tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 24, 2010 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
federal contractor, if you are getting over $10 million from the american taxpayer, or you are a.i.g., you shouldn't be recycling those moneys into elections to try and influence the body that gave you the contracts, because there is a greater danger of corruption in the expenditure of those moneys. and third, we require disclosure. we believe the voter has a right to know. you would think from the comments from the other side of the aisle we are restricting what people an say. that's not true. you can say anything you want in any ad you want. what you can't do is hide behind the darkness. not tell people who you are. voters have a right know when they see an ad going on with a nice sounding name, the fund for a better america, they have a right to know who is paying for it. they have a right to know if b.p. is paying for it. they have a right to know if any corporation or big bucks individual is paying for it. because it's a way to give them information to access the credibility of the ad.
. you vote no on this, tell corporations say what you want, but we're not going to let the voters know who you are. the reason the league of women voters, common cause, public citizen, democracy 21, all organizations that have devoted, devoted themselves to clean and fair elections, support this legislation. because they understand that the american voter has a right to know who is spending all these moneys on these ads and they don't want foreign controlled corporations dumping millions of dollars into u.s. elections. so my colleagues, i hope%% that we will move forward on this to make sure that the voice of citizens is not drowned out by
secret spending by the biggest corporations, including foreign controlled corporations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize the chairman of the constitution subcommittee, jerry nadler of new york, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the disclose act. earlier this year, the supreme court reversed decades of precedents and ruled that corporations are individuals like you and me and can put as much money into elections as they want. it distorts our political process. the very real danger now is that corporations will be able to use vast sums of concentrated money to further
corrupt our political process and drown out the voices of everyone else. without objection action as a result of this latest activist supreme court decision, our electoral system will be at the mercy of large moneyed interests. this bill takes several critical steps to reclaim our elections. the most important one is that it would require disclosures of donors providing money for political purposes in certain circumstances and mandate that they appear in political ads to say they, quote, approve this message, just as candidates do. it would set some limits on money in politic, not by limiting the money but by requiring disclosure of the source of the corporate money to show which interests are behind which advertising. i no many people opposed contributions previously said
don't limit the political expenditure the solution is disclosure. let people know who is sponsoring the ads, that will safeguard the elections. i don't think disclosure is enough but it's all the supreme court will a lou us to do. now people who argued for disclosure for years are saying it's a restriction on free speech, it's disturbing. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. nadler: it's important that ads from citizens for a cleaner environment are from b.p. or the sierra club to know how it affects their decisions. there are obligations to disclose contributors.
to limit -- by limiting it to those that have been in existence for at least a decade have members in each of the 50 states and receive no more than 50% of its funding from unions and corporations. we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the gheesmed disclose act would make a vast and substantial difference in protecting the integrity of our elections andky not think of a more important bill. i urge all my colleagues to support this bill despite its imperfections. i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: at thii time, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy a valued member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: mr. chairman, just a block away from this building, the capitol, stands the supreme court.
like many other courthouses across this country, it bears the image of the goddess of justice. many of you know the statue. she holds a set of scales symbolizing the fairness and equality of law. she wears a blindfold, symbolizing impartiality. unfortunately, this bill does not represent either of those issues. like so many other bill this is house democratic leadership has forced onto the floor this bill suffers from the same taint, the provisions in this bill are the result of backroom negotiations and special deals to exempt powerful interest groups at the expense of smaller ones. but the unfortunate thing about this bill today is that rather than represent -- than respect the first amendment promise to prooect the speech of all americans, it attempts to use the first amendment as a partisan sledge hammer to
silence certain speakers in favor of others. especially unions. mr. chairman, this bill bans corporations with government contracts over $10 million from political speech. the sponsor says that's because those contractors might try to influence decisions by government officials. but this bill does nothing for the labor unions who are parties to collective bargaining, agreements with he governments. even though unions have huge amounts of money at stake and every incentive to influence decisions about the contracts by government officials, it does nothing. we offered an amendment to upheld the fairness and equality but that was rejected in the committee. a second example, mr. chairman is we all agree that foreign citizens shouldn't influence our leches, whether they are foreign citizens that are part of foreign corporations or foreign citizens part of a union with interests in the
united states. this bill requires c.e.o.'s to certify under penalty of perjury that their companies are not foreign nationals. under the newlyy+ expanded standard of the bill. but the bill does nothing to ensure that when labor unions are spending money on elections, that money did not come from people who are themselves prohibited from spending noun influence american elections. again, we offered an amendmeet to treat corporations and unions equally under the bill by requiring the same certify scation of labor union chiefs but again, it was rejected. mr. chairman, a third example. i point to the centerpiece provision of this bill. the so-called disclosure requirement. the bill requires organizations to disclose information about the individuals who gave more than $600. but the federal election committee asked everybody else to do it at $200. as one of the majority members
of our committee -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: as one member of the committee asked, where did the money come from? it's enough to make unions not have to report any of their dues. the average for a union is $377 in 2004. it treats them different than we treat every other american and every other campaign. 10 while candidates and political parties have to itemize contributions from donors about $200, we have a different rule in this bill. a rule apparently designed for the convenience of unions. we offered an amendment to make this disclosure requirement the same as how all federal laws long require ared disclosure of donors but it was rejected. rather than spending time today listening to americans and addressing the number one priority in this country, helping to create jobs and grow
the economy, again and again i watch this congress mired in its partisan priorities. i listen to the gentleman from maryland. he happens to be the chairman of the democratic congressional committee. the chair: the gentleman is -- the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: the back room deal was not done. i started this speech thinking of the goddess of justice and i go through this bill, the blindfold is taken off and the thumb is put on the scale to weigh to one side. this does not honor the first amendment or the fairness of what this buildinggrepresents. i ask for a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: how much time is left on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 150 minutes, the gentleman from michigan has
2 1/2 minutes, and the gentleman from california has 17 1/2 minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, another valued member of the house administration, ms. susan davis. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the disclose act. under current law, yes, it is correct that groups must disclose their name, their name and advertisements and file a disclosure form. but you know, that doesn't tell anyone very much at all. right now, voters see tv ads sponsored by organizations they've never heard of. groups like the american future fund. american leadership project. citizens for strength and
security. common sense in america. and today i'm getting calls from the campaign for liberty. but they will not tell us who they are. does anybody know who they are? in 2008, there were over 80 of these groups and they bought $135 million in advertisements. i for one don't think our constituents should go through another election cycle in the dark. voters want to know who is %% behind that ad? who stands to gain from it? why isn't an actual -- sit an -- why isn't an actual person, corporation, or union taking responsibility for it? the disclose act will finally put that information in voters' hands with tough disclosure and disclaimer requirements. i want to tell you, because the
disclose act also sets important limits to protect taxpayer dollars. i ask those opposed to the bill, do we want ads from banks that still have are tarp funds? do we want subsidiaries of foreign controlled companiesed meling in our elections? well, i would think the answer is clearly no. the disclose act is just like other consumer protection bill this is body has passed. i can think of no single time i've regretted giving my constituents more information so they can make wise and informed decisions. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. teague. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. teague: mr. speaker, i rise
today in strong support of the disclose act, a bill i'm proud to co-sponsor. several months ago in the citizen united case, the supreme court made a dangerous decision to allow unlimited corporate and union money into our elections. the consequences of this decision for our democracy are dimplee until we act, massive corporations can secretly funnel hundreds of millions of dollars through shadowy front groups to influence elections. a foreign company like british petroleum could retaliate against members of congress who want to hold them accountable by secretly funding millions in attack ads. if we don't act to stop this injustice, limitless corporate money will flood into our political system and drown out the voice of the american people. debates by candidates will be replaced by ads. some people say this is a free speech issue. of course it is.
the court decision lets foreign corporations influence our elections. what this bill does is protect the speech of american citizens. the disclose act says free speech is for people. it also says, pick a side. do you suuport protecting the voice of the american people? thank you. i ask everyone to support the dill. -- bill. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i want to thank my colleague for yielding me time. in citizens united vs. federal election commission, the supreme court struck down several provisions of federal law on the grounds they violated organizations' first amendment rights. yet, the disclose act would have more regulations that unduly restrict their freedom of speech. it would do this while unfairly sparing unions and other preferred groups from the same
regulations. this legislation is plainly unconstitutional. the disclose act would unconstitutionally ban political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80% ownership by u.s. citizens. it would unconstitutionally limit the amount of information that organizations can include in ads stating their political opinion. it would unconstitutionally require the disclosure of an organization's donors in violation of their right to free association. and it would unconstitutionally exempt favored organizations from its requirements. the disclose act is unconstitutional and it should be soundly rejected by the house today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield it's back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to jared
polis, the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: people enjoy their constitutional rights but corporations aren't alive, their sons can't be sent off to war. corporations are political zombies only knowing the pursuit. the econommc reason that corporations exist. but in the political context, there is negative civic value to such advocacy, especially without the reasonable expectations that was tossed out in the supreme court decision in citizens united. when they give them an advantage over their competitors, everyone suffers and it undermines the confidence of liberals, conservatives, all citizens.
that's why the disclose act is so needed, the flood of special interest money in our political system and to protect the free speech of individual americans and i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleadsed to recognize mr. hall from new york for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. hall: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to strongly support h.r. 5175, the disclose act. the citizens united was disastrous and gave corporations not just the rights of persons but way more rights than persons have. any citizen has a limit on how much they can donate in any given campaign cycle whereas under the current court decisions corporations have no limit. one of the most important provisions of the bill we're talking about would prevent foreign-owned companies from
buying u.s. elections. and i would like to thank chairman van hollen, mr. van hollen's willingness to work with me in including a similar provision in the bill to one that i introduced in my freedom from foreign-based manipulations in american elections act from keeping companies like b.p. deciding who is elected to congress. this is about representing our people. our friends on both sides of the aisle like to say that we represent the people. well, a poll came out showing 87% of republicans and 91% of independents, 91% of independents support this bill. i urge all members to vote for it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. lungren: mr. chairman, there has been a discussion about the different groups that support this bill. interestingly enough as debate started on the rule today we received word from 18 more groups that they oppose this bill. now we're up to 456 groups that oppose this bill officially, including the american civil liberties union, national right to life and the sierra club. let me quote, if i might, from the aclu's letter that is dated june 17, 2010, because much has been made on the other side of the aisle of groups that support this. but yet why not talk about groups that are known for
protecting the first amendment? the aclu says in their letter, "to the extent that restrictions on free speech might be tolerated at all, it is essential that they refrain from discriminating based on the identity of the speaker." and they're referring specifically to this bill. the aclu welcomes reforms that improve our democratic elections by improving the information available to voters while some elements of this bill move in that direction. the system is not strengthened by chilling free speech and invading the privacy of even modest donors to controversial causes. that, of course, refers to the seminole case on this by the supreme court i believe in 1948, naacp vs. alabama where they showed that revelation of members or donors to certain groups that are disfavored can lead to intimidation.
they go on to say here, "indeed our constitution embraces public discussion of matters that are important to the nation's future and it respects the right of individuals to support those conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of arrests, embarrassment." own forms that promote speech, rather than limit it, and apply even-handedly rather than selectively will bring positive change to our elections. because the disclose act misses both of those targets, the aclu opposes its passage and urges a no vote on h.r. 5175. i made a mistake earlier when i referred to the amount of time we are allowed to debate the naming of post offices in this congress. as a matter f fact, 41 hours have been granted by the rules committee or under suspension under our rules to the debate
on the naming of post offices, but we could only give one hour to this debate. ironic, isn't it, that they talk about this being the disclose act. the guts of the bill were not disclosed to those of us on the committee. i even asked if i could see a copy. in fact, i asked a member of this house who had received a copy, and he was toll that he was prohibited from showing it to us on the republican side because the leadership on the democratic side did not want us to know what they were doing. the disclose act. they didn't disclose the actual bill we have here until two hours before we went to the rules committee yesterday. and maybe one of the reasons they didn't want to disclose it is in addition to those exemptions specifically given to labor unions allowing labor unions to be exempt from the disclosure that all other corporations -- not just the
major corporations you keep talking about. remember, corporations are the usual associated legal apparatus used by most advocacy groups. so that's who you are talking about. and you keep saying, well, you can have foreign companies and foreign countries under this bill or under this decision by the supreme court, control the message in campaigns, that's just utterly untrue. it wasn't allowed by law before. it wasn't changed by the supreme court decision. at least you should talk about what the law is. it is not true. that's a dog that won't hunt and you keep putting it up here and keep putting it up here and either you haven't read your own bill, you haven't read the supreme court decision or there's an attempt to not tell people exactly what is happening. but one of the reasons i believe that perhaps we didn't get an opportunity to see the
latest version of the bill is because it contains a huge new big union loophole. and it allows the transfer of all kinds of funds, unlimited funds among affiliated unions so long as not a single member is responsible for $50,000. i doubt many members are responsible for $50,000 which means there will be no limitation whatsoever with respect to unions here. so let's get the facts straight. there was an auction in this house behind closed doors, certain groups won the auction, other groups did not. that's one of the reasons that the aclu is against it. that's why we should be against it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan ii recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield the two distinguished subcommittee chairman -- yield to the
distinguished subcommittee chairman 45 seconds. i only have two 45 seconds left and i yield him one of them. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. johnson: let's get right down to it. why are the republicans opposed to restricting campaign donations in american campaigns, both local, state and federal? why? it's because republicans favor big business, and big business favors republicans. with all of these unlimited dollars flowing through, we'll see more republicans getting elected, both local, state and federal. what it means is that b.p., a corporate wrong doer, foreign corporation -- wrongdoer, foreign corporation, can influence elections. it means that goldman sachs can
influence elections. no limit, no boundaries. that's what will happen if we don't pass the disclose act. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. chairman, again, may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has six minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 45 seconds. and the gentleman from california has 11 minutes. mr. brady: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman froo delaware a minute and a half, mr. castle. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized. mr. castle: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do rise in support of the disclose act. i'd like to thank mr. van hollen, his office, for their work on this as well. i believe that this is relatively simple. i think that all of us in this country have a right to know who is putting forth ads for or
against candidates as the campaigns go on. we do that as elected officials. the political parties do that. we also file all those who contribute money to us above certain amounts. in that i believe also should be done. this acttthat we are trying to pass basically is one of transparency. call it disclose, whatever you wish, but it basically indicates that foreign corporations cannot spend dollars in u.s. elections, federal contractors cannot get involved, but those who can, the corporations, unions, not-for-profits must disclose who is paying for it in terms of the c.e.o. coming forward, major contributors being posted so that people know who is paying for it. it does not limit what they can say. i do not believe it's in any way a violation of the first amendment, as has been stated here on repeated occasions. i will be the first to tell you i do not like the manager's amendment that was in the rule with respect to the exemptions for certain entities, not because there's anything wrong with the entities but my
judgment is this should be applicable to everybody who would fall into these categories. perhaps that will be fixed in the senate. but the bottom line is this is a disclosure act so the people of this country will know who is advertising. we've all been subjected to it. you've seen the ads and you wonder who is running these ads. i hope everybody will support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i would extend a minute of my time to the gentleman from michigan who i understand needs more time. mr. conyers: could the gentleman spare us a couple minutes? mr. lungren: well, let's start with a minute and see where we go from there. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: i'm very pleased now to recognize the
distinguished senior member of the judiciary committee, sheila jackson lee of texas, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you for your laidership and boldness on this issue. i hold in my hand a version of the constitution that is in this very distinct book of rules and clearly, i think it is important for the american people to understand really the% action items of this legislation. can you imagine a government contractor being paid by your tax dollars? they might be doing the right thing, we don't know. but advocating, with your tax dollars, for a position you don't want, without you knowing that is occurring. this bill is under the first amendment because it says that we give you more transparency. if we read the constitution in its entirety the opening says that we have come together to
form a more perfect union that means if people are discity -- dissatisfied with this bill they have a right to petition tote the courts. we believer erring on the side of rightness, allowing people to be elected or run for office, dominated, slammed down on the basis of big money. this is a good change, i ask my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank the chairman. i want to emphasize, as justice stevens pointed out in his dissent, the supreme court decision did open the door to foreign controlled corporations spending money directly in u.s. elections. if you have a sub -- if you
have a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign corporation, when the supreme court said all corporations could spend money in u.s. electton they opened the door very clearly to that and it's an area where it's also clear congress can move to legislate. number two it's no surprise you have lots of organizations on the right and tte left, love what they stand for or hate what they stand for, that are opposing this bill because they don't want voters in many instances to know who is funding their ads. that's not a surprise at all. that's why those organizations who are devoted solely to clean organizations and clean campaign elections like the -- like the league of women voters and common cause, are for this bill while all the others are against it. let me say something with respect to unions there is no such thing as a u.s. subsidiary of a foreign union, this is a
red herring issue. second, under u.s. law, we have never defined collective bargaining agreements as federal contracts like the contracts that go to corporations themselves. number three, i draw to the attention of the body a statement that was made by trevor potter, president of the campaign legal center, who was the republican commissioner on the federal election commission from 1991 to 1995, who said this. this bill requires funding disclosure for all advertising, union and corporate, and goes on to say, based on the legislative languages, equality of treatment, claims of union favoritism seem to be unsupported efforts to discredit the bill and stave off its primary goal, disclosure of those underwriting the massive -- that's the republican commissioner. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from california.
mr. lungren: i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, i find it instructive that one of the members on the other side of the aisle, when she got down here to talk about the constitution, said, i have this version of the constitution. as far as i know, there's only one version of the constitution. except if you happen to be on the majority side dealing with this bill. why do i say that? because the constitution very clearly in the first amendment said congress shall make no law no law abridging free speech. what is it about no you don't understand? i would say rhetorically, because i can't address the majority on this floor. but i would say if i could,
what is it about no you don't understand? it says no law. now some would say, wait a second. the courts do allow some laws in the area of campaign finance and disclosure and so forth. yes they do. but what are they predicated on? they say the countervailing principal -- principle or concern about corruption or the appearance of corruption. that's the only basis you can create the laws. they therefore say you cannot %% distinguish between two sets of groups where that same analysis would come forward. in other words you can't say, we're going to fare -- favor unions but disfavor + corporations who stand essentially in the same shoes in the area of potential corruption. they say if you have a government contract over $10 million, they went from $5 million, up to $10 million to
include certain group, we're not sure who they are, there have been some whispers as to who they are. but the argument is there's a potential corruption between those wwith government contract and those who have influence in giving those contracts. we said, ok, what about unions that represent the workers for those companies who pay -- whose pay comes from the taxpayers by virtue of these contracts? it's the same argument. they said, we can't do that, that would be unfair to unions. what about the fact that you have union bargaining agreements with government entities? twhoont be the same -- >> no, no. that's different than corporations. what's the basis? there is no basis. what they do by the terms of the bill is rend they are bill unconstitutional because the courts say you can't distinguish among different groups unless you use the same basis. and they use the highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, why? because it involves an essential right protected under
the coostitution. that's what's so disturbing here today. not because we disagree on legislation, because we do that often. but the fact of the matter is, we are so cavalierly dealing with the first amendment, we're so cavalierly dealing with free speech, we're so cavalierly dealing with essential political free speech, particularly when it's involved in elections. ppthat's when it's most important. yet we have seen a bidding war here, an auction, not on the floor, because it took place behind closed doors. and yet we're told, just look at the title. look at the title. you know if you put the nnme cadillac on a ugoh, it would still be a yugo. if it can't drive, putting another name on it won't make it better. to say this is a disclose act when you refuse to disclose the parts of it to us until two hours before the rules committee yesterday undercuts everything you argue that this bill is about.
this is not sunlight. this is putting some in the cellar where there is no light and others get the light. this is allowing some to be involved in the debate and others not. our founding fathers did not think the ant dote to bad speech was to prohibit speech. it was to encourage robust debate and give others the opportunity. we can't agree on disclosure but not when you bring it in this form because it isn't disclosure that is fairly imposed on all parties. i am sure of this. this will be declared untugal. but the dirty little secret in this, you have put in here the appellate process so it won't be decided until after the election so that these who should be able to exercise their first amendment rights will be afraid to exercise them for fear they might make a mistake. what a tragedy. what a travesty.
we should do better on this floor. we owe it to ourselves and if we don't think we're worthy, maybe the constitution is worthy. maybe our constituents are worthy. to hide behind the words disclosure, disclose, when in fact that's not what you're doing, is the ultimate in insult to the constitution. the chair: who seeks recognition? mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'll use the balance of my time. members of the house, i've been on the judiciary committee longer than anyone in the house of representatives. sand save one other court decision, there's been no decision that they have ever rendered that i consider more abhorrent and more onerous than
the results that will flow from this measure of the citizens united decision. i say that because what we're doing is a matter of whether corporate control in the body politic now goes completely, totally without any halt or reservation whatsoever. so please, support this measure. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, at this time, it's my distinct honor to recognize the gentleman from ohio the distinguished leader of the
republicans here in the house, mr. boehner for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. boehner: i want to thank my colleague for yielding. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. we all know that that's part of our first amendment to the constitution. and it's first for a reason. because freedom of speech is the basis for our democracy. but today, the majority wants to pass a bill restricting speech. violating that very first amendment to the constitution. oh, no, they don't want to restrict it for everyone. they want to use their majority hear in the -- here in the house to silence their political opponents. pure and simple. for just one election. is there any other explanation for this bill? is there any reason under this bill that small business --
businesses get muffled but big businesses will be fine. -- fine? labor unions won't have to comply with this, they're exempted from it. they get their right prospected. why is the national rifle association protected, but not the national righttto life organization. -- organization? obviously no one wants to answer. the national rifle association is carved out -- the national rifle association is carved out of this deal and given a special deal. they are big defenders of the second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms. but yet they think it's all right to throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, while requiring other% to comply with all the
rules outlined in this bill. frankly, i think it's disappointing. why does the humane society of america get to speak freely, but not the national farm bureau. why do aarp get protected under the bill? yet if you belong to 60-plus, no, no. you've got to comply with all of this. since the supreme court's decision to uphold the first amendment, democrats here have maintained their bill would apply equally across the board to corporations, labor unions and advocacy organizations alike. instead, they've produced a ppbill that is full of loophole designed to help their friends while silencing their political opponents. we in this house take an oath to preserve, to protect, and to defend our constitution.
anyone who votes for this bill today, i'll tell you, is violating the oath that they took when they became a member of this organization. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? mr. brady: i'm prepared to close, i have no more speakers, if the gentleman is prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i understand the gentleman is going to close, so i will use the balance of my time. the chair: yes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. chairman, i've been privileged to serve in this house for a number of years. during that period of time, i have had the opportunity to vote probably thousands of times on many, many, many different issues. sometimes the results of the votes, collective votes of this house and the senate and the signature of the president, during the course of time i've
been here, has resulted in legislation which subsequently was ruled to be in part or in whole unconstitutional. and i have had conversations on the floor of the house that said, i'm not concerned about the constitution. don't let me worry about that, the court december side that. i've always said to them in response, we have an obligation when we take the oath of office to uphold the constitution and we ought to do it as we consider legislation. but i'm not sure that i have ever seen a frontal assault on this constitution as this bill is. why do i say that? i say that because this deals with the first amendment. it deals with political speech. it deals with political speech at its most effective. that is in the context of a political campaign. and we ought to deal with that very, very carefully. i will say to my friend from
michigan, if he was so concerned about the constitution, why did our committee waive jurisdiction here after having this bill only for a day? other times we insist on dealing with constitutional questions, but yet we gave it up. you look at this bill and you see that it violates the contours of the decision by the supreme court. if you want to amend the constitution, bring an amendment to the floor. it violates it in so many ways. and it's a continual violation as the auction block was established on the other side of the aisle. we kept hearing day after day, week after week they don't have the votes, they don't have the votes. they are going to make this deal, they are going to make that deal. what did they do? they expanded -- they expanded the exemption. they said, yes, the national rifle association gott a specia
exemption. the aarp did. the humane society did. they changed it from a million members to half a million members. but we know most groups won't be exempt. just a privileged few. that violates the decisions of the courts going back decades tell you. you cannot discriminate among groups. you cannot have disfavored and favored groups. and that's what we're doing right here on the floor. not just about something dealing with the -- dealt with by the constitution, but the essential of the first amendment. i am surprised that my liberal friends are not down here on this floor condemning provisions of this bill. and they say it's not a perfect bill. no, it's not perfect. it's unconstitutional. it is unconstitutional by its very terms. and in the last two weeks and even yesterday it became more unconstitutional because they carved out exemmtions even further for unions and for
selected groups of large size. mr. chairman, we should do better than this. we should do better than this. if we're not concerned about protecting the constitution, who is? you know, as was said basically by our leader, we take an oath to protect and defend all parts of the constitutioo. the first amendment as well as the second amendment. the fact of the matter is, we take an oath to uphold the constitution. to only allow an hour's worth of debate when we give far more time to naming post offices is a disgrace in this house. a disgrace. to not allow amendments that deal with some of the very subjects that my friends on the other side talk about is a disgrace. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, i ask for a no vote on this bill. the chhir: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, first, let me thank the staff of house administration, jamie fleet, matt pinkas for the hard work
they've done on this bill. it was a lot of moving around, a lot of moving parts and to be able to put it back together they were able to have us here today. i appreciate all the help. despite all the rhetoric that we heard about this bill, the simple purpose is, mr. chairman, who's saying it, who's paying it? all i want to know if i run or somebody runs for re-election and somebody runs an ad against me i'd like to know who that is or if somebody runs an ad in my favor i'd like to know who it is. the unions pay dues and they have a checkup to go to a pack fund. they can say, i don't want to spend any money to a pack fund. but if and when they do they now vote. they sit and vote for every
single candiddte that that union is supporting, whether or not they want to support that candidate or not, and every union has a tagline who they're supporting. and corporations, if you're a stockholder of a corporation, i could be a member of a stockholder in at&t and they can run an ad against me and i don't even know it. all i want to know, again, is -- and also those corporations don't vote. i'm a stockholder, i can't vote. i can't vote what they do with my money even though you spend money for an opponent against me. all we're saying is who's saying it and who's paying for it. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for gennral debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 111-511
is adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended is in order except those printed in part b of the report. each further amendment may be offered only in order printed in the report 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. now it is in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 111-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.
the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 111-511 offered by mr. ackerman of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1468, the gentleman from new york, mr. ackerman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the disclose act and offer a very simple but also very important amendment which simply adds the words "clear and conspicuous" as a requirement of disclosures that covered organizations are required to submit to shareholders, members or donors under the bill. in the wake of the supreme court's ruling in citizens united, corporations now have a first amendment right to spend millions or even billions of dollars of shareholder money to defeat or support candidates for public or political office. while this ruling is now united states law, the disclose act
takes the appropriate step of mandating that corporations tell their shareholders how they're using the money. after all, investors in a company have a right to know how their company is using their money. but the underlying bill fails to ensure that these corporate disclosures are made clearly and understandably or that they are printed in such a way that allows shareholders to see them. mr. speaker, congress has insisted upon disclosure requirements for corporations before, and anyone who receives a credit card offer knows that this is what we get, tiny, unreadable text in five-point font. even if you could read it, which you can't without a mag any fine glass, you would have to have degrees in law to define it. my amendment very simply
imposes and adds the words clear and conspicuous as a requirement for all organizations covered under the bill so that american investors have a chance to actually see and understand those disclosures. as congress takes the very reasonable approach of mandating corporate disclosures of political expenditures, we must ensure that corporations present that information in a clearly and understandably to all of their shareholders. i thank the rules committee for making my straightforward, commonsense amendment in order, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- does the gentleman seek time in opposition, the gentleman from california? mr. lungren: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ackerman's amendment is an interesting amendment because among other things it was allowed to be considered on this floor while any amendment offered by any republican member on the committee of jurisdiction was disallowed.
we had on our side several amendments which would make it clear that the disclosure requirements in this bill are required equally of unions as of corporations. and i -- as i listen carefully to mr. ackerman's statement concerning his amendment i noticed he referred only to corporations and to the obligations of corporations to make reports to their shareholders. there was no mention of unions of how they spend their money in a political way in a clear and conspicuous manner. he said his amendment is fairly straightforward. almost as if it's unnecessary or so obvious. and yet that amendment was allowed to be in order, but one would make it clear that his clear and conspicuous requirement and every other requirement of disclosure contained in this law which
would effect corporations of all types, not for-profit corporations, corporations of all types, was not allowed. so the gentleman has made the case that we have been make -- making all along. this bill does not in fact treat unions the same as it does other organizations. many of whom, as i say, have a corporate structure but they would not be identified by the average person as a corporation. they'd be defined as an advocacy organization. so once again we see in this amendment n attempt to unbalance the playing field by ensuring that a particular obligation that may be n appropriate obligation with respect to corporations is not placed on unions once again. and for that reason i would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. but golly, we can't have time
to discuss whether unions ought to be dealt with? the argument that the potential corruption is there with contractors would certainly be there with representatives of union member republican employees. i'm not saying they're corrupt. i'm saying the legal analysis is the same. i don't think my friends on the other side of the aisle would suggest that every corporation is corrupt, but it is because of the possibility of corruption that we're allowed under the supreme court's interpretation of the first amendment to have these kind of disclosure requirements. all i'm saying is once again the gentleman's amendment proves the point we've been trying to make on the floor. this bill does not fairly treat everybody. there are those that are favored by the majority and there's the rest of the world. those favored by the majority get special treatment. those not favored by the majority do not get that special treatment. it will render this bill unconstitutional as it should. a with that i'd yield back the
balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: thank you very much, mr. chairman. the purpose of this bill, as i understand it, is for transparency and people understanding what's happening out there as people -- spend lots of other people's money to advocate for or against candidates. in the case of unions, unions are very transparent in who they're supporting and who they're not supporting when they decide to take that kind of action. union members pay voluntarily with their deuce money and unions disclose who they are and who they're supporting. people who invest in corporations presumably for the purpose of investing money and furthering america's economic and their own economic interest have a right to know how those corporations are spending their money that they thought was being invested for the purpose
of capitalism and free enterprise rather than to be diverted into anybody's personal political agendas. unions do that because their members vote. corporations do not. and i would have no idea of a corporation that i may invest in whether they're spending my investment money to work against my interest or even your interest or for them for that matter. this is just to let people know. second point, the amendment that i offer covers every organization that is covered under the bill equally. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. ackerman: i understand the gentleman has yielded back the balance of his time. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 111-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part b of house report number 111-511, offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 146 , the gentleman from -- 1468, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: thank you, mr.
chairman. my amendment is simple in its language and perhaps a little more complicated when one starts to understand the freedom that would be exercised should my amendment become law. and that is this, it simply does this. my amendment eliminates, strikes all limitations on federal election campaign contributions. it takes out the $2,000 limit, the $5,000 limit, all the limits that sit there because it reverts us back to the constitutional principle that contributions to campaigns are free speech. funding is free speech. and to limit our ability as individual americans with constitutional rights, to make contributions to political campaigns, is an unconstitutional limitation, and by the way, to react to a supreme court decision by bringing a piece of legislation like this, which is immediate in exactly a reaction to the citizens united case, i think tells america where this congress would like to go in
limiting the constitutional rights of the people in 24 con-- in this country. i'm for re-establishing those rights to the maximum amount. that's what this allows. the individuals and the corporations that choose to donate, we don't touch anything that has to do with disclosure. i'm for full disclosure. i'm for sunshine. i think the american people and voters can discern where they want to place their vote and where they want to place their political contributions if we just allow for the disclosure. but the limitations, unconstitutional limitations and this amendment simply strikes all of those constitutional -- all those limitations that are in statute that unconstitutional, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. >> i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. chairman. representative king's amendment would as he has indicated eliminate all limitations on federal election campaign contributions, corporations,
unions, individuals could donate unlimited amounts of money to candidate's political parties and committees. i think this is a fairly cynical amendment designed to undermine all support for additional disclosure and reasonable regulation. since the federal election campaign act of 1971 was first challenged, the supreme court has always upheld reasonable contribution limits to candidates and political parties, and they did so as a reasonable means to prevent corruption. even citizens united decision itself did not question the federal campaign act's limits on direct contributions to candidates, and they reaffirmed that it was concerned, the court was concerned that large contributions could be given to secure a political quid pro quo. i quote the court decision where they refer favorably to the buckley court.
and i quote, nevertheless the limits on direct contributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption. that case did not extend the rationale of the independent expenditures and the court didn't do so in citizens united, but it did quote the buckley court favorably on the limitations of expenditures when it came to candidates or political parties. money has a corrosive effect on the electoral process, and eliminating campaign limits would start a political onslaught. candidates have to raise millions of dollars to run competitive campaigns, and if mr. king's amendment passes, candidates are going to turn to wealthy donors, special interests, corporations to get their money and the voices of average americans will not be heard. if this amendment is passed, the voices of the american people will be drowned out by wealthy
corporations and other interest groups. this isn't what we should do. it's not what the court suggested we do. and i would urge that we oppose the king amendment and i retain -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. chhirman. i make a point in response to the gentlelady's remarks from california that first my recollection of the citizens united case is that they didn't challenge those constitutional limits. there may have been a comment in the decision but i don't believe they challenged them before the court. and i would add to this that put arbitrary limits on, pad contributions at $5,000 and let inflation over time render those contributions to be of minimal value, or even though they have indexed individual contributions to increase for supposedly with inflation, distorts the balance that they try to create in the very legislation itself.
it shows what's wrong with contribution limits. additionally, we just need full disclosure. we have that disclosure. but what's happening is people like george soros are pouring money into their entities, their organizations, their voice is heard. they are not limited. they are exactly advantaged by the current scenario that we have. if we have -- if we eliminate the limits, what we are able to do, then, is hold the candidates accountable for the expenditure of those dollars and directly analyze the physicians and the candidates and their contributors. this way it's distorted. the real sunlight require the candidates to report when they do do that reporting, then we'll be able too evaluate their positions rather than having that money laundered through or i'll say diffused through a whole series of entities that are structured out there like 527's for example that have added to the acrimony of our campaign and they have diminished the honesty we have in our elections. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time.
ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i would like to note going back again to the court decision tha% although the citizens united case did not attack the -- it was not about the constraint on individual contributions to candidates, the court did, as i mentioned earlier and quoted, referenced favorably the buckley court sustaining the constitutionality of those constraints. it's worth noting that the federal election campaign act of 1971, been the law for nearly 40 years, 39 years. it's helped clean up the role of money in politics. it's been improved over the years. i mentioned earlier in the general debate the case of how much is spent in any given year
and i used the example 2008, the last big election, where 435 members of congress spent about $840 million, that's the equivalent of 1% of the profits of exxonmobil for one year. what mr. king's amendment would allow would be for an oil corporation, member of congress to go to the oil corporation and say, write me a check that's half a percent of your profit. that would be legal. that's not what we want in america. we don't want corporations pouring money into individual campaigns disclosed or not. that's going to drown out the voices of regular americans. it's not what the law permits today. the court decision does not ask us to change the law, and i would urge that we defeat mr. king's amendment. i reserve the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, may i inquire of the amount of time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. the gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. of course i disagree with the gentlelady from california. we need to allow these contributions to go into the campaign accounts rather than be laundered through a whole series of entities that are set up to diffuse and confuse the actual source of the voice. the distortion that comes with it, it may be that this has been law for 41 years. but citizens united, the ink is fairly dry and the democrats are here on the floor seeking to gain a legislative advantage when the supreme court has said, give the people an opportunity to have their voice heard in the elections. even insofar as in the underlying bill, this bill requires c.e.o.'s of organizations to appear in the
ads and state their name and organization two different times. c.e.o.'s. the president of the united states himself said, i don't want to talk to the c.e.o.'s, they'll tell me what they want me to hear. now we are legislating, telling the c.e.o.'s what they have to say twice in an ad. i don't know how we can afford to buy commercial and ads to run in a political campaign if our c.e.o.'s have to spend all their time in them. especially when the president says he doesn't want to listen to the c.e.o.'s. i think it's an ironic situation we have. but i want to eliminate the limit. that's what my amendment does. it strikes all the limits that are there in the current statute, 441-a limitations on contributions an expenditures. dollar limitations of the contributions, strike them all. it leaves all the reporting intact. so that the people in the country can make that determination that it's not constricted by an amounts that are unnecessarily plugged into this legislation and it lets people in america have a full throated voice of liberty when
they go to the polls to decide who they want to direct the destiny of the united states of america here in the united states congress. i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: 441-b is the section that prohibits corporate contributions. so the gentleman's amendment does not do what the gentlelady from california said. which would allow corporations to give contributions -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. king: i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i would urge opposition to this amendment. from the gentleman's comments he favors disclosure. i hope he will vote therefore for the disclose act, but we don't need to open the door to unlimited funds by corporations to candidates. we know it will be sleazy, in order to get disclosure. vote no on the king amendment and yes on the disclosure act. i yielddback. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. king: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number printed in part b of house report 111-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. kucinich: mr. chairman, i rise to offer an amendment to the disclose act. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part b of house report number 111-511, offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1468, the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich: thank you very
much, mr. chairman. the underlying bill would extend an existing ban on campaign contributions by government contractors to also include %% independent expenditures and election yeering communications by contractors. my amendment would clarify that this provision applies to companies with leases with the federal govvrnnent allowing them to drill for oil and gas in the outer continental shelf. if we need a stark reminder of the many problems that arise from our addiction to oil, we have it now. as many as half a million gallons of oil is erupting from an underwater volcano of oil into one of the most fragile ecosystems on earth. every single day. from the deepwater horizon drilling site alone. this disaster was preventable. we had a warning of the consequences of our dependence on oil in the 1970's. we ignored it. we built -- we could have built upon the increased awareness to continue on a path of weaning ourselves off oil but we
squandered it. there can be no doubt that the oil industry has strategicccally and brilliantly used its powerful influence to maintain or even worsen the addiction. they are not entirely to blame, though. blame does rest with congress for being addicted to oil company contributions. we have to begin to break the addiction. and do it now. according to open secrets.org, the oil and gas industry has given close to a quarter of a billion -- strike that, close to a quarter of a -- that's right, a quarter of a billion dollars to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle. in the 2008 cycle alone, the oil and gas industry donated 36 million. in the 2010 cycle they are on track to exceed that with 13 million donated so far. the mere perception of undo influence by the companies whose products are so profoundly destructive to water, air, and health is toxic to our democracy. mr. chairman, i'm urging a yes
vote for the kucinich amendment that relates to the outer continental shelf lease holder status. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. . for what purpose do you rise? mr. lungren: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: well, here we go again, mr. chairman. let's make sure this bill is unconstitutional. why not just tear up the first amendment right here in front of everybody so they know what we're doing? the court has said you cannot establish disfavored groups over favored groups. the gentleman has just expressed perhaps an appropriately condition animus towards those who are engaged
in offshore drilling. so we are going to say they -- those corporations because they engage in offshore drilling with leases cannot participate in the political process in the way anyone else can. he doesn't do it for leases for those who are onshore. he doesn't do it for those who have mineral leases on u.s. land. so what is the justification? the justification can't be what the gentleman just said in terms of the fragile ecological infrastructure. that's not the legal basis for which you can make a distinction. it is, why is the group that you are saying is singled out for the special treatment uniquely involved in corruption or the appearance of corruption as opposed to all other groups similarly situated? and the gentleman, instead of
arguing that point, talks about this terrible tragedy in the gulf which -- about which we all agree, but then says that is the basis for creating that distinction under the narrow allowance the supreme court has articulated over really two centuries of injuries prudence. so what -- jurisprudence. let's treat them differently than everyone else. not what they can negotiate for a contract but whether they can be involved in political speech as identified by the supreme court in their decision interpreting the first amendment. now,, i realize that many on that side of the aisle -- now, i realize that many on that
side of the aisle love to talk about the inconvenient truth but the inconvenient truth in this body today is the first amendment. the constitution is inconvenient. there are things that you wish you could do but you're not allowed to do, and the fact of the matter is once again i find it incredible that my friend from ohio would be fearful of robust debate and rather would say, well, this is an area in which we can refuse to allow debate. well, that's basically what the court has said to us. they said the cure for bad speech, intemp rate speech, dishonest -- intemperate speech, disonnist speech is not to suppress that speech but allow -- dishonest speech is not to suppress that speech but allow more speech. we are confined by a rule that allows very few amendments,
confined by a rule that allows debate about that great constitution which enhances the idea of robust debate. so once again we are seeking to have an amendment adopted here which would move in the direction of less debate rather than more debate, create favored groups versus disfavored groups, give an advantage to some other over the others rather than saying let's have an equal playing field and saying everybody needs to be heard. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i ask the chair how much time we have remaining. the chair: the gentleman from california has one minute remaining. the gentleman from ohio has three minutes remaining. mr. kucinich: three? the chair: three. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: i would let my friend from california know that there is no first amendment right to drill for oil and gas in the outer
continental shelf. there s no constitutional right that anyone has to a government contract, and this provision relates to the outer continental shelf leases and not all oil and gas leases because these leases in the ok o.c.s. are inherently more dangerous, more risky. it's especially true -- leases in the outer continental shelf are inherently more dangerous, more riskly. it's especially through than the other leases. we're still dealing with the value diaz -- with the valdez catastrophe. we are not just talking about mopping up the shores and spreading toxic dispersement. this oil will be on the water column, on the sea floor for a long, long time, ramifications for our ecosystem, spreading persistent compounds, like metals in our food ply. these companies can intervene in our political process using
money that they're getting from leases -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: once again -- the chair: one minute. mr. lungren: the gentleman's response is off the target. if you want to ban offshore oil drilling, ban offshore oil drilling but you're trying to ban speech. the idea is to cap the well, not cap speech. the idea here is to honor the first amendment, not tear it up. the idea is not to use to your advantage a tragedy of enormous proportions to somehow render us under the first amendment. we're talking about debate. we're talking about speech. we're not talking about whether we can drill or not. the gentleman from ohio has been one of those who has expressed himself with -- with controversial at times and disfavored positions and yet he
honors this house by being here and arguing his position. i am surprised that some who -- that someone who has been so proud of his ability to speak out on controversial issues would want to deny others the opportunity. this has nothing to do with drilling in the gulf. it has everything to do with selecting disfavored groups which is something the constitution does not allow us to do. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: let's tear up the constitution like the others have -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one more minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: to my good friend from california, the buckley versus vallejo decision equated money with free speech. the oil and gas industry over a period of 20 years has contributed close to a quarter of a billion dollars to the
political process. there is no question of the influence they've had. there's no question of the incest with us relationship between the oil industry and their regulators which led us to this deepwater drillin catastrophe. what this legislation aims to doing is curving the influence of these oil companies on a political process. so they can't get a lease, use the money from that lease, put it back in the political process and, ka-ching. we can't let the oil companies do that anymore. we have to protect the government here. we have to protect the constitution of the united states, and we can't give them the ability to uesurpt -- uesurpt the constitution in the name of free speech. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: how much time is left on the gentleman's side? the chair: has no time remaining.
the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. kucinich: i'd like to conclude by saying this -- the language that is in this amendment is the same language as that for tarp recipients. so nothing special about the language. it's the same one for tarp recipients saying that someone gets federal money, they shouldn't be able to use their position to go back to the government and get people elected and give them more money. mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. kucinich: i yield 15 seconds to my good friend. mr. lungren: the difference between tarp and this is the recipients of tarp get money. in this case people get leases which allow them to pay money to the federal government. it's just the opposite. mr. kucinich: wow. i thank the gentleman. reclaiming my time. the oil companies let us -- are not charitable organizations. they make huge profits at the expense of the tax pers and
they're making an even more profit because the fact of the matter is we have to modify the costs of all of the pollution that's coming out of the gulf %% no matter what b.p. pays, we'll be paying for generations to come. support the kucinich amendment. thank you. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 111-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pascrell: to present the amendment to this legislation, and i'd like to yield myself two minutes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4
printed in part b of house report 111-511 offered by mr. pascrell of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1468, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell: thank you, and i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you. the disclose act is an important piece of legislation. i want to commend mr. van hollen, mr. brady, chairman brady and their staff. i also want to thank mr. pierriello and grayson for working with me on this important amendment. one of the most troubling aspects of the citizens united decision was the opening of a loophole that could allow multinational corporations with significant foreign ownership to spend prolifically in american elections. who in god's name would want to have foreign governments
involved, investing in our elections? the disclose act, as written, attempts to limit the ability of foreign nationals to launder the cash through these domestic corporations by imposing limitations on foreign ownership, foreign membership on corporate boards and executive power. this amendment would strengthen this provential in two important ways. my amendment lowers the allowable foreign ownership percentage from 20% to 5%. when the foreign owner is a foreign government, foreign government official or foreign government-controlled company, like a sovereign wealth fund. i believe it is important to draw this distinction between the average foreign citizen and foreign governments who could seek to exploit this loophole to influence our elections based on the policies of their governments and not the citizens of our country. the second provision of my amendment would close a potential loophole that could allow a majority foreign-owned
corporation to continue to make political expenditures so long as no single shareholder owns more than 20% of the company. my amendment would prohibit expenditures by corporations who have a majority of their shares owned by foreign nationals, even if no single shareholder meets the 20% threshold. i believe this is an important amendment. these commonsense provisions will ensure strong protections for our elections from unprecedented foreign influence and spending. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the chair: the time has expired. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. chairman. the chair: you are recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: i believe the gentleman said at the very end of his comments that his amendment was necessary if the shares owned by foreign
nationals added up to over 20%. i believe that's a reasonable interpretation of the bill as it stands and not that it would have to be an individual organization that has 20%. mr. speaker, once again you can see the selected nature of the amendments that are allowed. we offered to present a number of amendments which would even the playing field between unions and corporations, and it was rejected outright both in the committee and before the rules committee. they said it would be too hard for unions to be able to determine who their membership is. that is the nationality of their members. so they won't be able to determine over 20% of the union
were individuals who are not american citizens, american nationals, that is foreign nationals. and it's just, again, mr. chairman, an example, continued example of how this bill is not even handed. there are at least five provisions under this bill which treat unions differently than corporations. . we are talking about corporations. many advocacy groups have a corporate structure. so they are treated differently than unions. this has been recognized by any number of individuals. i have already read into the record the serious disability with this bill and this amendment continues that disability as expressed by the american civil liberties union. in another letter dated may 19, 2010, signed by eight former
members of the fk funk going back to the beginning of that commission's existence, talks about how the act of the historical matching treatment of unions and corporations and they say that this will in itself cause a substantial portion of the public to doubt the law's fairness and impartiality . so once again, mr. chairman, we have an example of where we have disparate treatment depending whether you happen to be members of a favorite class or otherwise. . i offered amendments in the full committee to try and really define very well what we meant by foreign interest. in fact, we actually replicated current law making it sure -- making it absolutely sure that if you were a corporate
structure that was dominated by foreign interests you could not participate in this and make decisions. if you were a u.s. whollyowned subsidiary of a foreign corporation, only moneys made in the united states and decisions made by american nationals would allow for any kind of participation in the political process as viewed and anticipated by this law and by the decision by the supreme court. so once again, mr. chairman, i just say in somewhat, i don't know, lament, i guess, the fact that while we are talking about free speech and while we are talking about influence, undo or otherwise, we have another example on this floor of a denial of members' consideration of amendments that would make
this a fair, balanced, evenhanded bill. i would hope that when you are dealing with the first amendment at least there the majority would grant us the ability of fair treatment. at least there the majority might say we have enough time in this body to discuss things because, you know, the constitution's pretty important. so is the first amendment. but i have heard criticism after criticism on this floor of the u.s. supreme court decision which doesn't mmtch what was in the court decision. all i can say is either members on the other side haven't read the decision or they seek not to repeat what's actually in the decision because i have heard on this floor talk about how that decision allowed foreign countries and foreign dominated companies to now be directly involved in political processes. that's just not true. they didn't change the other underlying law.
so, mr. pascrell's amendment continues in that same direction. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i yield 10 seconds to the majority leader, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. and i rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. for more than a century, mr. speaker, america has limited the role of private money in public elections. we have done so because we believe the huge sums of money from unknown sources, from unknown sources, i reference that and emphasize it because i'm going to refer to it in some comments of our republican leadership in years past regarding money fromm+ unknown sources. if unknown source money dominates elections, especially when it does so in the+ dark, te interest of ordinary citizens
are too often the victim. america's work toward open and fair elections has been as it has been in every country, imperfect but better here than almost any place in the world. but it took a severe blow this winter when the supreme court voted in the citizens united %% case to overturn long-standing precedent. allowinging corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of their treasury funds, not of private funds that their employees contributed, which i support, but their private -- their corporate funds and their union treasury funds. in unrestrained fashion to influence direction -- elections directly. the gentleman who is my friend, former attorney general from the state of california, and a good
friend of mine, we served together for a long time, says correctly that we do not want to limit free speech. i agree with that. first amendment is one of the sacred amendments that our founding fathers adopted to make our country not only unique but one of the freest countries the world has ever seen. but without transparency, without knowing the source of the speech that you hear, without having the ability to analyze who is telling me that this is good or this is bad, what is the source of the interest that is saying that this legislation is bad or this legislation is good? obviously all of us have said, from time to time, consider the source. we all say that. when somebody who we know doesn't like a or doesn't like b says something bad about a or b.
we say consider the source. but if we don't know the source, we can't consider the source. and if we can't consider the source, we do not know the validity of the information that is transmitted to us. that is the key to this legislation. that is the essence of what we are saying. not that a corporation or a union can't try to influence the american public to support a pandidate or a proposition that it believes to be in its best interest. that's the american way. what we are saying, however, is that given the supreme court's decision that we ought to make sure that citizens know who's talking to them. otherwise they will not have the ability to make a judgment on tte credibility of the information they are receiving. now, as i said a little earlier
that is a goal that many of my colleagues, including my republican colleagues, have supported in the past. my friend, eric cantor, who is the minority whip, said this, and i quote, anything that moves us back towards the notion of transparency and real time reporting of donations and contributions i think would be helpful move towards restoring confidence of voters. this tries to do exactly that. the story of the -- restore the confidence of voters that they will know who is spending much money to influence their votes, their opinion, their actions. former speaker gingrich said this, that in an ideal system, i quote, the country knows where the money is coming from. that would be transparent, simple, and fair. i was not speaking on behalf of
this bill, that applies to this bill. minority leader boehner said this, quote, i think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it's spent. how it's spent. that's what we are saying in this bill. when you receive a one minute or 30 second ad on tv, who is talking to me? how are they spending their money? if they spend it through a third party, they do so in many ways to hide the source, whether it's a special interest on the right or the left or in the middle, a business interest, labor interest, whatever interest it is. as a voter i need to know who is talking to me so i can judge the credibility of the information that i am receiving. i agree with the thoughts that have been just quoted by my three republican colleagues. and i think thee support the passage of this bill. and therefore, mr. chairman, i
want to thank chairman brady for the outstanding leadership he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor. i want to thank my other friends who have worked so hard on this and i would be remiss if i did not mention specifically my friend and colleague from the state of maryland, chris van hollen, who has been tireless in his work on behalf of the disclose act. sure you can do it, sure you can have free speech. you can say anything you want. but tell me who you are. do not hide under a cloak. lift that cloak up and find out who's talking. if we do that, america's elections will be better. the people will be better informed. and more confident that they can rely on the information they seek. %- consider the source. vote for this bill. i yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. chairman, in the years that i have been here in the house i know there is allowed under the rules the tradition that the leaders of either the majority or minority or the speaker is granted one-minute speaking time by their side taken out of their time and yet shall we say a ppjudicious minute is allowed. it was my understanding that under the rules and as interpreted the tradition that has developed that it was predicated on a dedication of one minute out of the time of the side. and yet as i understand it the request has been made for just 10 seconds. and my parliamentary inquiry is, is that allowed under the rules? and if it is, when did the rules change? the chair: the chair would advise that it's a matter of
custom not rules. mr. lungren: i would aak if it's a matter of custom, when did the custom change from one minute to 10 seconds? the chair: the chair is honoring the custom of the various leaders speaking longer than the time allocated and that's what happened today. mr. lungren: i understand that. my question is the time that's taken out of the side. i granted a minute to the republican leader earlier in the debate because i was told that that is both under the rules allowed and that is the tradition. so i know i have only been a member of this house for now 16 years%%, but i have never seen this in my time and i am just wondering whether this is the new rule, or new tradition. further parliamentary inquiry whether i would have been recognized to grant 10 seconds to the distinguished leader of the republican side and
therefore had only 10 seconds taken out of my time? the chair: the chair would advise the gentleman that the time granted is not relevant to the time that the leaders will speak. and the leader spoke for the time that he wished to speak. mr. lungren: i appreciate that. i think the chair misunderstands my inquiry. my inquiry isn't the amount of time granted -- graresly granted to -- graciously granted to either leader or speaker, but rather the time subtracted from that appears in the rule given to the side granting time to the leader. the chair: the nomal amount that a member chooses to yield to the leader which then the leader
will speak for the time that he or she wishes is not a matter of regulation or rule of the house. mr. lungren: is that amount of time deducted from the side which grants the speaker the time? the chair: the amount of time is deducted, yes. mr. lungren: if i would say it's five seconds, rather than if i said a minute, is that correct? the chair: the gentleman is correct. that's a matter of technique. choice. mr. lungren: i see. i shall be much more judicious in my grant of time in the future now that i have had this information conveyed. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: ok. let's yield, please, one minute to mr. perriello of virginia. the chair: for how long? mr. pascrell: one minute. the chair: one minute. mr. perriello: where i come from, people stand by their
word. if they have something to say, they stand up and say it and they are not afraid to say this is who i am. we do it in our own campaign ad. the bible says, you shall not hide your light under a bushel. why should the same not apply? if one is going to choose to be part of our sacred democratic process, why on earth would it not be part of that to say this is who i am? the disclose act simply does thht. it says i'm willing to stand up and speak and i'm willing to tell you who i am. back on main street, back in rural communities, that's just the basic sense of decency and accountability and it's a main street value that does well up in washington as well. . it's also important to make sure that we the people is not we the foreign corporations. this is an important amendment to make sure that foreign corporations are not able to come in and you duly effect our elections. china owns too much of our debt. don't let them buy our
democracy as well. it's important that no country and no company be able to come in and own this democracy. with that i yield bark. -- with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boccieri. the chair: has one minute and 50 seconds remaining. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boccieri: thank you, mr. speaker. the people of our country have spoken time and time again. they want less money in politics, not more. and what i hear from our colleagues on the other side is that we should roll back 100 years of legislative action by this body. the regressive decision by the supreme court has turned the keys of electoral government over to big corporations in the united states. make no mistake, it says if the supreme court rolled up to the drive through window and just
supersized the campaign contributions of corporate america. in the constitution it says we the people, we the people, not we the corporations, we the people of the united states of america. corporations don't vote in our electoral process. people do. this is about the people of our country and not having their voices drowned out in the electoral process. we need to make sure that the disclose act gives furtherity to make sure that foreign entities don't -- we are not going to offshore our election. let's stand up for the american people and the balance of power in our country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for 50 seconds. mr. pascrell: i yield myself the balance of the remaining time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: first of all, mr. speaker, the courts will apply section 102 of the disclose act, labor unions as well as
corporatioos. upons will be required to certify -- unions will be required to certify that they are in compliance of safeguards against phoner ownership and -- foreign ownership and control. we can, we must have those restrictions to keep foreign money out of our elections and we keep american elections decided by the american people. the disclose act is a good first step towards empowering the american citizens in our elections. i urge the house to approve this amendment and to strengthen this important piece of legislation. i want to commend mr. van hollen, mr. brady. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of thh chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in
part b of house report 111-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. murphy: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. theechair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 111-5111 offered -- house report 111-511 offered by mr. patrick murphy of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1468, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i am happy that we are addressing campaign finance reform in this session of congress by taking up the disclose act today. this bill goes a long way to increase transparency and campaign spending by enforcing individuals and organizations to stand by their television and radio ads that they fund.
i'd like to thank my colleagues, mr. van hollen, mr. castle, mr. jones, and especially bob brady for their hard work on this important and critical piece of legislation. by making funders identify themselves in ads, the disclose act takes a significant step in giving people the information that they need to understand who is funding the ads. but, mr. speaker, shouldn't people know where these ads and the money to fund them are coming from? let me give you an example. halliburton pays for an ad endorsing a politician. shouldn't the voters know that not only the company paying for the ads but also that it is based in houston, texas? people have a right to know if people or companies outside their state are trying to influence their elections. my amendment, mr. speaker, is a commonsense addition that both
republicans and democrats should support. whether living in bristol, pennsylvania, or bristol, tennessee, people should know who is trying to impact their vote, and this amendment is very simple. it enhances the ad disclaimers by including the location of the funder. specifically, this amendment requires that the city and the state of the funder's residence or principle place of living should be included. and the top funder's list will appear on screen at the end of the ad under the bill. the simple addition gives people valuable information about the people and organizations funding the ads they are seeing and hearing. by knowing where the money is coming from, people have a better understanding of who the funder is and the motivations behindian ad. this is not a -- behyped an ad. this is not -- behind an ad. this is not a democratic or
republican idea. all people should know that the issues that affect their daily lives are trying to influence their elections. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: is the gentleman opposed to the amendment? mr. lungren: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this would sound like a commonsense amendment until you realize its impact. by the additional disclaimers required on broadcast ads, we've already determined that in some cases very easily one would have to use 15 to 17 seconds of a 15 or 30-second ad
to make the disclaimer. and now if you add additional requirements, as the gentleman suggest, you could -- suggests, you could have about 20 seconds. which means you can't do 15-second ads. that can be a good idea, frankly, but i'm not sure we should do so indirectly. secondly, i ask this. in the state of california we just had a controversial proposition. called proposition 8. following the successful passage of proposition 8, people who were known as funders of the program were intimidated. actions were taken against them by others who disdepred with the fact that they had been involved in the audacity of presenting a political position.
and so now you're being to make sure that the hometown, city and state of the ad funder's residence is known. would that be less likely or more likely to lead to intimidation or retaliation by individuals who disagree? i suspect it would be more likely. if the idea you show you are in the district or out of the district, what will do that do to major metropolitan areas? there is 126 members of congress, something like that, representing l.a. county. what does that tell you whether you're in the district or out of the district? it doesn't tell you anything. except that you do live in that city and i suppose someone could look up the name of the individual and the home address of the individual perhaps to protest at that individual's residence.
i mean, we are getting a little silly here. we are talking about disclaimers that will take the entire time of a commercial. i don't like these commercials as much as anybody else does. you know. i got commercials that have been running against me for the last two years by the dccc. radio commercials suggesting i've done this, that or the other thing. do i like that? no. what the heck? it's part of the game. but i have seen people harassed after campaigns. i have seen people at their homes have protesters show up at their houses. now, maybe you think that's part of the robust debate we want around here. but what are you really doing by making the res. -- resident's hometown available there? i think it will lead to greater
intimidation. maybe that's what we want. it sounds good. doesn't have any trouble with a principle office of a corporation, but home, residence of an individual involved, what are we doing here? what are we doing here? you not only have to subject yourself to criminal penalties if you dare allow your corporation o use funds because we've made sure that the f.e.c. will put up regulations during this election period or we chill speech by passing this bill, making it a law, and making people afraid to exercise their first amendment right. man, that's the kind of stuff that the -- that our founding fathers were against. golly. i guess they actually used assumed nnmes for the
federaless stapers. king george should have thought of some of this stuff. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: how much time does each side have? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining. mr. lungren: does the gentleman have other speakers? mr. murphy: i reserve. mr. lungren: does the gentleman have other speakers? mr. murphy: no. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. lungren: i'd just say, mr. chairman, once again that we're moving down the wrong track here. we're chilling speech already.
now we're creating the possibility of direct intimidation by those by requiring the residence, the hometown of the people that might appear there. but if we're going to go part of the way let's go all the way. we have to make sure that people not use their first amendment right, this will help seal the deal. so if that's what you want then vote for this amendment. otherwise, please support the constitution, the first amendment and defeat this amendment. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. murphy: first, it takes less than two seconds. in that time voters get valuable information of anyone trying to influence their vote. secondly, if the timing is an issue, funders may get a hardship exemption which makes sure that there's always time for the substantive message in their ad.
mr. speaker, quite simply, a vote to oppose the murphy amendment will be a vote to keep your constituents in the dark about the sources of their campaign spending. campaign ads can now be funded from unlimited corporate sources at the very least, we must give people the facts that they need about these ads and the special interests that are sometimes behind them. this amendment is a critical addition to the disclose act because it does exactly that, it provides people with the key piece of information about the source of the ad. knowing whether the ad, promoting an interest in the voter's own district or state will allow voters to better evaluate those ads and make informed decisions when they go to the polling place. the more information that's available, the more transparent and fair all elections will be.
and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i'd like to request a recorded vote. the chair: pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 111-511 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following
order. amendment number two by mr. king of yea, amendment number five by mr. murphy of pennsylvania. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number two, printed in part b of house report 111-511 by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two, printed in house report 111-511, offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the reqqest for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
15-minute vote. [captioninmade possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the unfinished businesis the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 111-511 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on whi the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 111-511 offered by mr. patrick murphy of new york. the chair: a recorded ve has been requested. those in support of the request for a recordedote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker,ing the committee of the wholhouse on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 5175 and pursuant to house resolution 1468, i report the bill as amended, pursuant to that resolution, back to the house with sundry further amendmented adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5175 and pursuant to house
resolution 146 reports the bill as amended. pursuant to that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. der the rule, the previous question is ordered. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i report to the house that the senate has passed the bill to with economic sanctions against iran. the speaker pro tempore: the question on the adoption of further amendments will be put engross. the question on adoption of the amendment, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
the ayes have it. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections and tose tab lish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lungren: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to its bill? mr. lungren: i certainly am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the
clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. daniel e. lgren moves to -- mr. lungren: i move to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- mr. brady: i object. the speaker pro tempore: objection is heard. the clerk: strike section 401, insert the followwng. section 401, treatment of certain lobbyists as foreign nationals. section 319 b of the federal election campaign act of 1971 as amended by section 102a is further amendmented, -- amended, one by striking or at the end of paragraph two, two, by striking the period aft the end ofparagraph three and inserting o, -- ierts or, and three by adding at the end of this of the following paragraph, anyone who is a registered lobbyist under the lobbyist act of 1995 whose clients include, a, a country
the government of which has been determined for purposes of the export administration act of979 as continued in effect pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act, section 40 of the arms export controlct, section 620-a of the foreign assistance act of 1961 or any other provision of law is a government -- as a government that has repeatedly provided support for acts of terrorism or b any other foreign natial described in this subsection. section 402, prohibiting use of campaign funds for political robo calls to individuals on do-not-call registries. added by section 214, b-, is further amended, one, by redesignating paragraph 3 as paragraph 4. and, two, by inserting after paragraph 2 the following new
paragraph. three, compliance with do not call registry. o contribution, independent expenditure, electioneering communication or any donation of funds which is subject to the requirements of this act may be used for political robo call which is made to a telephone number which is registered on the do-not-call registry implemented by the federal trade commission. section 403, jew dish review. a, special rules for actions brought on constitutional grounds. if any action is -- section 403, judicial review. a, special rules for actions brought on constitutional grounds. any amendment made by this act, including an action brought to challenge the constitutionality of greating an unfair advantage in representation in the house of representatives to residents of the district of columbia, the following rules shall apply. one, the actions shall be filed in the united states district court for the district of columbia and shall be heard by three-judge court convened
pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, united states code. two, a copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to the clerk of the u.s. house of representatives and the secretary of the senate. three, a final decision in the action shall be reviewable only by appeal directly to the supreme court of the united states. such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal within 10 days, and t filing of a jurisdictional statement within 30 days of the entry of the final decision. four, it shall be the duty of the united states district court for the district of columbia and the supreme court of the united states to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal. b, intervention by members of congress. in any action in which the constitutionality of any provision of this act or any amendment made by this act is raised, including but not limited to an action described
in subsection a, any member of the house of representatives, including a delegate or resident commissioner to the congress or senate shall have the right to intervene either in support or opposition to the position of a party to the case regarding the constitutionality of the provision or amendment. to avoid duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the parties to the action, the court in any such action may make such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to require interveners taking similar positions, file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument. c, challenged by members of congress. any member of congress may bring an action suggest to the special rules dcribed in subsection a for declaretory or injunctive relief to establish the constitutionality of any provision of this act nor any amendment made by this act.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair requests that the aisles be cleared both by members and staff. if members will please take a seat, please take your conversations off the floor. members and staff are asked to take a seat. we will proceed when the house is in order. the gentleman from calirnia is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this motion to recommit is of throw parts and i'd like to ask the gentleman from texas, the ranking republican on the judiciary committee, to explain one of the parts as it deals with a very important constitutional issue. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i thank
the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for yielding. mr. speaker, this motion to recommit would add to h.r. 5175 -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman from texas speak in the mike? mr. sith: mr. speaker, this motion to recommit would add to h.r. 5175 the same expeded judicial review process that congress approved as part of the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform law. because h.r. 5175 raises the same conitutional issues that wereeissued in the citizens united case, expedited review should be included in this legislation as well. the base bill does not contain the reference 28 u.s.c. 2284 that congress specifically designed and has used repeatedly to assure the prompt resolution of constitutional claims.
judicial review may not have been included because the base bill was designed to stall judici review by the upreme court until after the 2010 elections. i hope that is not the case. but this house can only dispel that suspicion and facilitate the prompt constitutional review of this legislation by approving this moti to recommit. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. lungren: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, as i mentioned, this motion to recommit is in three parts. it applies the acts expanded ban on expenditures by foreign nationals to include lobbyists who register under the lobbying disclosure act to represent countries defined as state sponsors of terrorism or to represent a foreign national as defined by the act. it also provides that political robo calls which are not authorized by a candidate may
only be made if none of the individuals who are called are listed on the federal+ do-not-call registry. does nothing with our robo calls by the candidate or by teletown halls either as a candidate or as a member of congress. finally, as was mentioned by the gentleman from texas, this repairs hopefully an unintentional problem in this bill, perhaps intentional. this bill does not have the expedited aplate procedure that we've had in -- appealate procedure tt we've had in law. and this motion to recommit says the same process that we've had which allows an expedited review of thh underlined constitutionality of this bill will be in this bill as has been in the past. why? because we're dealing with the first amendment of the constitution and people ought to know sooner rather than later whether the law we passed
is constitutional. if in fact your intent is to ensure there is vagueness for this election period so that those who are protected in this bill, that is the exemptions given to the unions applies, but there is unserpt either r profit or not for profit, that will have a chilling effect on the latter group. that will create an uneven playing field for the balance of this election perrod. the only way in which you might not have that uneven playing field is to have an expedited consideration all the way to the supreme court of the underlying constitutionality. we have spent 40 hours in this congress naming post offices. can't we spend a little bit of time protecting the first %% amendment the constitution of the united states? and oughh we also make sure that the judicial branchas
the opportunity to review this so that people can know when they are able to speak? we're talking about political speech, the essence of the %% first amendment. and for us not to allow that consideration by the courts in an accelerated manner as we have everyyother time is unworthy of this place, is unworthy of our constituents and is unworthy of the constitution that we fake an oath to uphold. so i would ask for unanimous vote in support of this motion to recommit. and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. th speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. would they please clear the aisles to my right? and will members and staff please take a seat? for what purpose does the
gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. brady: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition of the motion the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from pennsylvania opposed to the motion? mr. brady: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. %- mr. brady: mr. chairman, this motion to recommit is a needless distraction from the core mission of the underlyi legislation. all the legislation says basically is who is saying it is who is paying it. we have to right to know who is talking for us and against us. i urge the members to defeat this motion, and i'd like to yield tthe author of the legislation -- of this legislation, mr. van hollen, the distinguished gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman, the %% chairman of the committee. this legislation, as we all know, by its term says if you're a foreign-controlled entity in the united states you cannot be spending money to influence elections. the proposal put forward here actuaaly prohibits u.s.
citizens from contributing, as they're allowed to do under the constitution, or from expending their own funds. it is blatantly constitutional given all the conversation we had d the resistance to the notion that we're going to prevent foreign-controlled entities from spending money. it's a little surprising we would now say that u.s. citizens can't be either contributing or spending, number one. number two, with respect to the ban on robo calls, what th legislation's been all about is disclosure. if you're going to spend oney on tv or radio or whatever for political expenditure purposes, tell the voters who you are and who's paying for it. we've been hearing all day about how you don't want to impinge on the first amendment and what you do here is an outright bar on legal calls made. we're just saying when you make those calls, tell us who's paying for them, tell the voters who's paying for them. whether you like t group or you don't like the group, the voter has a right to know. and finally, you've injected
into this motion to recommit a provision with respect to how we would deal with challenges to d.c. voting right. as you well know, we have not even passed a piece of legislation out of this congress on d.c. voting rights that has gone to the president's desk. and yet you've inserted that totally unrelated matter into this legislation. so it's intereing after all the comments we heard from the other side of the aisle about the time you had to consider the disclose act that we got this -- five minutes to look at. five minutes was more than enough time to determine that it's blatantly unconstitutional, you are not just saying inform the voters. youe denying the amerin people the right to contribute in campaigns, to participate freely in campaigns. you're saying that you can't exercise your rights, legal rights with robo calls, even if you're telling people ho is spending it and finally, you've
injected a totally unrelated prooision with respect to d.c. voting rights. let's give the voters the right to know -- mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. van hollen: i will not yield. let's give the voters the right to know. let's make sure that we pass legislation so that foreign-controlled interests cannot spend money in u.s. elections. will it's british petroleum or any other corporation. and whether you like the group don't like the group that voters have the informion when they see that television set with a nice-sounding name like the fund for a greater america, that they have the right to get the information and judge for themselves about who's paying for it. so this is a blatant attempt to distract this effort at the last minute. again, i point out that the legal women voters, common cause, public citizen, all the organizations that have devoted
themselves to clean campaigns and fair elections support this legislation. i urge the rejection of the motion to recommit and the passage of the bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: i thank you, mr. chairman. all we want to know and the voters needs to know who's saying it, who's paying it. with that i would ask a no vote on the motion to recommit and a yes vote on the disclosure bill. i yield back e balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mr. lungren: mr. chairman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is asked. those in support of the requess for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recordevote is ordered. members wi record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation
with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for polical or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] operate and 9 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule 20, this will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 5175, if ordered, and suspension of the rules with regard thouse resolution 1464. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatis. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is exessly prohibited by the u.s. house of repsentatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 208, the nays are 217, the amendment is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. aptioning made possible by the national captioning institute,
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219, 206, nays. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlelady from california, ms. watson, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1464 as amended on which a recorded vote was ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: the speaker pro tempore: the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlelady from california, ms. watson, to suspd the rules and agree to house resolution 1464 on which a
recorded vote was ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1464, resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of the united states-japan treaty, of mutual cooperation and security and expressing appreciation to the government of japan and the jaaanese people for enhancing peace, prosperity and security in the asia-pacific region. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states use of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
for what pupose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i'd like unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 5299. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bills. the clerk: senate 1560, an act to amend the substance control act to remove formaldehyde from composite wood products and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: 3ur
sunt to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote are ordered or on which a vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 3962. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3962, an act to provide affordable quality health care for all american and reduce health care spending and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan.
mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that 10 minute moifs time be controlled by the gentleman frommcalifornia, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman, on the senate amendments to h.r. 3962. the speaker pro tempore: withhut objection. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i shall use. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. mr. levin: this is a flawed bill that we're now considering. we're forced to consider it because of the republican filibuster of action on the jobs and tax bill now%% pending in the other body. this bill does not adequately address the need far longer term solution to avoid the disastrous cut in medicare physician reimbursement. it is currently impacting doctors and most importantly, seniors and military service members. republicans in the other body
have been stone walling the basic bill, the jobs will, -- jobs bill, week after week after week. doing so, they replaced a hammer -- they have placed a homer lock on the lives of millions of americans. a much better course would be for republicans in the other body to begin to side with the american people instead of stone walling againsttthem. and not their party leaders, nor the tea party. and allow the straight up or down vote on the comprehensive jobs bill pending in the other body. instead, they are willing to put politics before people, and they are leaving millions of unemployed workers thrown out of this recession, thrown out of work by this recession
through no fault offtheir own, without their unemployment insurance benefits. instead, they seem willing to let loopholes that permit jobs to be shipped overseas continue to remain open. republicans, in a word are saying to the american people that they care more about their political futures than they do the daily lives of millions and millions of americans. we will not let that stand. we will continue to stand on is the the side of seniors and the physicians who treat them, on the side of unemployed workers and heir families. on the side of millions who are looking for jobs. on the side of youth seeking employment. and on the side of those who would benefit from tax measures
and bond measures that are supporting millions of jobs. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois controls the time. the gentleman from california. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> for the fourth time in six months, the democrats' inability to improperly manage is forcing doctors to confront a 21% cut in their reimbursement rate. mr. herger: this cut went into effect on june 1, forcing medicare to pay claims for physicians' services with the 21% cut. in practical terms this mean farce standard office visit,
physicians are being paid $8 less than they received in 2007. this is unacceptable. and irresponsible. as a result of the democrat's failure to address this issue in a timely manner, tens of millions of taxpayer dollars will be required to reprocess these claims and send new checks to doctors all because the majority democrats could not finish their work on time. physicians' practices, like most small businesses, are hurt by this dereliction of duty. doctor bowland from montgomery, alabama, said about the delayed paymentss quote, we have already eliminated one staff position and that's resulted in a major reduction in some services, close quote. dr. january -- dr. jan doll had
to deal with a drop in revenue when payments were delayed for 15 days in april of this year, a major stress on a small practice. senior citizens have been hurt as well. earlier this week one of my constituents visited my office in california to share his story. his doctor is not accepting any more medicare patients until congress deals with the 21% cut. as a result he has been forced to postpone an essential surningry. the new president of the american medical association -- surgery. the new president of the american medical association said, quote, this is no way to run a major health coverage program. already the instability caused by repeated short-term delays is
taking its toll, closed quote. in the newspaper, it declared, quote, never before has congress allowed such a deep medicare cut to go into effect at this scale, closed quote. the legislation before us provides physicians with a six-month reprieve of the 21% cut by providing them a 2.2% rate increase through november. but after november the 21% cut returns and one month after that the cut goes even deeper, totaling 26% in january. perhaps my friends on the other side of the aasle believe this will be someone else's problem in december. mr. speaker, ironically the bill before us today uses the same bill number as the democrats'
health bill that passed the house in november of last year. it's ironic because republicans argued for months that the democrats should address the flawed medicare physician payment formula in their health care overhaul. after all, if they could find more than one-half trillion in cuts to medicare, you'd -- trillion dollars in cuts to medicare, you think they could find a couple of dollars to fix the s.g.r. except they didn't. allowing them to shield the true cost of their trillion-dollar government takeover of health care. it's one of the many reasons we should replace that flawed law with reform americans can afford and then we can address a true long-term fix for our doctors. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this suspension. after all is said and done, no one can say this is a great bill. mr. waxman: it's a disappointment. it's an embarrassment that we are here today to ask for only five months of extension for the doctors who take care of our medicare patients to be paid for the work that they're doing. but it has comm to%% this. because of the dysfunctional rules in the united states senate. they could not get a bill for jobs passed, they could not get fmap, they couldn't get extension of unemployment insurance, people are losing their unemployment insurance or if they lose their jobs they won't have it available to them. what we have before us is one little piece, it is at least for five months to extend the
physician fee reimbursement. i can't say that we should be proud of this. this should have been fixed permanently and this is the best we can do. so let's vote aye. i reserve the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this suspension. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: yes, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. brown-waite. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. brown-waite: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the preservation of access to care for medicare beneficiaries and pension relief act that e have before us. for too long my emocrat colleagues have been playing games with the physician reimbursement fix, playing chicken with the deadline time, time and time again. and putting medicare beneficiaries at risk while hurting small businesses across
the country. i have the highest number of constituents on medicare of any member of congress. believe me, i have heard from them loud and clear, that they are disgusted with how long it took because their doctors are indeed refusing to take patients. whether it's the handling of the oil spill or their inability to put together a budget, it seems that even the basic responsibilities of running the government have become far too difficult for them. i'm glad to see this bill finally come before the house today. but i will remind all of our commints that this could have been prevented -- constituents that this could have been prevented. months ago my republican colleagues and i offered and voted for a longer fix that would have been slowly paid for. americans are tired of the credit card mentality of washington. this is a voting card, ladies and gentlemen, it is not a credit card.
i thank you, mr. speakkr, and i yield back the balance of my tiie. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, ms. berkley from nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. berkley: thank you, mr. chairman, for your extraordinary work and thank you, mr. speaker. every day i receive calls from dedicated physicians who tell me that if this 21% cut goes through they're no longer going to be able to continue to treat their medicare patients. they're not threatening me when they say it, they're talking the truth. they simply can no longer%% affd to treat their senior patients. doctors of small -- are small business people, they have payrolls to make and rent to pay, utilities, just like the rest of us. the time is long past due to
permanently fix the way doctors in this country get compensated for treatmenting medicare patients. we need to fix this s.g.r. and we need to fix it permanently. we're playing a very dangerous political game with our seniors' health care and we are forcing doctors to make unspeakable choices. i am supporting this six-month fix to keep the doctors working and to give seniors the health care that they deserve and that they are entitled to. but i would urge my republican colleagues in the senate that they should do what's right for the -- by the american people and let's get this thing permanently fixed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. herger: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, who is also a physician. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman. thank you, mr. speaker. why was this so hard? house republicans have been saying for months that we'd be
happy to support legislation ensuring seniors have access to doctors. they were willing to cut spending to stop the deficits from going any higher. doctors and patients both have -- are benefiting under this legislation but today's headlines should be this, bipartisan solutions are possible when the majority tries to meet the minority halfway. when we cut spending, we can address many of the critical problems facing our country. hopefully today's bill isn't the end of bipartisan cooperation. our economy is still in dire straights and republicans can help democrats get -- straits and republicans can help democrats get people back to work. otherwise the job loss and exploding deficits we've seen for the past 18 months will only continue and no one benefits from that. i can tell you as a physician three things will happen with these cuts. one, patients lose access to doctors. two, the quality of their care goes down, and, three, their costs will go up. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished chairman of the health subcommittee of energy and commerce, mr. pallone from new jersey, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, and thank you, mr. waxman. i'm listening to the debate on the other side of the aisle and i can't believe what i hear. we passed -- the house democrats, the majority, passed a comprehensive permanent fix to the s.g.r. and we only had one republican vote on the other side. i heard the gentleman from california say that it's not someone else's problem. that's true. it's also the republican problem. you have a responsible as republicans to help us out and you're not helping us out at all. when this jobs bill that included the s.g.r. and that was a two-year fixed passed a couple of weeks ago here in the house we had just a handful of republican votes and that's what it's been all along. republicans not willing to do anything for any kind of permanent fix to this s.g.r. for the physicians reimbursement rate or not voting for two years. now we're down to six months
because that's all we have left. and i don't like it any more than anybody else but i'm going to vote for it today and i hope that all of you will join us in voting for it. when you talk about the fact that we have a problem here, the problem is that you're not willing to help us out. now, i heard the gentleman from% tennessee, a physician, say, well, it's got to be paid forr where are the cuts that he's proposing to pay for it? in other social programs, in other jobs? that's the problem here. we had a comprehensive jobs package that included this s.g.r. it would have had a summer jobs program, it would have done a lot of things to puttamericans back to work. bring jobs back from overseas, tax cuts and changes in the tax code that would have made a difference. but we don't get any republican support. we don't get anything. all you do is sit there and say that you want to solve the problem but don't put up any votes or come up with any solutions whatsoever. so we're forced today to deal with this and we're going to vote for it. but if i keep hearing more and more about permanent fix, there's no support on the other side of the aisle for the permanent fix. don't kid those doctors and make them believe that you're going
to vote for some kind of permanent fix. you never have. i don't see it. i remember when you were in the majority and we kept kicking the can down the road. we inherited this mess from all of you. so don't sit here and talk about what you're going to do to make a difference. you're not helping at all. you're not solving the problem. you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i thank the speaker. just in response, we as republicans last november had a four-yearrfix that was paid for and i might mention that the legislation that the gentleman was referring to, that we owe polesed, had a $200 billion deficit on it -- $200 billion deficit on it and that's why we opposed it. mr. speaker, while i intend to support this bill and urge its passage, our work does not end here. we must find a long-term, stable and fiscally responsible solution to this problem and i
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: thank you, my friend and colleague from california. i'd like to now recognize dr. burgess for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois will control the time. the gentleman's recognized. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think i should point out, when it comes to this issue, there's actually plenty of blame to go % around. because after all, it was in 1988 when a democratic congress, voting under the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1988, created this problem under the guys of something. it's gone through several -- guise, it's gone through several names and acronyms but that's it began. 1988 there have been multiple congresses, multiple administrations, both republican and democratic, the opportunity to fix this thing has been there, but it has not been
taken. patching the payment system is extremely unsatisfactory but the alternative is absolutely unthinkable. let me tell you for a minute what it means in a one or two-doctor office practicing primary care when the head of c.m.s. holds your paycheck for one week, two weeks, now three weeks. even if you're doing as little as 15% medicare in your business, that cash flow that's disrupted across the counter means that that doctor's office is likely not going to be able to take a paycheck that month and what's even worse, they may have to go out and borrow money for operational expenses. i know that never troubles this congress, to borrow money for operational expenses, we do it all the time, but when you're a small business person and you're borrowing for operational expenses, it's extremely frightening because you don't know when you're going to be able to make that up. now, we have a bill that's retroactive to the first of the month, so those checks will be reissued and that's a good thing.
unfortunately the expiration date on this bill is november 30. as was pointed out previously by the ranking member on the ways and means health subcommittee, in january, or december 31 of this year, a 26% reduction occurs. what happens in earll november of this year is that every private insurance company that pegs its reimbursement to medicare is going to recalculate its reimbursement based on that 26% cut. if we don't do something before then. let us commit with this window of opportunity that we have given ourselves between now and november 30 that we are going to work on this problem. i had a bill out there some time, h.r. 3693, yeah, it's problematic because of the cost, but the not a real cost because we've already dispensed that mmny to the doctors. the doctors have already used that to run their practices. this is madoff accounting that should make any one of us on this body ashamed to continue it. let's recommit to fixing this problem, let's redouou
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on