[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11663-11673]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 11664]]

     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 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.

[[Page 11665]]

  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 to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' 
It's very simple, but it's very important.

[[Page 11666]]

  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

[[Page 11667]]

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 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

[[Page 11668]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 11669]]

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 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

[[Page 11670]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11671]]

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 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

[[Page 11672]]

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. 1468 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 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

[[Page 11673]]


     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. 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.

                          ____________________