Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5175) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chair, obviously, if you attempt to speak on the floor and your microphone is not near you or they have turned it off, you can't exercise your right to represent your constituents here--I yield myself such time as I may consume--and that is the problem with this bill. It does not allow the free exercise of the First Amendment right to speech.

The Constitution of the United States refers to that First Amendment. And, unfortunately, in many, many decisions by the Supreme Court, they've talked about everything other than political speech. Yet in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the court finally got it right. The majority opinion says the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints prohibited to or restrictions differing among different speakers allowing speech by some but not by others. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this bill does.

Benjamin Franklin stated: Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a Nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Unfortunately, that is what we have here before us, Mr. Chairman. Just because you call something ``disclose'' or ``disclosure'' does not make it so. When you prohibit speech, as has been done here; when you have onerous disclosure obligations placed on some but not all; when you make no distinguishing, that is, constitutionally justifiable distinguishing differences between groups, that is, you cause some to be subjected to provisions of disclosure and others not; when you specifically have five or six provisions in which you exempt unions as opposed to corporations of all stripes, then you have rendered the bill unconstitutional.

Mr. Chairman, I would have asked if it were proper to have a unanimous consent request to extend our debate for 4 hours, but I know that's not in order. The majority has decided to stifle debate by allowing only a single hour of debate on this issue dealing directly with the First Amendment. We have spent in excess of 10 hours in this Congress talking about the naming of post offices, but we have determined that we do not have more time than an hour to discuss something as important as the First Amendment to the Constitution.

When we allow ourselves to become an auction house for the First Amendment, where some, because of their power and influence, are allowed to exercise First Amendment rights, unfettered, and others are not, it is a sorry day. And to do it under the rubric of disclosure is even worse, but that's what we have here.

Mr. Chairman, in the time given to us, I hope that we can explain exactly what this bill does and what it does not do and why it, in fact, not only is dangerous to the First Amendment but is directed at the heart of the First Amendment, which is vigorous political speech, particularly close to an election. It may make some Members uncomfortable. As a matter of fact, in some of the hearings and markup of this bill, we had Members saying, If I had my way, I'd make sure no one could say anything about our campaigns except those of us who are candidates. Unfortunately, there's something called the First Amendment. And I know it's bothersome to some on the other side. I know it's an obstacle to what they want to do. But when I came here, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and all parts, not just the Second Amendment by way of specific exemption, but of all amendments, the first as well as the second, and every other.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a valued member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a valued member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 have 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 seminal case on this by the Supreme Court and I believe in 1948, NCAA v. 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 our Nation's future, and it respects the right of individuals to support those conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of harassment or embarrassment. Only reforms that promote speech, rather than limit it, and apply evenhandedly, rather than selectively, will bring positive change to our elections. Because the DISCLOSE Act misses both of these 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 of 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 1 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 told that he was prohibited from showing it to those of 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 that we have here until 2 hours before we went to the Rules Committee yesterday. And maybe one of the reasons they didn't want to disclose it is that in addition to those exemptions specifically given to labor unions, allowing labor unions to be exempt from the disclosure that all other-- 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 decision by the Supreme Court control the message and campaign. That's just utterly untrue. It's not allowed by law before. It wasn't changed by the Supreme Court decision, and so at least you ought to 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 you 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 that 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 the ACLU is against it. That's why we should be against it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would extend 1 minute of my time to the gentleman from Michigan, who I understand needs more time.

Well, let's start with 1 minute and we'll see where we go from there.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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 says, ``Congress shall make no law''--no law--``abridging free speech.'' What is it about ``no'' that 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'' that you don't understand? It says no law.

Now, if some would say, well, 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 principle or concern about corruption or the appearance of corruption. That's the only basis upon which you can create these laws. And they, therefore, say you can not distinguish between two sets of groups where that same analysis would come forward. In other words, you can't say we're going to 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--and they started at $5 million, now they're up to $10 million to include certain groups, we're not sure exactly who they are, but there have been some whispers as to who they are--but the whole argument is that there is a potential corruption between those who have government contracts and those who might have influence in giving those contracts. So we said, okay, what about unions that represent the workers for those companies whose pay comes from the taxpayers by virtue of these contracts? It's the same argument. And they said, oh, no, we can't do that, that would be unfair to unions. And we said, what about the fact where you have union bargaining agreements with government entities, wouldn't that be the same? Oh, no, no, that's different than corporations. What's the basis? There is no basis. And what they do, by the terms of the bill, is render this 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 Constitution. That's what is so disturbing here today, not because we disagree on the legislation because we do that often, but the fact of the matter is that we are so cavalierly dealing with the First Amendment. We are so cavalierly dealing with free speech. We are so cavalierly dealing with essential political free speech, particularly when it's involved in elections. That's when it's most important. And 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 name Cadillac on a Yugo, it would still be a Yugo. If it can't drive, putting another name on it is not going to make it better.

And to say this is the DISCLOSE Act when you refuse to disclose the parts of it to us until 2 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 antidote to bad speech was to prohibit speech. It was to encourage robust debate and give others the opportunity. We can agree on disclosure, but not when you bring it in this form because it isn't disclosure that is fairly imposed on all parties.

And I am sure of this; this will be declared unconstitutional. But the dirty little secret in this is you have put in here the appellate process so it won't be decided until after this election, so that those 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'' and ``disclose'' when in fact that's not what you're doing is the ultimate in insult to the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my distinct honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader of the Republicans here in the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have 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 result of the votes, of the collective votes of this House and the Senate and the signature of the President during the course of time that I have been here, has resulted in legislation which subsequently was ruled to be, in part or in whole, unconstitutional.

I have had conversations on the floor of the House with Members who have said at times, I'm not concerned about the Constitution. I mean don't let me worry about that. The courts decide that.

I've always said to them in response, We have an obligation when we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and we ought to do it as we consider legislation.

Though, I am not sure that I have ever seen a frontal assault on the 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, which is in the context of a political campaign, and we ought to deal with that very, very carefully.

I would say to my friend from Michigan, if we were so concerned about the Constitution, why did our committee waive jurisdiction here after only having this bill 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 is 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're going to make this deal. They're going to make that deal.

What did they do? They expanded the exemption.

They decided, yes, the National Rifle Association got a special exemption. I guess AARP did. I guess the Humane Society did. We don't know who else did because they've just changed the definition in the last couple of days from a million members to a half a million members, but we know that most groups now will not be exempt, just a privileged few. That violates what the decisions of the courts going back decades tell us. You cannot discriminate among groups. You cannot have disfavored and favored groups, and that is what we are doing right here on the floor, not just about something 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. They say it's not a perfect bill. No, it's not perfect. It's unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional by its very terms. In the last 2 weeks and even yesterday, it became more unconstitutional because they carved out exemptions 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 are not concerned about protecting the Constitution, who is?

You know, as was said basically by our leader, we take an oath to protect and to defend all parts of the Constitution--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.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

As I listened carefully to Mr. Ackerman's statement concerning his amendment, I noticed he referred only to corporations and to the obligation of corporations to make reports to their shareholders. There was not a single mention of the responsibility of unions to inform their members 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 that would make it clear that

his ``clear and conspicuous'' requirement and every other requirement of disclosure contained in this law which would affect corporations of all types--and remember, I'm talking about not just for-profit corporations but corporations of any type--would equally apply to the unions was not allowed. And so the gentleman has made the case that we have been 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 identified as an advocacy organization.

And so, once again, we see in this amendment an attempt to unbalance the playing field by ensuring that a particular obligation that may be an 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 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 public employees. I'm not saying they're corrupt. What I am saying is 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 possibilities of corruption that we're allowed, under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, to have these kinds 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.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I would just point out that 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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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 are doing?

The court has said you cannot establish disfavored groups over favored group. The gentleman has just expressed, perhaps an appropriately conditioned animus, toward 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 anybody else can. Now, he doesn't do it with leases for those who are on shore. 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 is 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 this 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, about which we all agree, but then says that is the basis for creating this distinction under the narrow allowance the Supreme Court has articulated over really two centuries of jurisprudence.

And so what we are doing here is, we are finding what disfavored group do we have today, and let us treat them differently than everybody else; not in terms of whether they can negotiate for 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 love to refer to, I guess, a movie called ``The Inconvenient Truth,'' but the true 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 are 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. I mean, that is basically what the court has said to us. They said the cure for bad speech, intemperate speech, dishonest speech, speech we don't like, is not to somehow suppress that speech, but to allow more speech. To allow greater robust debate. And that's the tragedy here; we are confined by a rule that allows very few amendments, confined by a rule that limits 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 will move in the direction of less debate rather than more debate, create favored groups versus disfavored groups, give an advantage to some over the others rather than say let's have an equal playing field and make sure that everybody has the opportunity to be heard.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, the gentleman's response is off the target. If you want to ban offshore oil drilling, ban offshore oil drilling, but you are 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 asunder the First Amendment.

We are talking about debate. We are talking about speech. We are not talking about whether they can drill or not. The gentleman from Ohio has been one of those who has expressed himself with controversial at times and disfavored positions, and yet he honors this House by being here and arguing his position. I am surprised 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. Let's not tear up the Constitution as the environment is torn up by an offshore drilling mess.

Will the gentleman yield?

The difference between TARP and this is that recipients of TARP get money. In this case, these people get leases, which allow them to pay money to the Federal Government. It's just the opposite.

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 percent. I believe that is a reasonable interpretation of the bill as it stands and not that it would have to be an individual organization that had 20 percent.

Mr. Chairman, once again, you can see the selective 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 wouldn't be able to determine whether over 20 percent of the union were individuals who were not American citizens, that is, foreign nationals. And it's just again, Mr. Chairman, a continued example of how this bill is not evenhanded.

There are at least five provisions under this bill which treat unions differently than corporations and, again I say, not just for-profit corporations. We're talking about corporations. Many advocacy groups have a corporate structure, and so they are treated differently than unions. This has been recognized by any number of individuals. I've 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.

Another letter dated May 19, 2010, signed by eight former members of the FEC going back to the beginning of that commission's existence, talks about how the act abandons 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 on whether you happen to be members of a favored class or otherwise.

I offered amendments in the full committee to try and really define very well what we meant by foreign interests. 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 way to make decisions. If you were a U.S. wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation, only moneys that were 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 and somewhat--I don't know--I lament, I guess, the fact that we while we're talking about free speech and

we're talking about influence, undue 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 we're 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 and so is the First Amendment. But I've heard criticism after criticism on this floor of the U.S. Supreme Court decision which doesn't match what was in the Court decision, and 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've 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.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in the years I've been here in the House, I know there is allowed under the rules a tradition that the leaders of either the majority or minority or the Speaker is granted 1 minute speaking time by their side, taken out of their time, and yet, shall we say, a judicious 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 1 minute out of the time of the side. And yet, as I understand it, the request has been made for just 10 seconds. My parliamentary inquiry is, is that allowed under the rules? And if it is, when did the rules change?

Well, then I would ask, if it's a matter of custom, when did the custom change from 1 minute to 10 seconds?

I understand that. My question is the time that's taken out of the side. I granted 1 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.

I know I've only been a Member of this House now for 16 years, but I have never seen this in my time, and I am just wondering whether this is the new rule or the new tradition.

And 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.

I appreciate that. I think the Chair misunderstands my inquiry. My inquiry isn't about the amount of time graciously granted to either leader or the Speaker, but rather the time subtracted from that that appears in the rule given to the side granting the time to the leader.

Is that amount of time deducted from the side which grants the speaker the time?

So if I would say 5 seconds, it would be 5 seconds rather than if I had said 1 minute; is that correct?

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.

Mr. Chairman, this would sound like a commonsensical amendment until you actually realize its impact.

By the additional disclaimers required on broadcast ads, we have already determined that, in some cases, very easily, one would have to use 15 to 17 seconds of a 15- or a 30-second ad to make the disclaimer. If you add additional requirements, as the gentleman suggests, you could have as much as 20 seconds, which will mean that you won't be able to do 15-second ads. Now, that may be a good idea, frankly, but I'm not sure we should reach that 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 disagreed with the fact that they had been involved in the audacity of presenting a political position. So now you're going 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 to retaliation by individuals who disagree? I suspect it would be more likely.

If the idea is you've got to show that you're in the district or out of the district, what does that do to major metropolitan areas?

I'm from Los Angeles. Well, there are about 26 Members of Congress, I think, or something like that, representing LA County. What does that tell you about whether you're in the district or not in the district? It doesn't tell you anything except that you do live in that city, and I suppose someone then 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're getting a little silly here. We're now talking about disclaimers that are going to take the entire time of a commercial. I don't like these commercials any better than anybody else does. You know, I've had commercials that have been running against me for the last 2 years by the DCCC--radio commercials that are suggesting I've done this, that and the other thing. You know, do I like that? No, but what the heck. That's part of the game.

I have seen people harassed after campaigns. I have seen people, who are at their homes, who have had protesters show up at their houses. Now, maybe you think that's part of the robust debate that we want around here. But what are you really doing by making known the residence and hometown of the individual there? Frankly, I think it is going to lead to the greater possibility of intimidation.

Maybe this is what this is supposed to be. We want to chill speech. We've already done that directly. Now, maybe, we'll do it indirectly. I mean it sounds good. I don't have any trouble with the principal office of a corporation, but the home, the residence, of an individual involved? What are we doing here? You're going to have to subject yourself to the possibility of criminal penalties if you dare allow your corporation to use funds, because we have made sure that the FEC will not have the time to put out regulations during this election period, or we will chill speech by passing this bill, by making it a law and by making people afraid to exercise their First Amendment right.

Man, that's the kind of stuff that our Founding Fathers were against. The Federalist Papers. I guess they actually used assumed names for the Federalist Papers. I don't think they identified what their home residences were. King George should have thought of some of this stuff.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time does each side have, Mr. Chair?

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, once again, that we are moving down the wrong track here. We are chilling speech already. Now we are creating the possibility of direct intimidation by those by requiring the residence and hometown of the people who might appear there.

Though, if we're going to go part of the way, let's go all the way. We really want to make sure no one is going to be able to use their First Amendment right. This will help seal the deal. So, if that's what you want, vote for this amendment. Otherwise, please support the Constitution and the First Amendment, and defeat this amendment.

I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I certainly am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is of three parts. I would 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. Speaker, as I mentioned, this motion to recommit is in three parts. It applies the act's 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 robocalls 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. It does nothing with our robocalls by the candidate or by tele-town 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 appellate procedure that we've had in every other campaign finance law. And what this motion to recommit does is says that same process that we've had which allows an expedited review of the underlying constitutionality of this bill will be in this bill as it has been in the past. Why? Because we are dealing with the First Amendment to 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 uncertainty on the part of other corporate entities, either for-profit or not-for- profit, that will have a chilling effect on the latter group, and that will create an uneven playing field for the balance of this election period. 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 to the Constitution of the United States? And also, make sure that the judicial branch has an 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 every other time, is unworthy of this place, is unworthy of our constituents, and is unworthy of the Constitution that we take an oath to uphold.

I would ask for a unanimous vote in support of this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Mr. Chair, I want to start by thanking Chairman Brady, Ms. Lofgren, and the other members of the committee, as well as Chairman Conyers, Mr. Nadler, and those on the Judiciary Committee, and to Mike Castle and all the other cosponsors of this legislation, which addresses the very serious threats to our democracy created by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which in a very radical departure from precedent said that major corporations, including foreign-controlled corporations operating in the United States, will be treated like American citizens for the purposes of being able to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections.

This bill addresses this issue in three ways. First we say, if you're a foreign-controlled corporation--if you are British Petroleum, if you are a Chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation here in the United States, if you are Citgo, controlled by Hugo Chavez, you have no business spending money in U.S. elections overtly or secretly. And if we don't do something about that now, they will be able to do either of those things.

Number two, we say if you are a Federal contractor, if you are getting over $10 million from the American taxpayer or you are AIG, 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.

Third, we require disclosure. We believe that the voter has the right to know. You would think from the comments from the other side of the aisle we are restricting what people can say. That is 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 to know when they see an ad going on with a nice-sounding name, the Fund For a Better America, they have the right to know who is paying for it. They have a right to know if BP is paying for it. They have a right to know if any corporation or big-bucks individual is paying for it because it is a way to give them information to assess the credibility of the ad.

You vote ``no'' on this, you are saying go ahead and spend millions of dollars, corporations or individuals, and say whatever you want, which is fine, but we are not going to let the voters know who you are. That is what a lot of these interests want. And the reason the League of Women Voters--no big special interest group there--League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Democracy 21, all of the organizations that have 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 of 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 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.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I just want to emphasize again, as Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, that the Supreme Court decision did open the door to foreign- controlled corporations spending money directly in U.S. elections. If you have a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation that's controlled by that corporation, when the Supreme Court essentially said all corporations could spend money directly in U.S. elections, 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 that you have lots of organizations on the right and the 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 campaign elections, 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. So this is a red herring issue.

Second, under U.S. law, we have never defined collective bargaining agreements as Federal contracts like those contracts that go to the 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 FEC, the Federal Election Commission, from 1991 to 1995, who said, ``This bill requires funding disclosure for all election advertising--union and corporate,'' and goes on to say, ``Based on the legislative language's 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 independent expenditure campaigns that are coming to dominate our elections.'' That's the Republican commissioner.

Mr. Chair,

Internet Rules Remain Unchanged

H.R. 5175 extends the existing rules on coordination to apply to any ``covered communication,'' and defines the term ``covered communication.'' In so doing, the bill repeats the language of the existing media exemption and incorporates that exemption into the definition of ``covered communication.'' The existing language of the media exemption has been interpreted by FEC regulation to include an exemption for media activities on the Internet. 11 CFR 100.132. By incorporating the existing language of the media exemption into the coordination provisions in the DISCLOSE Act, the sponsors intend to ensure that the media exemption in the DISCLOSE Act will be interpreted by the FEC in the same way that the FEC has interpreted the media exemption in existing law, to include media activities on the Internet within the media exemption.

Independent Expenditures Influence Elected Officials

Independent expenditures and electioneering communications can influence elected officials and produce gratitude, indebtedness, and access. Although such influence is not per se problematic, it may be improper in certain contexts. In particular, such influence is improper if it has the potential to affect the outcome of federal contracting decisions or if it is exercised by a foreign-controlled entity.

According to a recent report by Professor Wilcox of Georgetown University, ``Donors who seek to gain access and influence care primarily that their contribution is noticed and appreciated, not that it is handled directly by the candidate's campaign treasurer.'' The report notes that contributions to groups that make independent expenditures ``can be conceived as indirect contributions--instead of giving the money directly to the candidate's campaign committee, they are given to an independent committee that also helps the candidate win.'' Indeed some experts believe that large independent expenditures on behalf of candidates can produce greater influence than direct campaign contributions that are subject to legal limits: ``With almost all of the 527s associating themselves with the two major parties and their candidates, and with the great majority of contributions coming from donors giving in the millions, rather than thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, big 527 donors today are positioned to garner more attention and consideration from parties and candidates than those who give the maximum direct contribution of $2,000-$25,000.''

In California, recent legislation limiting direct contributions has produced an ``explosion'' of independent expenditures. According to Ross Johnson, Chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission and a former Republican Party leader in both houses of the California legislature, ``independent expenditures have provided sophisticated wealthy individuals and special interests the means to circumvent [contribution] limits and create the appearance of corruption, or gain undue influence on, candidates and officeholders.''

Recent examples illustrate that independent expenditures are used to try to influence elected officials.

In 1998 a group with an interest in gaming issues attempted to bribe former Republican Kansas Congressman Snowbarger by signaling that they would conduct an independent spending campaign on his behalf. According to Snowbarger's campaign manager, the offer ``was an attempt to get him to change his position by offering to do independent spending that would help him win re-election.'' Congressman Snowbarger rejected the offer. His campaign manager later explained the rationale behind the proposal: ``[T]he people behind th[e] effort offered to do an independent expenditure rather than make contributions because contributions are limited. If only a small number of people are involved, they are unable to promise to give that much. Even a corrupt Congressman would not risk accepting a bribe of only $5,000.00 or $6,000.00. Independent expenditures, on the other hand, can involve sums of money of an entirely different magnitude.''

Former Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Chvala was convicted on corruption charges in 2005 for illegally soliciting funds in exchange for political favors. According to Wisconsin lobbyist Michael Bright, who lobbied Chvala on numerous occasions, ``[t]here was essentially a `menu' of different ways that clients could contribute: they could give directly to candidates in contested races, to the parties, or to groups that made independent expenditures or independent candidate-focused `issue' ads . . . These were all acceptable ways to meet Chvala's contribution expectations, to get `credit' in Chvala's world.'' (emphasis added). Chvala would indicate to interested parties that ``whichever bucket [they] put the money into, it would be used effectively to support Democratic senate candidates and would be appreciated by those candidates.'' According to Bright, ``there was not any ambiguity about it: he was suggesting that the candidates benefited would properly credit the client for the contributions no matter which entity they were made to, and the candidate would be just as appreciative as if the money had all been given directly to the candidate's campaign.''

Recent polling reveals that independent expenditures also create an appearance of influence. A 2008 Zogby poll found that 82 percent

of respondents believe ``that if an individual contributed $100,000 or more to a group to spend on an advertising campaign supporting a congressional candidate it is likely that the candidate will do a political favor for the contributor once elected to office.''

The Unique Contexts of Government Contracting and Foreign Influence

Although Citizens United prohibits restrictions on independent expenditures that apply to corporations and unions generally, independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors and foreign-controlled entities pose unique concerns. Congress has a substantial interest in protecting a merit- based government contracting process and in protecting U.S. interests from foreign influence, and Congress therefore has the power to regulate independent expenditures and electioneering communications in these particular domains.

Independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors warrant distinct concern. Government contracting decisions should be based on an objective evaluation of how well potential contractors meet the relevant legal criteria. Elaborate federal regulations reflect this commitment to a fairly and impartially-administered contracting system. However, contractors may seek to improperly influence elected officials in order to maximize their chances of receiving contracts. Contractors may also feel pressure, whether explicitly exerted by government officials or not, to make expenditures in order to obtain contracts. A company seeking to renew an existing contract may be especially vulnerable to such pressure because it is likely to have significant reliance interests in maintaining its business relationship with the government.

The need to protect the integrity of government contracting is evidenced by recent pay-to-play scandals. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan went to federal prison in 2007 for issuing state contracts in exchange for financial contributions and gifts over a period of 10 years. In Connecticut, a pay-to-play probe brought down former Governor Rowland, who admitted taking gifts from state contractors. In 1998, New Jersey awarded a seven-year, $392 million contract to Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group Inc. to privatize automobile inspections. A subsequent state investigation found that Parsons had tainted the competitive bidding process by contributing more than a half million dollars to state officials and that the ``mammoth boondoggle'' cost taxpayers an additional $200 million after the contract was awarded. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham resigned from Congress in 2005 after pleading guilty to using his official position to extract bribes from multiple defense contractors. In March, 2010, the New York state pension fund's former chief investment officer pleaded guilty to directing public dollars to firms that made political contributions to former Democratic state comptroller Alan G. Hevesi. Financial companies have so far paid $120 million in settlements to resolve their roles in the ongoing pay to play scandal. Even when a direct quid-pro-quo cannot be definitively proven, the relationship between political expenditures and contract awards can still give rise to the appearance of improper influence. For instance, a University of Michigan study found that donors to former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson's campaign were awarded an average of $20 million in contracts, while non-contributors were only awarded an average of $870,000.

Independent expenditures and electioneering communications by foreign-controlled domestic corporations also warrant distinct concern. In 2005, the general treasuries of these companies totaled approximately $3.5 trillion. After Citizens United, these companies are now free to spend unlimited sums from their general treasuries to influence federal elections, and undermine U.S. interests. The DISCLOSE Act would prevent this foreign intervention in U.S. elections.

I thank the chairman of the committee.

This legislation, as we all know, by its terms says that if you're a foreign-controlled entity in the United States, you can not be spending money to influence elections. The proposal put forward here actually 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 and 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 robocalls, what this legislation has been all about is disclosure. If you're going to spend money 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 the group or whether you don't like the group, the voter has a right to know.

Finally, you've injected into this motion to recommit a provision with respect to how we would deal with challenges to D.C. voting rights. 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 interesting, 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 5 minutes to look at this, but 5 minutes was more than enough time to determine that it's blatantly unconstitutional. You're not just saying inform the voter, you're denying American citizens and voters the right to contribute to campaigns, to participate freely in campaigns. You're saying that you can't exercise your legal rights with robocalls even if you're telling people who is spending it.

And finally, you've injected a total spurious and unrelated provision with respect to D.C. voting rights. Let's give the voters the right to know. Let's make sure that we pass legislation so that foreign- controlled interests can not spend money in U.S. elections, whether it's British Petroleum or any other organization. And let's make sure that, whether you like the group or don't like the group, that voters have the information when they see that television set with the 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 League of Women Voters--that's no political organization--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.

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.