3:34 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

3:34 PM EDT

Anna G. Eshoo, D-CA 14th

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the fourth time this year to call for transparency in our political system. I maintain the view shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people that transparency in the use of our tax dollars is absolutely critical.

There are thousands of companies that do business with the Federal Government, receiving billions of public dollars for their services and their products. Our constituents deserve to know whether they spend any of these dollars to influence our elections. My amendment will accomplish this, and I once again urge my colleagues to support it.

Now, some say, as we just heard a few moments ago, that this disclosure requirement will politicize the procurement process. It's difficult to maintain that view with a straight face. As I've said before, when a business contracts with the Federal Government and spends money in elections, the process is already politicized. Even in the Citizens United decision legalizing corporate expenditures, eight out of nine justices specifically endorsed prompt disclosure of expenditures. Justice Anthony

Kennedy wrote, ``Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.'' This is not an onerous burden. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.''

I want to share an example from my home State of California that illustrates the importance of disclosure. Last year, in 2010, Proposition 23 was on the ballot. It was an effort to kill the State's tough new global warming rules. The airwaves were flooded with ads, but because California requires disclosure, voters were informed. The oil companies financing the ads had to stand by them each and every time the ad aired, stating that they had paid for them. So voters were informed. They made up

their minds. Prop 23 lost by 23 percent in November because voters knew who had paid for the ads and what and whom were behind them. It wasn't just someone skipping through a field, it was going to have an effect on them. It was disclosure.

As he has a half-dozen times this year, my colleague, Tom Cole, has offered an amendment to prevent the very disclosure I'm asking us to endorse. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. Preventing transparency puts us all on the wrong side of history every time.

Republicans supported disclosure before they were against it, and the record is very clear on that. So I urge those from both the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on this side--I don't believe this is a partisan issue--I believe that disclosure is good for America, it's good for our system. It is not burdensome, it is not anti-constitutional, and it's simple. The voters should know, taxpayers should know.

I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

3:38 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.

3:38 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

For the reasons stated by the Chair on February 17, June 2, and July 7, 2011, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

[Time: 15:40]

AMENDMENT NO. 66 OFFERED BY MR.

GOSAR

3:38 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

For the reasons stated by the Chair on February 17, June 2, and July 7, 2011, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

[Time: 15:40]

AMENDMENT NO. 66 OFFERED BY MR.

GOSAR

3:39 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.