Providing For Consideration of H.R. 5175, Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, under a structured rule. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate on the bill. The resolution provides that the substitute amendment, recommended by the House Administration Committee, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.
The resolution makes in order five amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. The resolution waives all points of order against such amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides one motion to recommit without or without instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion to rise only if offered by the chair of the House Administration Committee or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting words of the bill.
The resolution permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, 2010.
The resolution waives a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote for same day consideration of a report from the Rules Committee through the legislative day of Friday, June 25, on a measure that includes a subject matter in H.R. 4213.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying bill. During my time in Congress, I haven't had a single constituent say to me, ``You know, Jim, I think there should be more special interest money in politics.''
Obviously, the conservative activist judges that now make up the majority of the Supreme Court don't live in my district. Because in January, the court tossed aside decades of established law and legal precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in Federal elections.
As Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the decision ``would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.''
It is a sad state of affairs when Swift Boating has entered the language as a verb. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision makes Swift Boating easier for the special interests. Large multinational corporations would now be able to create shadowy groups and pour millions and millions of dollars into supporting or defeating candidates. If BP doesn't like somebody, they could create ``Americans For Sensible Energy'' and run attack ad after attack ad after attack ad.
While we cannot undo the court's decision, we can and we must try to minimize its impact. That is why the sensible, bipartisan legislation before us today is so important. The DISCLOSE Act will go a long way toward restoring openness and transparency in our political process. I want to commend Chris Van Hollen and Mike Castle for their work on this bill.
The legislation does several important things. It requires the heads of these third-party organizations to stand by their ad, just like political candidates are required to do. It requires the organization to list its top five contributors onscreen at the end of the ad.
It would ban U.S. corporations that are controlled by foreign interests and foreign companies like BP from making political expenditures in our elections. I know there are some on the other side who have been apologists for BP who may be troubled by that, but I think most Americans believe that foreign influences should not dictate our elections.
And it would prohibit entities that receive large amounts of taxpayer money like Wall Street banks and Government contractors from pouring money into politics.
The bill is supported by the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Common Cause, and other national reform groups.
To be sure, the bill isn't perfect. It contains an exemption for certain, long-standing organizations that take a small amount of corporate or union money. I know a lot of us are not particularly pleased with that change, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Moving forward, I would urge my colleagues to examine a bill offered by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mike Capuano, the Shareholder Protection Act. This bill would give shareholders a voice in how companies spend their money.
Opponents of this bill that we are considering today have already begun making noises about challenging it in court. I would remind them that polls show that the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of this reform. We must do all we can to bring more openness and transparency to our political process. The DISCLOSE Act before us today is a vital step. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just want to point out to the previous speaker that the American people want us to fix this economy, which we are trying to do. And I would also point out that we have created more jobs this year than in the entire 8 years of the Bush administration. I think what we are doing is the American people's work.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My Republican colleagues claim that they have the best interests of the American people at heart, that they want to help the taxpayers. Yet I find it somewhat ironic that they propose that we cut money for jobs, money for health care, money for senior citizens, and then at the same time they defend British Petroleum and tell the American people that the American people should pay for the cleanup of that terrible oil spill and not British Petroleum.
Look, what we are talking about here is a bill to require disclosure so that companies like British Petroleum, other foreign-owned companies, can't come into the United States and influence elections. Now, I don't know why that's so controversial. I guess if a particular interest was overly generous to me, like Big Oil is to my friends on the Republican side, that they would have objections. But look, I think the American people overwhelmingly want transparency and disclosure.
If some oil company is going to come into my district and Swift Boat me and try to hide who they are by saying that they are a committee for clean oceans, that's deception. The American people ought to know that it's being paid for by Big Oil. We have, right now, all across the country, ads that are distorting the health care bill that was passed here in the Congress. But they are all paid for by the insurance industry, yet you can't find the words ``insurance industry'' on any of those ads.
People deserve to know who is spending millions and millions of dollars on these ads. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you ought to be for transparency. And that is what this bill is about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
One of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support the DISCLOSE Act is because quite frankly they are concerned, and rightly so, that money is becoming more and more of an influence in politics. Not just money from big corporations in the United States; they are also justifiably concerned about foreign influences.
Sovereign wealth funds, the investment funds controlled by foreign governments of foreign interests, could be controlled by China. If they're here in the United States, they have the right to be able to under an innocuous name spend millions and millions of dollars in negative ads against a candidate or positive ads for a candidate. Why should anybody want a foreign government or foreign interest to have a greater impact on American elections than regular people?
One of the reasons why this is important is to let the sunshine in, for there to be transparency, for those who run these ads to be able to stand by their ads. All of us have to stand by our ads when we stand for reelection to Congress. I have to say that it's paid for and authorized by Jim McGovern. That's what we have to do.
What is so wrong with requiring big corporations to do the same thing? What is so wrong with saying we don't want foreign interests to influence our elections? These are American elections. We don't want China involved in these elections or any other country; and we know that they can, under the status quo, influence our elections and play a role in our elections through these sovereign wealth funds.
So I would simply say I think the American people are right. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says we can't ask somebody to stand by their words. We're not inhibiting free speech. We're just saying if British Petroleum is going to run a Swift Boat ad against anybody here, they ought to say who they are, not make up some name that somehow they're dedicated to clean oceans or to a good environment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me again point out that one of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support this bill is because they don't want financial institutions, TARP recipients, to be able to use taxpayer money to run negative ads.
One of the reasons why the American people overwhelmingly support this act is because they know the status quo basically is the BP protection policy, which is you allow foreign companies to be able to set up these sovereign wealth funds and be able to funnel money into elections to run ads for and against people.
We know that the insurance industry wants to spend a lot of money in this election, but they don't want to tell anybody they're an insurance industry when they attack the health care plan.
We know that the Big Oil companies are going to want to run a lot of ads to try to keep their friends in Congress, those who apologize for their bad behavior; but they also know if they announce to the American people that oil companies are paying for this that they will get a different reaction.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to remind everybody that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case essentially allows unlimited special interest money, corporate money, to drown out the voices of everyday people. That is really what the issue is here. The majority of Americans, I think, are alarmed by that. That is why an overwhelming majority support the passage of this DISCLOSE Act.
Those of us who are arguing for the passage of this bill believe the voters have a fundamental right to know who is spending money to influence their elections and where that money is coming from. I am puzzled that my friends on the other side of the aisle, who are speaking out against this, don't share that same concern; but voters deserve to know who is spending money to influence their elections. They deserve to know whether it is a Big Oil company or a union, and they deserve to know whether it is a foreign special interest that is trying to influence the election.
So I would urge my colleagues to get behind this effort, an effort that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I find it puzzling to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle all of a sudden talk about the deficit. When Bill Clinton left office, he left the Republicans and George Bush a record surplus. There was no deficit. We were paying down the debt. They took that surplus and they turned it around and drove this economy into a ditch.
President Obama gets elected to office; he inherits the worst economy. It's just a Great Depression. My friends on the other side don't take any responsibility for that. In 1 year under President Obama, we have created more jobs in this country than George Bush did during 8 years while he was in office. The American people want us to focus on jobs and job creation.
I would just make another suggestion, since we're talking about how we protect the taxpayers. I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop apologizing for the way the Federal Government is treating BP, to stop apologizing for the fact that this administration wants British Petroleum to live up to its responsibility and pay for the cleanup of that mess in the gulf. I wish my friend on the other side of the aisle would stop trying to defend Big Oil from taking its responsibility. BP should pay for it, not the American taxpayer. If you want to do something for the American taxpayer, then demand that BP do what it is right.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, first of all, the underlying bill that we are talking about here today does not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. That's just a ridiculous argument. And we are supporting this bill because we believe that no one spending large sums of money on campaigns should be able to hide behind a made-up shell. I don't think that's controversial. I don't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; you should want to know who is spending all this money, who is behind these ads. Why is that such a terrible idea?
You know, I don't think it's too much to ask that these organizations identify in their campaign ads those entities providing funding for those ads. This is about sunlight and transparency. This is about giving the American people the information that I think they all want. Who is behind these ads? Who is funding these ads?
My friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be clinging to secrecy. Well, secrecy in elections does nothing except to advance deception. And so when a Member of the Republican Party, for example, apologizes for the way the Federal Government is treating BP, BP can then under the status quo set up a mechanism to funnel money into ads in favor of that candidate or, you know, against his opponent, and BP does not have to identify itself. It could fund this under a shell of Citizens for Good Government or Citizens for a Clean Environment.
We need to understand that one of the problems is the way that our government has evolved here. Money has played too big of a role. I cannot believe that our Founding Fathers could ever have imagined that money would play such a big role in campaigns, millions and millions and millions of dollars spent on congressional campaigns, on Senate campaigns. Too much time is devoted to raising money. Too much emphasis is placed on money to be able to run for office. This says nothing about capping how much we can spend on campaigns, but what it does say is that those entities that are running ads in favor of us or against us have to tell the American people who they are.
I think the reason why so many Americans support this effort is because they get it, and they want to know the truth. I think the reason why so many Americans support this is they don't want foreign governments or foreign special interests to influence our elections. As I said before, these sovereign wealth funds can be set up. China can set one up based here in the United States, come up with a shell name for the organization, and actually spend millions and millions of dollars in an election to influence the outcome. That should not be. I don't care what your political philosophy is. We should not want foreign governments or foreign interests to influence our elections. Elections here should be decided by the people of the United States, not by other countries, not by foreign interests.
And I would again remind my colleagues that as we speak, there are millions and millions of dollars being spent on negative ads all over the country against Republicans and against Democrats, and they are sponsored by organizations that have nice names, but may be funded by an industry that has a particular interest in the outcome of that election. I think it is important when these negative health care ads are being run, that people know they're being paid for by the insurance industry. I think it's important to know that when we have ads defending the behavior of BP, that we know they are to be spent by interests that are tied directly to Big Oil.
So this is about transparency. This is about full disclosure. This has nothing to do with abridging anybody's right to speech. It just says that you have got to stand by what you say. That's not a radical idea. It's an idea that everybody in this House--I don't care what your political philosophy is--should embrace.
So I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 5175 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
SEC. 5. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5570) to provide that no funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service to expand its workforce in order to implement, enforce, or otherwise carry out either the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5570.
(The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ....... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT.
Source