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

fornia. Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker. I am certainly not going to oppose this bill. because this bill essentially does what I attempted to do in onethird of my motion to recommit last week. when a vast majority of the Members of the majority party voted against it. and we were told to restrict those individuals who were subject to this prohibition to a lesser prohibition was blatantly unconstitutional. And now we are told to go even furtherand I dont oppose going furtherbut now we are told to go even further is not only the proper thing to do. but its so noncontroversial that it ought to be here on the suspension calendar. It is extraordinary. I suppose. to see the transformation that takes place that the subject matter on this floor 1 week ago is blatantly unconstitutional and today is noncontroversial. I dont know how you change your tune that way. I dont know how you make such a difference when in effect we are talking about the same thing. except that now it is being sponsored by the majority side rather than the minority side. It also is passing strange at least that the underlying bill referred to by my friend from Michigan. the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. the DISCLOSE Act. was in fact sequentially referred to the Committee of Judiciary after we had completed consideration of it in the House Administration Committee. And yet. rather than spending a single minute on it. it was immediately discharged by the Judiciary Committee and allowed to come to the floor. Now. why do I find that extraordinary? Because it dealt with how we protect the First Amendment to the Constitution. that part of the First Amendment that specifically talks about the fact that Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech. And yet we did just last week. Perhaps if we had had hearings on it in the Judiciary Committee to review the underlying constitutional law concerns. we might have had an opportunity to reform that bill. But of course we did not. Perhaps if we were truly concerned about how the First Amendment rights are rights recognized by the Constitution. not granted by the Constitution. but recognized by the Constitution. and therefore should be protected by this branch of government as well as the judicial branch and as well as the executive branch. rather than parceled out and auctioned off. perhaps if it had seen the light of day in the Judiciary Committee we might have been able to convince more Members on the majority side that we ought not to trifle with the Constitution and trivialize the First Amendment. But no. we didnt do that. We rushed to judgment. That is. we discharged that bill without a single moment of consideration by the Judiciary Committee. And here we have cleanup legislation. A number of Members on the other side of the aisle evidently found out after they voted against the motion to recommit. because it was a Republican motion. that it had parts. all three parts that they supported. and this is a part of it. Although the language is different. the substance is the same. Now. contrast that with the fact that up until 20 minutes ago the language of this bill was different. Up until 20 minutes ago. the language of the bill had this bill within the jurisdiction of House Administration. not within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. And yet without a moments notice. the bill is changed in everything but its title. Every word changed. And I suspect that some Members listening in their offices arent aware of the rules of the House that allow for a suspension of the rules. meaning that we suspend every rule in the House. meaning that in fact you can have every word changed other than the title. you can have it deal with a different section of the United States Code. and you can have it transferred from one committee to the next in the flash of a moment here. Now. maybe that sounds just like process. but it is of course more than process. It goes to the question of substance. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. I guess I should be thankful that they have taken a portion of my motion to recommit that they defeated so soundly last week. to present it on the floor as a clean bill. without any hearings. without any consideration. transferring committees. changing the language up until the time they actually presented it on the floor. Which suggests that we have plenty of time to do things around here. We have plenty of time to look at changes in bills. Which would suggest that we ought to have more open rules in this House. because evidently we can change things up to the moment they hit the floor. and everyone is supposed to then I guess salute sharply and march to this new drummer. This is a heck of a way to run a House. a heck of a way to run a House. You dont know from the moment you leave your office to the time you get here what bill you are going to have. It may have the same number. it may have the same name. but every word can be changed. And of course if it is presented by the minority as a part of an amendment. its disallowed. But if we are going to present it on the floor with the majority. we do that and we try and make up for the vote that took place last week. I just hope everybody understands when you vote for this. and I would suggest you vote for this. you are essentially voting for the first third of the motion to recommit that was presented last week. which was declared on the floor by the major author of the DISCLOSE Act from Maryland Mr. VAN HOLLEN. as blatantly unconstitutional. So one week we auction off pieces of the First Amendment. the next week we turn something thats blatantly unconstitutional into something that not only is imperative. but is noncontroversial. It is magic being done on this floor before your very eyes. The only problem is most people dont realize whats occurring. At the very least we ought to take the time in our rules to shed some light on the legislative process. which I thought was supposed to be the purpose of the DISCLOSE Act. to shed some light on the political process. Perhaps we should practice what we preach here on the floor of the House. I reserve the balance of my time.