Recognizing the important role that fathers play in the lives of their children and families and supporting the goals and ideals of designating 2010 as the Year of the Father.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1468 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on House Resolution 1468.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, under a structured rule. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The resolution provides that the substitute amendment, recommended by the House Administration Committee, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.

The resolution makes in order five amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. The resolution waives all points of order against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit without or without instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion to rise only if offered by the chair of the House Administration Committee or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill.

The resolution permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, 2010.

The resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote for same day consideration of a report from the Rules Committee through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, on a measure that includes a subject matter in H.R. 4213.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying bill. During my time in Congress, I haven't had a single constituent say to me, ``You know, Jim, I think there should be more special interest money in politics.''

Obviously, the conservative activist judges that now make up the majority of the Supreme Court don't live in my district. Because in January, the court tossed aside decades of established law and legal precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in Federal elections.

As Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the decision ``would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.''

It is a sad state of affairs when Swift Boating has entered the language as a verb. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision makes Swift Boating easier for the special interests. Large multinational corporations would now be able to create shadowy groups and pour millions and millions of dollars into supporting or defeating candidates. If BP doesn't like somebody, they could create ``Americans For Sensible Energy'' and run attack ad after attack ad after attack ad.

While we cannot undo the court's decision, we can and we must try to minimize its impact. That is why the sensible, bipartisan legislation before us today is so important. The DISCLOSE Act will go a long way toward restoring openness and transparency in our political process. I want to commend Chris Van Hollen and Mike Castle for their work on this bill.

The legislation does several important things. It requires the heads of these third-party organizations to stand by their ad, just like political candidates are required to do. It requires the organization to list its top five contributors onscreen at the end of the ad.

It would ban U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign interests and foreign companies like BP from making political expenditures in our elections. I know there are some on the other side who have been apologists for BP who may be troubled by that, but I think most Americans believe that foreign influences should not dictate our elections.

And it would prohibit entities that receive large amounts of taxpayer money like Wall Street banks and Government contractors from pouring money into politics.

The bill is supported by the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Common Cause, and other national reform groups.

To be sure, the bill isn't perfect. It contains an exemption for certain, long-standing organizations that take a small amount of corporate or union money. I know a lot of us are not particularly pleased with that change, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Moving forward, I would urge my colleagues to examine a bill offered by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mike Capuano, the Shareholder Protection Act. This bill would give shareholders a voice in how companies spend their money.

Opponents of this bill that we are considering today have already begun making noises about challenging it in court. I would remind them that polls show that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of this reform. We must do all we can to bring more openness and transparency to our political process. The DISCLOSE Act before us today is a vital step. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just want to point out to the previous speaker that the American people want us to fix this economy, which we are trying to do. And I would also point out that we have created more jobs this year than in the entire 8 years of the Bush administration. I think what we are doing is the American people's work.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My Republican colleagues claim that they have the best interests of the American people at heart, that they want to help the taxpayers. Yet I find it somewhat ironic that they propose that we cut money for jobs, money for health care, money for senior citizens, and then at the same time they defend British Petroleum and tell the American people that the American people should pay for the cleanup of that terrible oil spill and not British Petroleum.

Look, what we are talking about here is a bill to require disclosure so that companies like British Petroleum, other foreign-owned companies, can't come into the United States and influence elections. Now, I don't know why that's so controversial. I guess if a particular interest was overly generous to me, like Big Oil is to my friends on the Republican side, that they would have objections. But look, I think the American people overwhelmingly want transparency and disclosure.

If some oil company is going to come into my district and Swift Boat me and try to hide who they are by saying that they are a committee for clean oceans, that's deception. The American people ought to know that it's being paid for by Big Oil. We have, right now, all across the country, ads that are distorting the health care bill that was passed here in the Congress. But they are all paid for by the insurance industry, yet you can't find the words ``insurance industry'' on any of those ads.

People deserve to know who is spending millions and millions of dollars on these ads. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you ought to be for transparency. And that is what this bill is about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support the DISCLOSE Act is because quite frankly they are concerned, and rightly so, that money is becoming more and more of an influence in politics. Not just money from big corporations in the United States; they are also justifiably concerned about foreign influences.

Sovereign wealth funds, the investment funds controlled by foreign governments of foreign interests, could be controlled by China. If they're here in the United States, they have the right to be able to under an innocuous name spend millions and millions of dollars in negative ads against a candidate or positive ads for a candidate. Why should anybody want a foreign government or foreign interest to have a greater impact on American elections than regular people?

One of the reasons why this is important is to let the sunshine in, for there to be transparency, for those who run these ads to be able to stand by their ads. All of us have to stand by our ads when we stand for reelection to Congress. I have to say that it's paid for and authorized by Jim McGovern. That's what we have to do.

What is so wrong with requiring big corporations to do the same thing? What is so wrong with saying we don't want foreign interests to influence our elections? These are American elections. We don't want China involved in these elections or any other country; and we know that they can, under the status quo, influence our elections and play a role in our elections through these sovereign wealth funds.

So I would simply say I think the American people are right. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says we can't ask somebody to stand by their words. We're not inhibiting free speech. We're just saying if British Petroleum is going to run a Swift Boat ad against anybody here, they ought to say who they are, not make up some name that somehow they're dedicated to clean oceans or to a good environment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me again point out that one of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support this bill is because they don't want financial institutions, TARP recipients, to be able to use taxpayer money to run negative ads.

One of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support this act is because they know the status quo basically is the BP protection policy, which is you allow foreign companies to be able to set up these sovereign wealth funds and be able to funnel money into elections to run ads for and against people.

We know that the insurance industry wants to spend a lot of money in this election, but they don't want to tell anybody they're an insurance industry when they attack the health care plan.

We know that the Big Oil companies are going to want to run a lot of ads to try to keep their friends in Congress, those who apologize for their bad behavior; but they also know if they announce to the American people that oil companies are paying for this that they will get a different reaction.

So this is important. And I think the American people are way ahead of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to remind everybody that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case essentially allows unlimited special interest money, corporate money, to drown out the voices of everyday people. That is really what the issue is here. The majority of Americans, I think, are alarmed by that. That is why an overwhelming majority support the passage of this DISCLOSE Act.

Those of us who are arguing for the passage of this bill believe the voters have a fundamental right to know who is spending money to influence their elections and where that money is coming from. I am puzzled that my friends on the other side of the aisle, who are speaking out against this, don't share that same concern; but voters deserve to know who is spending money to influence their elections. They deserve to know whether it is a Big Oil company or a union, and they deserve to know whether it is a foreign special interest that is trying to influence the election.

So I would urge my colleagues to get behind this effort, an effort that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find it puzzling to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle all of a sudden talk about the deficit. When Bill Clinton left office, he left the Republicans and George Bush a record surplus. There was no deficit. We were paying down the debt. They took that surplus and they turned it around and drove this economy into a ditch.

President Obama gets elected to office; he inherits the worst economy. It's just a Great Depression. My friends on the other side don't take any responsibility for that. In 1 year under President Obama, we have created more jobs in this country than George Bush did during 8 years while he was in office. The American people want us to focus on jobs and job creation.

I would just make another suggestion, since we're talking about how we protect the taxpayers. I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop apologizing for the way the Federal Government is treating BP, to stop apologizing for the fact that this administration wants British Petroleum to live up to its responsibility and pay for the cleanup of that mess in the gulf. I wish my friend on the other side of the aisle would stop trying to defend Big Oil from taking its responsibility. BP should pay for it, not the American taxpayer. If you want to do something for the American taxpayer, then demand that BP do what it is right.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, first of all, the underlying bill that we are talking about here today does not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. That's just a ridiculous argument. And we are supporting this bill because we believe that no one spending large sums of money on campaigns should be able to hide behind a made-up shell. I don't think that's controversial. I don't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; you should want to know who is spending all this money, who is behind these ads. Why is that such a terrible idea?

You know, I don't think it's too much to ask that these organizations identify in their campaign ads those entities providing funding for those ads. This is about sunlight and transparency. This is about giving the American people the information that I think they all want. Who is behind these ads? Who is funding these ads?

My friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be clinging to secrecy. Well, secrecy in elections does nothing except to advance deception. And so when a Member of the Republican Party, for example, apologizes for the way the Federal Government is treating BP, BP can then under the status quo set up a mechanism to funnel money into ads in favor of that candidate or, you know, against his opponent, and BP does not have to identify itself. It could fund this under a shell of Citizens for Good Government or Citizens for a Clean Environment.

We need to understand that one of the problems is the way that our government has evolved here. Money has played too big of a role. I cannot believe that our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined that money would play such a big role in campaigns, millions and millions and millions of dollars spent on congressional campaigns, on Senate campaigns. Too much time is devoted to raising money. Too much emphasis is placed on money to be able to run for office. This says nothing about capping how much we can spend on campaigns, but what it does say is that those entities that are running ads in favor of us or against us have to tell the American people who they are.

I think the reason why so many Americans support this effort is because they get it, and they want to know the truth. I think the reason why so many Americans support this is they don't want foreign governments or foreign special interests to influence our elections. As I said before, these sovereign wealth funds can be set up. China can set one up based here in the United States, come up with a shell name for the organization, and actually spend millions and millions of dollars in an election to influence the outcome. That should not be. I don't care what your political philosophy is. We should not want foreign governments or foreign interests to influence our elections. Elections here should be decided by the people of the United States, not by other countries, not by foreign interests.

And I would again remind my colleagues that as we speak, there are millions and millions of dollars being spent on negative ads all over the country against Republicans and against Democrats, and they are sponsored by organizations that have nice names, but may be funded by an industry that has a particular interest in the outcome of that election. I think it is important when these negative health care ads are being run, that people know they're being paid for by the insurance industry. I think it's important to know that when we have ads defending the behavior of BP, that we know they are to be spent by interests that are tied directly to Big Oil.

So this is about transparency. This is about full disclosure. This has nothing to do with abridging anybody's right to speech. It just says that you have got to stand by what you say. That's not a radical idea. It's an idea that everybody in this House--I don't care what your political philosophy is--should embrace.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the distinguished manager of the Rules Committee for his leadership.

I thought I would just hold up this book that has many items in it, but the most precious document is the Constitution. And I do want to say that it is clear that the First Amendment, the number one amendment in the Bill of Rights, is not violated, but enhanced by this legislation. That's why the commonsense judgment of Americans are wholeheartedly supporting this.

I had my doubts because there are exemptions here that may help organizations that I would disagree with and do not support, but frankly, this legislation reflects the First Amendment because what it says is we want transparency that in essence tells us who you are. That is no greater affirmation of the First Amendment than one could imagine.

So it is important to acknowledge concerns expressed, but it is equally important to say that we stand on the side of a fair and impartial election, an un-ugly election. And when you get unfettered money in elections, it becomes ugly. So that if you were in the hurricane plains, if you will, of the gulf region and you had a referendum to ask your utility company to stop putting utility poles above ground, spend some money to put them underground so we're not in the dark for 8 and 9 weeks during a campaign season and they take their money in the referendum and work hard to defeat it, that is to undermine the needs of the people of that region. Or you have insurance companies who are not seeing what the American people are now seeing, that, wow, this health care bill really can help me, and they begin to massively campaign against the implementation of the health care bill against America's interests.

This is what this is about because when you see who's putting these political ads up--maybe helping another candidate, a pro-insurance, big business candidate who cares nothing about the people of this Nation-- you will say, you know what? I want to side with letting this health bill work itself out. I want to side with young people being covered. I want to side with seniors getting money back from health reform. That's what legislation is about.

So I would offer to say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle you are wrong. This Constitution and the First Amendment provides that no law should impede your right to access, to association, and to freedom of speech, but impeding it does not mean don't tell us who you are, it does not mean contributions can hide in the dark. And every single candidacy, be it city council, or mayor, or be it a Federal election, will have the opportunity to have funds dumped on them with a means of replying.

I thank the gentleman.

Here's what I'd like to do in an election--I'd like us to be able to engage and tell you what our issues are, whatever we're running for. And yes, we have to run with the resources that we raise; and when I say that, no matter what office you are running for, no matter what party you are in. Without this legislation big money will control the people's voice.

But what we most want to do is to break the locks and chains that big money causes in elections. We want to take away the right of those who want to demonize someone who, for example, may be interested in comprehensive immigration reform. That's their viewpoint, they're running on that. Maybe they're not. Or someone who's running against it. We don't want to have big money demonize a perspective that maybe the public should hear.

So I don't know what the opposition is on the other side because the First

Amendment is protected. And I believe, though it's a struggle because we know that there are elements that do raise the concern to some, but I would argue that we should want to break those locks and break those chains of big money telling the American people what to do.

I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5175, the underlying bill, and the rule.

Madam Speaker, after weighing the pros and cons of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, I have decided to support the bill. This was a decision that took a lot of deliberation, but in the end it is clear that in the absence of supporting H.R. 5175, we run the risk of witnessing the greatest deluge of unreported cash from the richest corporations and special interests that has occurred throughout the history of American politics.

Without some mechanism to ensure that the American people know who is spending potentially millions to influence their vote, we threaten the fundamental core of our democracy--the result will amount to a corporate special interest takeover of our elections. This is the reality. This is what is at stake.

Right now, any corporation can spend unlimited amounts of money on our elections. The bill is not perfect, but it provides unprecedented transparency and disclosure of political expenditures by powerful special interests. Much has been said, and many of you have concerns, about exemptions in the bill. Let me be clear: all groups will be forced to disclose more than they do now.

Every single 501(c)(4) will be forced to ``stand by their ad'' so you know exactly which group sponsors the advertisement. Additionally, any exempted groups will be prevented from spending a single corporate dollar on campaign-related expenditures. We are far better off with these reforms than with nothing at all.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation is bipartisan. Our former colleagues, Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, and Christopher Shays of Connecticut helped authored the bipartisan campaign reform act. Yesterday, they released a joint statement in support of the DISCLOSE Act: ``Voters have a fundamental right to know who is spending money to influence their elections and where that money is coming from. With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by corporations and labor unions to influence elections, secrecy about these expenditures is simply unacceptable. We urge our former colleagues in the House to vote for the DISCLOSE Act and for the right of citizens to know who is spending money to influence their votes.''

The DISCLOSE Act ensures that shadowy special interests and sham organizations are not able to hide their funders, and is critical if we ever hope to keep our constituents informed on who is trying to influence their vote. This bill breaks the ``locks and chains'' of ``big money'' in our democratic process of elections. I would submit this is the time to move forward. As such, I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175

.House of Representatives,

Washington, DC June 23, 2010.

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

Dear Colleague: After weighing the pros and cons of H.R.

5175, the DISCLOSE Act, I have decided to support the bill.

This was a decision that took a lot of deliberation, but in

the end it is clear that in the absence of supporting H.R.

5175, we run the risk of witnessing the greatest deluge of

unreported cash from the richest corporations and special

interests that has occurred throughout the history of

American politics. Without some mechanism to ensure that the

American people know who is spending potentially millions to

influence their vote, we threaten the fundamental core of our

democracy--the result will amount to a corporate special

interest takeover of our elections. This is the reality. This

is what is at stake.

Right now, any corporation can spend unlimited amounts of

money on our elections. The bill is not perfect, but it

provides unprecedented transparency and disclosure of

political expenditures by powerful special interests. Much

has been said, and many of you have concerns, about

exemptions in the bill. Let me be clear: all groups will be

forced to disclose more than they do now. Every single

501(c)(4) will be forced to ``stand by their ad'' so you know

exactly which group sponsors the ad. Additionally, any

exempted groups will be prevented from spending a single

corporate dollar on campaign related expenditures. We are far

better off with these reforms than with nothing at all.

The DISCLOSE Act ensures that shadowy special interests and

sham organizations are not able to hide their funders, and is

critical if we ever hope to keep our constituents informed on

who is trying to influence their vote. This bill breaks the

``locks and chains'' of ``big money'' in our democratic

process of elections. I would submit this is the time to move

forward. As such, I urge your support of the DISCLOSE Act,

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Speaker is no longer here because she, frankly, hopefully inadvertently, misstated the law. She said that with the decision by the Supreme Court, it would allow companies, even those that are controlled by foreign countries or foreign governments, to affect our elections. That is absolutely dead wrong. It did nothing with the prohibition that remains that does not allow and has not allowed for decades foreign governments or foreign nationals to affect our campaigns. This decision by the Supreme Court does not.

The problem with this is I haven't found a single person on the other side of the aisle that read the opinion. If they did, they would know what they are saying is absolutely wrong. They call it the DISCLOSE Act. It is, in fact, the disguise act. It was designed in secret. No effort to bring those of us on the committee on the Republican side into it. I asked for copies of it. They refused to give it to us. We, in fact, got their last manager's amendment 2 hours, yesterday, before we had to go to the Rules Committee to talk about our amendments. They disallow, in this rule, a single amendment brought forward by any of us on the committee that held the hearings.

I had five amendments I asked to present. Several of them would require the unions to be treated the same as corporations. That was denied. They don't want you to have a chance to level the playing field. Look, in ``Alice in Wonderland,'' it is said, ``If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?'' That basically sums up the Speaker's statement.

If I had the chance under the House rules to speak to the public, this is what I would say. This is your First Amendment. It's not my First Amendment. It's not the Democratic leadership's First Amendment. And yet they are auctioning off parts of this First Amendment by this bill. Why do I say that? Some people are more equal than others.

If you happen to be a special interest that's existed for 10 years, if you happen to have a certain amount of money in your coffers that come from corporations, if you happen to have a certain number of members--it was a million, but some special interest said, We don't have a million; let's bring it down to 500,000. Okay. Now it's 500,000. So those people, those interests are exempted from all of the disclosure requirements in here.

And here is the other thing they do under this rule. This bill allows the law to go into effect within 30 days without any regulations being promulgated. In fact, it's impossible for regulations to be promulgated. So those who have a true exemption don't have to worry about the law. Those who are trying to figure out how to comply with the law have to worry about if they make a mistake because, if they do, what happens?

They are subject to criminal penalties. We're talking about the First Amendment to the Constitution, the First Amendment. That's talking about robust political speech, and you heard what my friends on the other side said: oh, my God, we've had these ads against us; oh, we don't like that; oh, my gosh, we've got to do something about it.

There is nothing this bill does about the suppression ads that were run against me in the last campaign 3 hours before we closed, ``robocalls'' to my district, including to my house, in which they say, this is a news alert, news alert, President Obama's won the election. It doesn't matter what happens in California. It's already decided. This has been a news alert.

Now, no one specified an individual. No one specified a party. Very, very clever. The idea was to suppress those who were supporting the Republicans from coming out. It does nothing with that. I mean, people ought to understand this is a precious gift given to us by God, then recognized by our Founding Fathers, and we're fooling around with it here.

Let me just tell you this. This bill allows us 1 hour to talk about this, 1 hour. Guess what we have spent 10 hours doing in this Congress. Naming post offices. We've named 61 post offices in this Congress. We are ridding the world of unnamed post offices. We can spend 10 hours on post offices, but we can't spend more than an hour talking about the Constitution, talking about the First Amendment.

And they're auctioning pieces of the First Amendment in this bill. If you happen to be one of those lucky enough to win the auction, you don't have these disclosure rules, and you can continue to talk and you can continue to make your political statement; but if you didn't win the lottery----

If you didn't win the lottery, you're left out.

This is an affront to the Constitution. This is an affront to the proceedings of this House, and just because someone says it is doesn't make it so.

This is a DISCLOSE Act that was designed in secret, giving unions and interests special exemptions. If you happen to be on the lucky side of the draw, you may like it, but you ought to read it because this is a destruction of the First Amendment in the name of partisanship.

Madam Speaker, I am sure it is not intentional, but falsehoods are being spread on this floor.

There is no poll that shows the American people support the DISCLOSE Act. It would be amazing if they did since we didn't get the last version of it until 2 hours before we went to the Rules Committee yesterday. The poll they are referring to took place back in February or March, which was before they had their backroom deals coming up with this particular bill.

We now have 438 organizations which oppose this. Among them are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the Sierra Club. Why would those people be getting together to oppose this bill? Because they believe in the First Amendment, and they understand that the First Amendment says all should be treated the same.

That is not the cornerstone of this bill. They are specifically not treated the same. The bigger you are, the stronger you are, the less disclosure you have. The smaller you are, the newer you are, the more disclosure that is required. They even have put something in this bill that will make it impossible for certain ads to play on television. They have increased the number of names that have to appear, such that, in some cases, it will take 17 seconds to say all of those names and all of those organizations. There are things known as 15 second ads now. I guess you have minus time on TV.

They say that unions have to be exempt, but corporations have to be affected. Now, remember, corporations are not just for profit. They keep talking about oil companies. They forget about the National Right to Life. They forget about all of these other organizations that actually have a corporate structure. Most political organizations do. That's what we are talking about.

Then they say, Well, we don't want to be controlled by foreign entities. We offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to cover that. It was defeated on a party-line vote by the majority party.

So, please, let's at least be honest. If you're going to disclose, disclose your motivations. Disclose the words in here. Disclose the deals that you've made. Disclose who has won the auction for their piece of the First Amendment.

I'm shocked that my friend from the other side of the aisle would criticize the President's relationship with BP in terms of the massive contributions that he received while he was running for office. I don't think that ought to be part of this debate.

But you ask about treatment. I have here just an example of one, two, three, four, five sections of the bill in which there's a specific exemption given to unions versus corporations. That is the kind of favored versus disfavored status created by the government that is, on its face, unconstitutional. People ought to understand that when you start making these distinctions, you are creating an unconstitutional act, because we do not want government saying that certain groups are okay and certain groups are not okay, that certain language is okay and other language is not okay, depending on who happens to be in office. This is an attack on the First Amendment. And here you have one, two, three, four, five sections of the bill made in order.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.

I rise today in defense of the First Amendment to the Constitution and to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for H.R. 5175, the so- called DISCLOSE Act, and the underlying bill.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

Madam Speaker, I will now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, every citizen in this country, in fact, every school child above the fifth grade ought to know what the First Amendment of the Constitution says. But we know that our education is lacking these days, so I am going to read the amendment. And I am hoping that as our speakers speak, we keep it on the floor so people can read it, because I think folks need to be reminded of what it says. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and

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

I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, the ability to speak on the floor of this House is a great honor and a very powerful thing. However, simply saying something on the floor does not make it true.

I would like to now yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute again to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have to constantly remind our colleagues across the aisle that Republicans were in charge of the Congress when President Clinton was in office his last 6 years and that Democrats were in charge of Congress the last 2 years of Mr. Bush's administration. We know that Democrats created the economic crisis. And we are not apologizing to BP. We know that BP should pay for all of the problems that have been caused in the gulf. However, we'd like to see this administration do something to respond to the disaster down there and stop blaming others as they do on everything.

In a little over a week, on July 4th, we will be celebrating our Nation's independence. John Adams wrote in a letter to his wife, Abigail, that it ``ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance.''

Today, we're not liberating the American people, as our Founding Fathers did. Instead, our colleagues are attempting just the opposite. They're attempting to erode our right to free speech when there's so many other pressing issues that our Nation faces today.

For one, we could be addressing the 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement payments to doctors that went into effect on June 18. The Senate, after some debate, was able to pass, by unanimous consent, a 6- month extension on the 21 percent cuts last Friday. This legislation would provide a 6-month extension, fully paid for. However, the Speaker has said she sees ``no reason to pass this inadequate bill until we see jobs legislation coming out of the Senate.'' But the Democrats in charge have seen these disastrous

pay cuts to physicians coming for some time but have only offered bills full of budget gimmicks or 1-month extensions. I've heard from physicians in my district who are fearful of these cuts and the negative impact they have on their patients when they will no longer be able to afford to see Medicare patients. This is a real crisis we should be dealing with instead of a bill riddled with assaults on our constitutional rights.

Even some Democrat Members have some concerns with this bill. To quote one Democrat Member who spoke during the Rules Committee yesterday, with this bill ``we are auctioning off parts of the First Amendment. Don't make this bill unconstitutional on purpose.'' H.R. 5175 contracts our freedoms when we should be expanding them.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow all Members of Congress the opportunity to vote to cut spending. Republican Whip Eric Cantor recently launched the YouCut initiative which gives people an opportunity to vote for Federal spending they would like to see Congress cut. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have cast their votes, and this week they've directed their Representatives in Congress to consider H.R. 5570.

According to the Republican whip's YouCut Web site, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that ``over the next 10 years, the IRS will require between $5 billion and $10 billion in funding to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the new health care law. These funds will be used to hire thousands of additional IRS agents and employees. Reforming our health care system shouldn't require expanding the IRS. By prohibiting funding for the expansion of the IRS for this purpose, we can protect taxpayers while we work to repeal and replace the law.''

H.R. 5570 would prohibit taxpayer funds from being appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service for the purpose of hiring new agents to enforce the Democrats' health care law. Under the new law, additional agents would be specifically hired to enforce the Democrats' unconstitutional individual health care mandate. By preventing their hire, this week's YouCut vote could save the taxpayers between $5 billion and $10 billion. In order to provide for consideration of this commonsense legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Let me reiterate to my good friend from Massachusetts what the gentleman from California said. Citizens United did not do anything to repeal the ban against foreign money influencing American elections. So this bill has nothing to do with what the gentleman from Massachusetts just said.

I rise in opposition to the bill and to the rule. While H.R. 5175 is being touted by its supporters as increasing disclosure and transparency, the bill will

ultimately serve as a roadblock to Americans who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court explicitly stated in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that there is ``no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.'' We've sure heard a list of those disfavored speakers from the other side of the aisle. However, this is exactly what this unconstitutional bill will do.

The Citizens United decision struck down provisions of campaign finance law because of the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, a right explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. The bill is simply a legislative workaround to Citizens United. The Supreme Court was very clear that prohibitions on full legal speech are unconstitutional and will only be a matter of time should this bill become law that it's struck down as well.

The most glaring of this bill's unconstitutional provisions is the banning of political speech by government contractors and companies with as much as 80 percent ownership by American citizens. While a business may receive only a limited portion of its revenue from a government contract, under this bill, that business would be prohibited from engaging in political dialogue on issues that are vital to its operations.

Additionally, this bill punishes companies that attract overseas investors by banning political speech on companies where foreign nationals have at least a 20 percent stake. It is unfortunate that the supporters of this bill want to silence the voice of predominantly American companies. The bill further complicates matters for publicly traded corporations by forcing them to determine the percentage of company stock ownership by the nationality of the investor, which will most likely prove to be impossible.

It is clear that the DISCLOSE Act will institute unconstitutional restrictions. However, the crafters of this legislation have been careful to exempt labor unions from the restrictions. The desire to treat unions and corporations differently abandons the government's long-standing policy that treats them equally. However, this is not unexpected given a story published in The Hill newspaper last month which revealed that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees plan to spend in excess of $50 million in this fall's elections, part of which will go to protecting incumbents. It is no wonder that the Democratic supporters of this bill----

It is no wonder that the Democratic supporters of this bill have made special exceptions for unions, and that any attempts in the House Administration Committee to rectify this discrimination between unions and corporations were defeated on party- line votes.

It is evident that, while this legislation increases disclosure requirements, it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech just in time to influence the outcome of the midterm elections.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DISCLOSE Act and vote ``no'' on the rule and uphold their oath of office.