.
And here is the other thing they do under this rule. This bill allows
the law to go into effect within 30 days without any regulations being
promulgated. In fact, it's impossible for regulations to be
promulgated. So those who have a true exemption don't have to worry
about the law. Those who are trying to figure out how to comply with
the law have to worry about if they make a mistake because, if they do,
what happens?

{time} 1100

They are subject to criminal penalties. We're talking about the First
Amendment to the Constitution, the First Amendment. That's talking
about robust political speech, and you heard what my friends on the
other side said: oh, my God, we've had these ads against us; oh, we
don't like that; oh, my gosh, we've got to do something about it.
There is nothing this bill does about the suppression ads that were
run against me in the last campaign 3 hours before we closed,
``robocalls'' to my district, including to my house, in which they say,
this is a news alert, news alert, President Obama's won the election.
It doesn't matter what happens in California. It's already decided.
This has been a news alert.
Now, no one specified an individual. No one specified a party. Very,
very clever. The idea was to suppress those who were supporting the
Republicans from coming out. It does nothing with that. I mean, people
ought to understand this is a precious gift given to us by God, then
recognized by our Founding Fathers, and we're fooling around with it
here.
Let me just tell you this. This bill allows us 1 hour to talk about
this, 1 hour. Guess what we have spent 10 hours doing in this Congress.
Naming post offices. We've named 61 post offices in this Congress. We
are ridding the world of unnamed post offices. We can spend 10 hours on
post offices, but we can't spend more than an hour talking about the
Constitution, talking about the First Amendment.
And they're auctioning pieces of the First Amendment in this bill. If
you happen to be one of those lucky enough to win the auction, you
don't have these disclosure rules, and you can continue to talk and you
can continue to make your political statement; but if you didn't win
the lottery----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If you didn't win the lottery,
you're left out.
This is an affront to the Constitution. This is an affront to the
proceedings of this House, and just because someone says it is doesn't
make it so.
This is a DISCLOSE Act that was designed in secret, giving unions and
interests special exemptions. If you happen to be on the lucky side of
the draw, you may like it, but you ought to read it because this is a
destruction of the First Amendment in the name of partisanship.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
One of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support the
DISCLOSE Act is because quite frankly they are concerned, and rightly
so, that money is becoming more and more of an influence in politics.
Not just money from big corporations in the United States; they are
also justifiably concerned about foreign influences.
Sovereign wealth funds, the investment funds controlled by foreign
governments of foreign interests, could be controlled by China. If
they're here in the United States, they have the right to be able to
under an innocuous name spend millions and millions of dollars in
negative ads against a candidate or positive ads for a candidate. Why
should anybody want a foreign government or foreign interest to have a
greater impact on American elections than regular people?
One of the reasons why this is important is to let the sunshine in,
for there to be transparency, for those who run these ads to be able to
stand by their ads. All of us have to stand by our ads when we stand
for reelection to Congress. I have to say that it's paid for and
authorized by Jim McGovern. That's what we have to do.
What is so wrong with requiring big corporations to do the same
thing? What is so wrong with saying we don't want foreign interests to
influence our elections? These are American elections. We don't want
China involved in these elections or any other country; and we know
that they can, under the status quo, influence our elections and play a
role in our elections through these sovereign wealth funds.
So I would simply say I think the American people are right. There's
nothing in the First Amendment that says we can't ask somebody to stand
by their words. We're not inhibiting free speech. We're just saying if
British Petroleum is going to run a Swift Boat ad against anybody here,
they ought to say who they are, not make up some name that somehow
they're dedicated to clean oceans or to a good environment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Let me reiterate to my good friend from Massachusetts what the
gentleman from California said. Citizens United did not do anything to
repeal the ban against foreign money influencing American elections. So
this bill has nothing to do with what the gentleman from Massachusetts
just said.
I rise in opposition to the bill and to the rule. While H.R. 5175 is
being touted by its supporters as increasing disclosure and
transparency, the bill will

[[Page H4788]]

ultimately serve as a roadblock to Americans who wish to exercise their
First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court explicitly stated in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission that there is ``no basis for the
proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government
may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.'' We've sure
heard a list of those disfavored speakers from the other side of the
aisle. However, this is exactly what this unconstitutional bill will
do.
The Citizens United decision struck down provisions of campaign
finance law because of the unconstitutional restrictions on free
speech, a right explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. The bill
is simply a legislative workaround to Citizens United. The Supreme
Court was very clear that prohibitions on full legal speech are
unconstitutional and will only be a matter of time should this bill
become law that it's struck down as well.
The most glaring of this bill's unconstitutional provisions is the
banning of political speech by government contractors and companies
with as much as 80 percent ownership by American citizens. While a
business may receive only a limited portion of its revenue from a
government contract, under this bill, that business would be prohibited
from engaging in political dialogue on issues that are vital to its
operations.
Additionally, this bill punishes companies that attract overseas
investors by banning political speech on companies where foreign
nationals have at least a 20 percent stake. It is unfortunate that the
supporters of this bill want to silence the voice of predominantly
American companies. The bill further complicates matters for publicly
traded corporations by forcing them to determine the percentage of
company stock ownership by the nationality of the investor, which will
most likely prove to be impossible.
It is clear that the DISCLOSE Act will institute unconstitutional
restrictions. However, the crafters of this legislation have been
careful to exempt labor unions from the restrictions. The desire to
treat unions and corporations differently abandons the government's
long-standing policy that treats them equally. However, this is not
unexpected given a story published in The Hill newspaper last month
which revealed that the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees plan to spend in excess of $50 million in this
fall's elections, part of which will go to protecting incumbents. It is
no wonder that the Democratic supporters of this bill----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It is no wonder that the Democratic supporters of
this bill have made special exceptions for unions, and that any
attempts in the House Administration Committee to rectify this
discrimination between unions and corporations were defeated on party-
line votes.
It is evident that, while this legislation increases disclosure
requirements, it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech
just in time to influence the outcome of the midterm elections.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DISCLOSE Act and vote
``no'' on the rule and uphold their oath of office.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me again point out that one of the
reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support this bill is
because they don't want financial institutions, TARP recipients, to be
able to use taxpayer money to run negative ads.
One of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support
this act is because they know the status quo basically is the BP
protection policy, which is you allow foreign companies to be able to
set up these sovereign wealth funds and be able to funnel money into
elections to run ads for and against people.
We know that the insurance industry wants to spend a lot of money in
this election, but they don't want to tell anybody they're an insurance
industry when they attack the health care plan.
We know that the Big Oil companies are going to want to run a lot of
ads to try to keep their friends in Congress, those who apologize for
their bad behavior; but they also know if they announce to the American
people that oil companies are paying for this that they will get a
different reaction.

{time} 1110

So this is important. And I think the American people are way ahead
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished manager of the
Rules Committee for his leadership.
I thought I would just hold up this book that has many items in it,
but the most precious document is the Constitution. And I do want to
say that it is clear that the First Amendment, the number one amendment
in the Bill of Rights, is not violated, but enhanced by this
legislation. That's why the commonsense judgment of Americans are
wholeheartedly supporting this.
I had my doubts because there are exemptions here that may help
organizations that I would disagree with and do not support, but
frankly, this legislation reflects the First Amendment because what it
says is we want transparency that in essence tells us who you are. That
is no greater affirmation of the First Amendment than one could
imagine.
So it is important to acknowledge concerns expressed, but it is
equally important to say that we stand on the side of a fair and
impartial election, an un-ugly election. And when you get unfettered
money in elections, it becomes ugly. So that if you were in the
hurricane plains, if you will, of the gulf region and you had a
referendum to ask your utility company to stop putting utility poles
above ground, spend some money to put them underground so we're not in
the dark for 8 and 9 weeks during a campaign season and they take their
money in the referendum and work hard to defeat it, that is to
undermine the needs of the people of that region. Or you have insurance
companies who are not seeing what the American people are now seeing,
that, wow, this health care bill really can help me, and they begin to
massively campaign against the implementation of the health care bill
against America's interests.
This is what this is about because when you see who's putting these
political ads up--maybe helping another candidate, a pro-insurance, big
business candidate who cares nothing about the people of this Nation--
you will say, you know what? I want to side with letting this health
bill work itself out. I want to side with young people being covered. I
want to side with seniors getting money back from health reform. That's
what legislation is about.
So I would offer to say to my colleague on the other side of the
aisle you are wrong. This Constitution and the First Amendment provides
that no law should impede your right to access, to association, and to
freedom of speech, but impeding it does not mean don't tell us who you
are, it does not mean contributions can hide in the dark. And every
single candidacy, be it city council, or mayor, or be it a Federal
election, will have the opportunity to have funds dumped on them with a
means of replying.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Here's what I'd like to do in an election--I'd like us to be able to
engage and tell you what our issues are, whatever we're running for.
And yes, we have to run with the resources that we raise; and when I
say that, no matter what office you are running for, no matter what
party you are in. Without this legislation big money will control the
people's voice.
But what we most want to do is to break the locks and chains that big
money causes in elections. We want to take away the right of those who
want to demonize someone who, for example, may be interested in
comprehensive immigration reform. That's their viewpoint, they're
running on that. Maybe they're not. Or someone who's running against
it. We don't want to have big money demonize a perspective that maybe
the public should hear.
So I don't know what the opposition is on the other side because the
First

[[Page H4789]]

Amendment is protected. And I believe, though it's a struggle because
we know that there are elements that do raise the concern to some, but
I would argue that we should want to break those locks and break those
chains of big money telling the American people what to do.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5175, the underlying bill, and
the rule.
Madam Speaker, after weighing the pros and cons of H.R. 5175, the
DISCLOSE Act, I have decided to support the bill. This was a decision
that took a lot of deliberation, but in the end it is clear that in the
absence of supporting H.R. 5175, we run the risk of witnessing the
greatest deluge of unreported cash from the richest corporations and
special interests that has occurred throughout the history of American
politics.
Without some mechanism to ensure that the American people know who is
spending potentially millions to influence their vote, we threaten the
fundamental core of our democracy--the result will amount to a
corporate special interest takeover of our elections. This is the
reality. This is what is at stake.
Right now, any corporation can spend unlimited amounts of money on
our elections. The bill is not perfect, but it provides unprecedented
transparency and disclosure of political expenditures by powerful
special interests. Much has been said, and many of you have concerns,
about exemptions in the bill. Let me be clear: all groups will be
forced to disclose more than they do now.
Every single 501(c)(4) will be forced to ``stand by their ad'' so you
know exactly which group sponsors the advertisement. Additionally, any
exempted groups will be prevented from spending a single corporate
dollar on campaign-related expenditures. We are far better off with
these reforms than with nothing at all.
Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation
is bipartisan. Our former colleagues, Marty Meehan of Massachusetts,
and Christopher Shays of Connecticut helped authored the bipartisan
campaign reform act. Yesterday, they released a joint statement in
support of the DISCLOSE Act: ``Voters have a fundamental right to know
who is spending money to influence their elections and where that money
is coming from. With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by
corporations and labor unions to influence elections, secrecy about
these expenditures is simply unacceptable. We urge our former
colleagues in the House to vote for the DISCLOSE Act and for the right
of citizens to know who is spending money to influence their votes.''
The DISCLOSE Act ensures that shadowy special interests and sham
organizations are not able to hide their funders, and is critical if we
ever hope to keep our constituents informed on who is trying to
influence their vote. This bill breaks the ``locks and chains'' of
``big money'' in our democratic process of elections. I would submit
this is the time to move forward. As such, I urge my colleagues to
support the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175

.House of Representatives,

Washington, DC June 23, 2010.

Congresswoman Jackson Lee Urges Support for H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act

Dear Colleague: After weighing the pros and cons of H.R.
5175, the DISCLOSE Act, I have decided to support the bill.
This was a decision that took a lot of deliberation, but in
the end it is clear that in the absence of supporting H.R.
5175, we run the risk of witnessing the greatest deluge of
unreported cash from the richest corporations and special
interests that has occurred throughout the history of
American politics. Without some mechanism to ensure that the
American people know who is spending potentially millions to
influence their vote, we threaten the fundamental core of our
democracy--the result will amount to a corporate special
interest takeover of our elections. This is the reality. This
is what is at stake.
Right now, any corporation can spend unlimited amounts of
money on our elections. The bill is not perfect, but it
provides unprecedented transparency and disclosure of
political expenditures by powerful special interests. Much
has been said, and many of you have concerns, about
exemptions in the bill. Let me be clear: all groups will be
forced to disclose more than they do now. Every single
501(c)(4) will be forced to ``stand by their ad'' so you know
exactly which group sponsors the ad. Additionally, any
exempted groups will be prevented from spending a single
corporate dollar on campaign related expenditures. We are far
better off with these reforms than with nothing at all.
The DISCLOSE Act ensures that shadowy special interests and
sham organizations are not able to hide their funders, and is
critical if we ever hope to keep our constituents informed on
who is trying to influence their vote. This bill breaks the
``locks and chains'' of ``big money'' in our democratic
process of elections. I would submit this is the time to move
forward. As such, I urge your support of the DISCLOSE Act,
H.R. 5175.
Very truly yours,
Sheila Jackson Lee.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
While other matters are being debated in the course of this, this
rule also provides for consideration of a conference report on the Iran
Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong
support of this legislation with a word of caution.
It was my great privilege to serve on the conference committee for
this Iran sanctions bill that will be considered today. I believe this
legislation represents measurable and meaningful progress in the United
States' effort to economically and diplomatically isolate Iran in the
midst of its headlong rush to obtain nuclear weapons, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
My word of caution is directed both to my colleagues in Congress,
though, and to this administration. It is important not only that we
adopt the Iran sanctions bill today, it is important that this
administration implement this legislation.
We know the nature of the threat. Iran has made no secret of its
intent to use nuclear weapons to threaten the United States or our
allies, especially our most cherished ally, Israel. President
Ahmadinejad said in 2005 in Iran that humankind ``shall soon experience
a world without the United States and without Zionism.'' Led by this
anti-American, anti-Israeli president, Iran has a long history of
associating with terrorist organizations. If Iran obtains a nuclear
bomb, it will only be a matter of time before terrorist organizations
around the globe have access to this technology, and America and our
allies--and our most cherished ally--will be threatened as a result.
It is also essential that we consider this legislation in the wake of
the failed leadership at the United Nations. The adoption of so-called
``sanctions'' by the U.N. is nothing more than a hollow gesture which
will do nothing except embolden Iran in its nuclear ambitions. We must
lead by example.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill. I urge the President to sign
this bill. But a word of caution: These sanctions include a number of
waivers demanded by the Obama administration, but it is essential that
President Obama carry out the clear congressional intent and cripple
Iran's energy and financial sectors in implementing this legislation.
Iran could be merely months away from acquiring nuclear weapons; they
continue to test vehicles that could deliver it. This is a time for
decisive action by the American Congress and the American
administration. Failure to act by this Congress or failure to implement
these sanctions by this administration could lead to a second
Holocaust. If we act and this administration implements these
sanctions, we may yet see a future of security and peace in the Middle
East, but if we fail to act, history will judge the Congress and this
government in the harsh aftermath of a flash of light, a rush of wind,
and a second historic tragedy.
Let us act. Let us adopt Iran sanctions. And Mr. President, do not
waive these sanctions.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).

{time} 1120

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, let's keep America the best democracy,
not the best democracy that money can buy.
The pollution of our political process with tens of millions of
dollars in spending by the world's largest multinational corporations
strikes at the very heart of our American democracy. Whatever these
giant interests cannot already get with their army of lobbyists here in
Washington and with the millions of dollars that their executives
already contribute to campaigns, they now want to buy directly with
money from their corporate treasuries--and they are no fools.
The limitless dollars that these folks lavish on elections are simply
wise investments for many of them. They are well designed to spend a
few million now in order to claim a few billion dollars in unjustified
spending from the public treasury later. Often, the same folks who are
reaching into the public

[[Page H4790]]

purse are the folks who, through special tax expenditures and tax
loopholes, don't contribute but pennies on the dollar compared to what
a small business might be having to pay in its corporate tax rate or
what a working or middle-class family might be having to pay,
struggling to make ends meet.
Without the DISCLOSE Act, a tobacco company can come here
masquerading as a phony ``health care'' coalition. A Wall Street bank
can come and ask for another bailout, claiming that it is part of a
``consumer alliance.'' A polluter can defeat those who want to hold it
accountable by asserting that it is part of ``Citizens for Clean Air
and Clean Beaches.'' Insurance monopolies determined to deny American
families access to care at prices they can afford are already out there
with groups like Americans for Better Health Care, which is really
designed to stymie families efforts to access health care.
DISCLOSE Act opponents have a great deal not to disclose. They want
to be assassins, silent assassins of character, where they buy one hate
ad after another while denying the public an opportunity to know that
the views being expressed in that 30 seconds are, in fact, limited to
those of a narrow corporate self-interest that is determined never to
be held accountable for its misconduct.
The public, without the power of these corporate deep pockets, would
also be denied access to the knowledge of who is really wielding the
power. Who can look at Washington these days and say that the problem
up here is too little influence of corporate cash?
A vote for the DISCLOSE Act is a vote to stop the corruption of our
political system and to stop the slide into plutocracy. It is a vote
for a fully-informed and fully-empowered American people to take charge
of our democracy and to ensure the change that will make a meaningful
difference in the lives of our families.
I urge its adoption.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the ability to speak on the floor of this
House is a great honor and a very powerful thing. However, simply
saying something on the floor does not make it true.
I would like to now yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
incredibly restrictive rule and to the underlying legislation.
The lack of democracy and openness that exists in this House is
evident when the House Rules Committee self-executes a 45-page
manager's amendment to a 92-page bill and then makes in order only 5 of
the other 36 submitted amendments. By the way, only one of those
amendments made in order was offered by a Republican.
This, of course, has all been done in the name of a bill cynically
titled Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in
Elections Act. I've got a suggestion to my friends: How about
strengthening democracy by actually allowing robust debate and
unlimited amendments? That would actually help restore comity and
bipartisanship to this polarized House.
With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to also address the
underlying legislation.
In this bill, the majority is engaged in a self-serving, hypocritical
political exercise. The underlying legislation is a response to a 5-4
Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election
Commission case. Good people can disagree about that case and about its
ramifications. However, when the majority party decides to reshape the
political playing field with a bill written by its political tacticians
and introduced by the chairman of its own campaign committee, we have
reached a new low.
The clear aim of this legislation is to tilt the political playing
field in favor of the Democratic Party. Simply put, this bill
facilitates the involvement and political activities of groups
supportive of the Democratic Party while limiting the political
activities of those who may not support the Democratic agenda. A clear
example of this is where the bill applies onerous restrictions on
corporations which may wish to involve themselves in political activity
while the bill carves out large exceptions for unions, which
traditionally support the Democratic agenda.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a prescription for chicanery in our
elections, and it will fundamentally restrict our First Amendment
rights. Therefore, I urge Members to oppose this rule and the
underlying legislation. Limiting the freedom of speech in pursuit of
partisan political advantage is fundamentally wrong.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to remind everybody that the
Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case essentially allows
unlimited special interest money, corporate money, to drown out the
voices of everyday people. That is really what the issue is here. The
majority of Americans, I think, are alarmed by that. That is why an
overwhelming majority support the passage of this DISCLOSE Act.
Those of us who are arguing for the passage of this bill believe the
voters have a fundamental right to know who is spending money to
influence their elections and where that money is coming from. I am
puzzled that my friends on the other side of the aisle, who are
speaking out against this, don't share that same concern; but voters
deserve to know who is spending money to influence their elections.
They deserve to know whether it is a Big Oil company or a union, and
they deserve to know whether it is a foreign special interest that is
trying to influence the election.
So I would urge my colleagues to get behind this effort, an effort
that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I am sure it is
not intentional, but falsehoods are being spread on this floor.
There is no poll that shows the American people support the DISCLOSE
Act. It would be amazing if they did since we didn't get the last
version of it until 2 hours before we went to the Rules Committee
yesterday. The poll they are referring to took place back in February
or March, which was before they had their backroom deals coming up with
this particular bill.
We now have 438 organizations which oppose this. Among them are the
American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee,
and the Sierra Club. Why would those people be getting together to
oppose this bill? Because they believe in the First Amendment, and they
understand that the First Amendment says all should be treated the
same.
That is not the cornerstone of this bill. They are specifically not
treated the same. The bigger you are, the stronger you are, the less
disclosure you have. The smaller you are, the newer you are, the more
disclosure that is required. They even have put something in this bill
that will make it impossible for certain ads to play on television.
They have increased the number of names that have to appear, such that,
in some cases, it will take 17 seconds to say all of those names and
all of those organizations. There are things known as 15 second ads
now. I guess you have minus time on TV.
They say that unions have to be exempt, but corporations have to be
affected. Now, remember, corporations are not just for profit. They
keep talking about oil companies. They forget about the National Right
to Life. They forget about all of these other organizations that
actually have a corporate structure. Most political organizations do.
That's what we are talking about.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Then they say, Well, we don't
want to be controlled by foreign entities. We offered an amendment in
the Rules Committee to cover that. It was defeated on a party-line vote
by the majority party.
So, please, let's at least be honest. If you're going to disclose,
disclose your motivations. Disclose the words in here. Disclose the
deals that you've made. Disclose who has won the auction for their
piece of the First Amendment.

[[Page H4791]]

Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question and the rule because American families continue to struggle
with rising health care costs.
Recently, the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that health care costs for
families and for services will rise even higher due to this massive new
health care law.

{time} 1130

Today's YouCut vote helps to stop one of the major problems with the
new health care law, and it could save taxpayers across this country
between $5 billion and $10 billion.
Under the new health care law, the IRS will be in charge of verifying
that every American taxpayer has obtained government-approved,
acceptable health coverage for every month of the year. In other words,
if the IRS determines that a taxpayer lacks government-approved health
insurance for even a single month, then the IRS can have the power to
withhold tax refunds. This is an unprecedented new role for the IRS--
one that injects the IRS even farther into the personal lives of
American families. So today's YouCut vote would prevent the IRS from
hiring thousands of examiners and auditors required to implement this
new individual mandate.
As a former heart surgeon, I know we can do better and I know we can
agree on many commonsense approaches to cutting health care costs for
families and for seniors. We have many proposals to do this which are
not part of this health care law. But I'll tell you this: An individual
mandate enforced by the IRS is not one of them.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and vote against this rule.
Join me and cut $5 billion to $10 billion from the IRS while preventing
yet another mandate on health care from the Federal Government.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of defeating the previous
question, which is the next vote here on the House floor. I worked for
Ronald Reagan. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year. The last
thing that we should do is to raise taxes. The first thing that we
should do is cut spending.
As many folks here know, the Republican side has been offering five
different proposals every week for the last month or so, letting folks
across America vote on the proposal that they think merits the most
sense. This week, it was my proposal that won. That is, we are going to
tell the IRS that we're not going to hire another 15,000-some IRS
agents in the next couple of years to monitor health care, and we will
save the taxpayers $5 billion to $10 billion--billion, as in big.
That's not a bad proposal. Save the taxpayers some money by not hiring
15,000 more bureaucrats.
What are these folks going to do? They're going to make sure that
every American verifies that they have health insurance. Maybe they
will look at page 737 in the health care bill, which says that every
business will have to file a new 1099 with the IRS for any $600
business-to-business transaction. So if you're a homebuilder and you
just happen to show up at that same Chevron or Shell gas station every
other week to fill up your car or your pickup and you spend more than
$600 over the course of the year there, you're going to have to file a
1099.
Let's fight the deficit--not by raising taxes but by cutting
spending. This proposal does that. We were denied at the Rules
Committee to allow this amendment to be offered, which is why we want
to defeat the previous question, offer this amendment to cut spending,
and help the taxpayers across the country.
Madam Speaker, I would urge all my colleagues to support this.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I find it puzzling to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle
all of a sudden talk about the deficit. When Bill Clinton left office,
he left the Republicans and George Bush a record surplus. There was no
deficit. We were paying down the debt. They took that surplus and they
turned it around and drove this economy into a ditch.
President Obama gets elected to office; he inherits the worst
economy. It's just a Great Depression. My friends on the other side
don't take any responsibility for that. In 1 year under President
Obama, we have created more jobs in this country than George Bush did
during 8 years while he was in office. The American people want us to
focus on jobs and job creation.
I would just make another suggestion, since we're talking about how
we protect the taxpayers. I would urge my friends on the other side of
the aisle to stop apologizing for the way the Federal Government is
treating BP, to stop apologizing for the fact that this administration
wants British Petroleum to live up to its responsibility and pay for
the cleanup of that mess in the gulf. I wish my friend on the other
side of the aisle would stop trying to defend Big Oil from taking its
responsibility. BP should pay for it, not the American taxpayer. If you
want to do something for the American taxpayer, then demand that BP do
what it is right.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute again to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I'm shocked that my friend from
the other side of the aisle would criticize the President's
relationship with BP in terms of the massive contributions that he
received while he was running for office. I don't think that ought to
be part of this debate.
But you ask about treatment. I have here just an example of one, two,
three, four, five sections of the bill in which there's a specific
exemption given to unions versus corporations. That is the kind of
favored versus disfavored status created by the government that is, on
its face, unconstitutional. People ought to understand that when you
start making these distinctions, you are creating an unconstitutional
act, because we do not want government saying that certain groups are
okay and certain groups are not okay, that certain language is okay and
other language is not okay, depending on who happens to be in office.
This is an attack on the First Amendment. And here you have one, two,
three, four, five sections of the bill made in order.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have to constantly remind our colleagues across the aisle that
Republicans were in charge of the Congress when President Clinton was
in office his last 6 years and that Democrats were in charge of
Congress the last 2 years of Mr. Bush's administration. We know that
Democrats created the economic crisis. And we are not apologizing to
BP. We know that BP should pay for all of the problems that have been
caused in the gulf. However, we'd like to see this administration do
something to respond to the disaster down there and stop blaming others
as they do on everything.
In a little over a week, on July 4th, we will be celebrating our
Nation's independence. John Adams wrote in a letter to his wife,
Abigail, that it ``ought to be commemorated as the day of
deliverance.''
Today, we're not liberating the American people, as our Founding
Fathers did. Instead, our colleagues are attempting just the opposite.
They're attempting to erode our right to free speech when there's so
many other pressing issues that our Nation faces today.
For one, we could be addressing the 21 percent cut in Medicare
reimbursement payments to doctors that went into effect on June 18. The
Senate, after some debate, was able to pass, by unanimous consent, a 6-
month extension on the 21 percent cuts last Friday. This legislation
would provide a 6-month extension, fully paid for. However, the Speaker
has said she sees ``no reason to pass this inadequate bill until we see
jobs legislation coming out of the Senate.'' But the Democrats in
charge have seen these disastrous

[[Page H4792]]

pay cuts to physicians coming for some time but have only offered bills
full of budget gimmicks or 1-month extensions. I've heard from
physicians in my district who are fearful of these cuts and the
negative impact they have on their patients when they will no longer be
able to afford to see Medicare patients. This is a real crisis we
should be dealing with instead of a bill riddled with assaults on our
constitutional rights.
Even some Democrat Members have some concerns with this bill. To
quote one Democrat Member who spoke during the Rules Committee
yesterday, with this bill ``we are auctioning off parts of the First
Amendment. Don't make this bill unconstitutional on purpose.'' H.R.
5175 contracts our freedoms when we should be expanding them.

{time} 1140

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow
all Members of Congress the opportunity to vote to cut spending.
Republican Whip Eric Cantor recently launched the YouCut initiative
which gives people an opportunity to vote for Federal spending they
would like to see Congress cut. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have
cast their votes, and this week they've directed their Representatives
in Congress to consider H.R. 5570.
According to the Republican whip's YouCut Web site, the Congressional
Budget Office has estimated that ``over the next 10 years, the IRS will
require between $5 billion and $10 billion in funding to implement the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the new
health care law. These funds will be used to hire thousands of
additional IRS agents and employees. Reforming our health care system
shouldn't require expanding the IRS. By prohibiting funding for the
expansion of the IRS for this purpose, we can protect taxpayers while
we work to repeal and replace the law.''
H.R. 5570 would prohibit taxpayer funds from being appropriated to
the Internal Revenue Service for the purpose of hiring new agents to
enforce the Democrats' health care law. Under the new law, additional
agents would be specifically hired to enforce the Democrats'
unconstitutional individual health care mandate. By preventing their
hire, this week's YouCut vote could save the taxpayers between $5
billion and $10 billion. In order to provide for consideration of this
commonsense legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, first of all, the underlying bill that we are talking
about here today does not violate the First Amendment of the
Constitution. That's just a ridiculous argument. And we are supporting
this bill because we believe that no one spending large sums of money
on campaigns should be able to hide behind a made-up shell. I don't
think that's controversial. I don't care whether you are a Republican
or a Democrat; you should want to know who is spending all this money,
who is behind these ads. Why is that such a terrible idea?
You know, I don't think it's too much to ask that these organizations
identify in their campaign ads those entities providing funding for
those ads. This is about sunlight and transparency. This is about
giving the American people the information that I think they all want.
Who is behind these ads? Who is funding these ads?
My friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be clinging to
secrecy. Well, secrecy in elections does nothing except to advance
deception. And so when a Member of the Republican Party, for example,
apologizes for the way the Federal Government is treating BP, BP can
then under the status quo set up a mechanism to funnel money into ads
in favor of that candidate or, you know, against his opponent, and BP
does not have to identify itself. It could fund this under a shell of
Citizens for Good Government or Citizens for a Clean Environment.
We need to understand that one of the problems is the way that our
government has evolved here. Money has played too big of a role. I
cannot believe that our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined that
money would play such a big role in campaigns, millions and millions
and millions of dollars spent on congressional campaigns, on Senate
campaigns. Too much time is devoted to raising money. Too much emphasis
is placed on money to be able to run for office. This says nothing
about capping how much we can spend on campaigns, but what it does say
is that those entities that are running ads in favor of us or against
us have to tell the American people who they are.
I think the reason why so many Americans support this effort is
because they get it, and they want to know the truth. I think the
reason why so many Americans support this is they don't want foreign
governments or foreign special interests to influence our elections. As
I said before, these sovereign wealth funds can be set up. China can
set one up based here in the United States, come up with a shell name
for the organization, and actually spend millions and millions of
dollars in an election to influence the outcome. That should not be. I
don't care what your political philosophy is. We should not want
foreign governments or foreign interests to influence our elections.
Elections here should be decided by the people of the United States,
not by other countries, not by foreign interests.
And I would again remind my colleagues that as we speak, there are
millions and millions of dollars being spent on negative ads all over
the country against Republicans and against Democrats, and they are
sponsored by organizations that have nice names, but may be funded by
an industry that has a particular interest in the outcome of that
election. I think it is important when these negative health care ads
are being run, that people know they're being paid for by the insurance
industry. I think it's important to know that when we have ads
defending the behavior of BP, that we know they are to be spent by
interests that are tied directly to Big Oil.
So this is about transparency. This is about full disclosure. This
has nothing to do with abridging anybody's right to speech. It just
says that you have got to stand by what you say. That's not a radical
idea. It's an idea that everybody in this House--I don't care what your
political philosophy is--should embrace.
So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 5175 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5570) to provide that no funds are authorized to be
appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service to expand its
workforce in order to implement, enforce, or otherwise carry
out either the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective
designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except

[[Page H4793]]

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration
of H.R. 5570.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adopting House Resolution 1468, if ordered;
Suspending the rules with regard to House Concurrent Resolution 285;
and
Suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 1464, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 385]

YEAS--243

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--181

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Barrett (SC)
Blunt
Brown (SC)
Ellison
Hoekstra
Moore (WI)
Visclosky
Wamp

{time} 1214

Messrs. FLEMING, HUNTER, NEUGEBAUER, Mrs. MYRICK, Messrs.

[[Page H4794]]

CAO, KING of New York, Ms. FALLIN and Mr. McINTYRE changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 205, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 386]

AYES--220

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--205

Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hodes
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Watt
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Barrett (SC)
Blunt
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Crenshaw
Hoekstra
Visclosky
Wamp

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1223

Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia and JACKSON of Illinois changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________