Date: 2010-07-01
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again. Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I think. though. it is instructive to note the rather strange circumstances surrounding the process involved here. Usually process is not important. but I do think that we ought to use our rules to try and make it easier for Members to understand what they are voting on. that we try to make it as clear as possible as to the subject matter. that we give Members sufficient time so they can consider the actual language of the bill. and that we actually allow further and more robust debate on this floor. One of the laments I have. having returned to this Congress in 2005. is a lessening of the importance of the dynamic of the floor of the House of Representatives. When my party was in charge and now when the other party has been in charge. rules. in my judgment. have been far too restrictive. There have been far fewer amendments allowed on this floor for full debate. There have been far fewer Members recognized for the possibility of offering their particular perspectives. I do not think that is a good thing. I think that is a bad thing. Members should understand the consequence of the Suspension Calendar or of having something that is subject to a consent request for a suspension of the rules. because it is important for Members to understand that every single word of substance in a bill brought forward to this floor. other than the title. can be changed when you suspend the rules. I think thats important for people to know. Secondly. it is also disappointing that one week we will have an idea roundly criticized and even suggested to be blatantly unconstitutional. Then the next week. without. really. any further debate. without any hearings and without any new knowledge that has changed a review of the subject matter. it suddenly is no longer that. I never thought it was unconstitutional in the first instance. but sometimes our rhetoric gets away with us on this floor. I think you can have a vigorous and robust debate without exaggeration to such an extent that you dismiss things lightly as being unconstitutional. I am reminded of what Justice Scalia said in a speech a few years ago. He said. when he was a kid. growing up. and when you saw something you didnt like or that you thought was wrong. youd say. There ought to be a law. As a matter of fact. there was a cartoon series on that: "There ought to be a law." He said now the tendency is when you see something you dont like or when you see something you would change. you say. Its unconstitutional. While that may not sound that important. it is extremely important because. if you say. There ought to be a law. you are accepting the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a law. If you say. Its unconstitutional. you are suggesting that that subject matter has been removed from the arena of public debate and democratic processes. that is. removed from the legislative and executive branches and given exclusively to the judiciary. wherein they make the decision. and their decision ultimately is not appealable to the other branches of government. That is a tremendous distinction. In my judgment. we have seen the courts. over the last decades. trespass upon the appropriate democratic rights of the American public. that is. telling them they no longer have the ability to make the decision through their democratic branches of government. It is. rather. going to be in that nondemocraticand I mean that intentionally. They are not supposed to be responsive as we are to the public. But because of that. where they rule on the basis of the Constitution ought to be in a very limited. relatively limited area. So I think we ought to be more careful when. instead of engaging in the debate on the subject matter at hand. we lightly suggest that our disagreement with it is that it is unnecessarily unconstitutional. Now. I realize I made the argument last week on the bill before us. the DISCLOSE Act. on the unconstitutionality. but I believe I did back that up with legal analysis and had extended debate on the floor on that. as opposed to just throwing it out as an argument against a single amendment or single section of the bill. With that. I would urge my colleagues to overlook the manner in which this was brought to the floor. accept the explanations and heartfelt concerns expressed by my friend from Michigan about the manner in which it came to the floor. and with all that. support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.