Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4842, the Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization Act of 2010. It gives me great pleasure to work with the gentlewoman in bringing forward this authorization bill to the floor.

This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the Science and Technology Directorate and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, and I want to thank the chairwoman for her bipartisan leadership on this legislation.

This process started last summer with numerous stakeholder meetings, followed by meetings and recommendations from the Department of Homeland Security and concluding with the recent improvements and support of the House Science and Technology Committee. When it comes to homeland security, there is no room for partisanship. Chairwoman Clark and the chairman of our full committee, Chairman Thompson, working together with Mr. King from New York, the ranking Republican on the committee, all deserve a great deal of credit for reaching out across the aisle to craft a more effective bill, and, I must say, it does include provisions of importance to our Republican members.

These provisions would include the establishment of research initiatives to bolster border and maritime security; the development of tools to enhance resilience to terrorist attacks and other incidents, especially in rural communities; research and testing of technologies to help secure the border and ensure the safety of our underground mass transit systems; as well as an assessment of how useful rapid screening tools for influenza and other biological threats would be at our border ports of entry.

Our bill emphasizes management and administrative reforms that target the needs of the Science and Technology customers, those being the Border Patrol, TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, and ICE, by most closely aligning the Directorate's research and development activities with identified homeland security risks so there will be a more rapid application of the technology to the true needs as identified by S&T's customers.

It will improve our homeland security by establishing a more rigorous process within the S&T Directorate for identifying, prioritizing, and funding these important research opportunities.

It recognizes the need to prioritize research around risk and authorizes the establishment of a Testing, Evaluation, and Standards Division within the S&T Directorate to help ensure that technology is properly evaluated.

So, Mr. Speaker, in order to foster closer collaboration between the Science and Technology Directorate and commercial companies with promising Homeland Security technologies, our bill authorizes the Office of Public-Private Partnerships to be established within the S&T Directorate.

Importantly, title VII of our legislation establishes a Commission on the Protection of Critical Electric and Electronic Infrastructures to assess the vulnerabilities of this infrastructure and make recommendations for better securing this critically important infrastructure in the future.

While we rely on the cyberworld for much of our embedded command and control systems, perhaps it is no more important than in the area of critical electric and electronic infrastructure, and it is our hope that this commission will help us in the Congress to prioritize those needs with respect to the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure and the protection of that infrastructure.

We depend on the Science and Technology Directorate to develop state- of-the-art technology to protect our citizens and critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Timely and accurate intelligence is always our best defense against the terror threat. However, when we have no actionable intelligence, we must rely on the skill of our personnel and the effectiveness of our technology in order to detect, deter, and defend against the terrorist enemy. The better technology we develop and deploy, the stronger, therefore, our homeland security. We believe this legislation will help provide the necessary technology tools to bolster our homeland defenses.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight a very important provision in this bill that is critical to both Ranking Member King and the security of New York City, as well as to our Nation as a whole. It is the authorization and expansion of the Securing the Cities program.

Securing the Cities is a vital Homeland Security program to help prevent terrorist attacks in major cities using nuclear radiological weapons such as a dirty bomb. The program has enabled the establishment of a network ring of radiological detectors on highways, toll plazas, bridges, tunnels, and waterways leading into and out of New York City, which, as we know, is perhaps the top terrorist target for al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations.

The detonation of a nuclear or dirty bomb in the New York City Tri- State area or any other major metropolitan area would inflict serious damage to our country's economy in addition to the terrible tragedy of the human lives involved, and it would be much like the 9/11 attacks.

Securing the Cities is a successful program that can and should be replicated in other areas around the country. That's why language in this bill would expand the program to at least two additional high-risk cities where these capabilities are most needed, therefore leveraging what we already have learned about building defenses against nuclear and radiological weapons in New York City to erect similar security perimeters in and around other cities.

I want to remind our colleagues that the threat of nuclear or radiological terrorism is real. It's not just an academic exercise. It's not just some fiction. It is real. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, the WMD Commission, warned in 2008 that an attack using a weapon of mass destruction was likely to happen somewhere in the world by 2013. Commissioners Graham and Talent, appearing before our committee on April 21 of this year, repeated this warning.

The President's National Security Strategy that was released earlier this year concluded this: ``The American people face no greater or more urgent danger than a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. The potential of nuclear or radiological terrorism is a nightmare scenario that we must guard against with every available capability and resource. We believe that authorizing and expanding Securing the Cities will help protect our country, not just New York City but the entire country, from such a danger.''

Now, let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that while I'm pleased we are considering this bill today, I do believe that the House should be considering a comprehensive authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security. This House has not done so since 2007, with one of the reasons being that we, frankly, have too many committees and subcommittees having jurisdiction over homeland security.

The 9/11 Commission recommended, in 2004, that ``Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight review for homeland security.'' Unfortunately, the current jurisdictional web of congressional oversight under the Department of Homeland Security results in conflicting guidance to the Department and is a serious drain on its time and resources. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't say this as a Republican criticizing the majority in the House. This was true when the Republicans were in control. It is the remaining recommendation by the 9/11 Commission that has not been enacted into law here by this House.

The chairman and the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, testified that this jurisdictional maze is unworkable, and they said it could make our country less safe. Those are strong words, but they repeated them in their testimony before our committee.

I hope that we can streamline congressional jurisdiction moving forward so that Congress can enact a comprehensive authorization bill for the Department, which, I say, has not happened since its creation in 2003. The failure to do so jeopardizes our ability to ensure that our Nation's homeland security policies are as robust as they need to be to meet the evolving nature of terrorism.

I want to again thank Chairman Thompson, Chairwoman Clarke, and Ranking Member King for all their help in crafting a very good bipartisan bill that strengthens our homeland security capabilities, and I would, of course, urge all my colleagues to support passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very valuable member of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in my remaining time that I hope that this is a unanimous vote in support of this legislation. It gives a framework to the S&T directorate, and it is an assertion of the proper jurisdiction of this committee and of this House, and I do believe this moves us in the right direction.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the late California State senator and former California Assembly Republican Leader Dave Cox, who passed away at his home yesterday, surrounded by his loving family.

I had the great pleasure of working with Dave, and I admired not only his energy, but his tireless service to the people he represented. I was pleased that I was able to represent some of those same people in my congressional district, which overlapped his State senate district.

He constantly strove to make government work better for people, and I do believe he accomplished this mission. His public service spanned more than two decades, and it goes without saying that he will be sorely missed across the entire Sacramento region.

Dave served on the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Board, and was a 6-year Sacramento County supervisor before joining the California Assembly in 1998, and then the California Senate in 2004.

Much can be said about Dave Cox the public servant, but let us remember that he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather as well. Dave, along with his wife, Maggie, raised three daughters, and were the proud grandparents of six grandchildren.

I was pleased to be able to speak with him just a few weeks ago, when he had returned from receiving some treatment for the cancer. And he told me that he was going to return to the State senate, which he did several days later. Here was yet another example of a man serving the people he loved until the very end. He said to me at that time, well, he was only about 90 percent. And I said, ``Well, 90 percent of Dave Cox is better than a hundred percent of most of the people in public service.''

I am honored to remember my friend, the late Senator Dave Cox, a devoted family man, an exemplary public servant, and a trusted colleague. Eternal rest, grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the debate. I must say that the people in my district would not recognize

the America that has been described by the gentleman from California. They would not believe that the economy is moving up. They would not believe that jobs are being created. They would not believe that they have low taxes. Frankly, they believe all of the opposite because that is what their reality is.

All of us have been home in our districts, as have I. All of us, I hope, have polled our constituents, both informally and formally. I find what my constituents say in my district is similar to what I see in the national polls.

The number one thing they are concerned about are jobs. They are concerned about good jobs, permanent jobs. They understand the agony of those who are unemployed and of those who are having difficulty, if not discovering the impossibility, of finding prospects for jobs at the present time; and we understand that on this side, though the other thing my constituents have said to me over and over again is, while ``jobs'' is the number one issue, the number two issue is the spending, which is out of control by this Congress.

So I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle who say we have an emergency in terms of the unemployment benefits running out. I understand that. Yet what my constituents are telling me and what Americans are saying all over the country is that there are at least two emergencies. Jobs, yes, are an emergency; but spending, out-of- control spending, irresponsible spending by this Congress under this Democratic leadership is a major concern to them.

Under this rule, we can't deal with both emergencies. We can only deal with the question of jobs in the unemployment compensation arena, but we are prohibited from dealing with how you pay for the government spending here. That's what we have been asking for. Deal with the second emergency so that you don't have further people unemployed for years and so that you don't impose your debt on my children and my grandchildren so that they will not have the prospect of jobs in the future.

It is not original with me, but it often has been said the best social welfare program is a job. While we want to have unemployment insurance to cushion people, to transition people from a period of employment to unemployment to employment, that is not the prospect we want for them short-term or long-term. What we want is creation of jobs, and the irresponsibility of this administration and this Democratic leadership in not facing up to the fact that our persistent irresponsibility in not paying our bills is something that exacerbates the problem--

So as I hear the people on the other side of the aisle try and say, look, Republicans are those Scrooge-like people who are not concerned about people who are unemployed, let me just say we have people unemployed as well as you do in your districts. We have friends and family members who are suffering under this. We understand that. But we also understand they are saying at the same time, when you pass legislation in the Congress that costs money, find a way to pay for it. Find a way to pay for it.

You can be both for creation of jobs as well as being responsible in the carrying out of our duties. That is all we are saying. Don't promise the American people a free lunch, and don't say, well, we will think about that in the future, because we have got to think about spending right now.

Now, I understand this rule doesn't allow us to do this. The leadership on the Democratic side doesn't want to face up to the concerns we have. We are not even going to have a budget. But at some point in time we have to stand up for what is right, and we can do two things at once.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

My parliamentary inquiry is this: I understand that we are dealing with H.R. 5609, and I have, just 20 minutes ago, been given the copy of H.R. 5609, which, in every respect, after the introduction, is different from the 5609 that we were prepared to speak on just 20 minutes ago.

My question is, under the rules of the House, is it appropriate to completely remove the text of the bill that we were prepared to deal with and exchange it for an entirely new language which refers to new sections of the U.S. Code of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, where the original 5609 referred to another section of the code?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

According to the copy of the bill that I have, 5609, it says that this bill is referred to the Committee on House Administration. If it is referred to the Committee on House Administration, how is that on this floor it is now being brought forward by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is not a member of the Committee on House Administration?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Further parliamentary inquiry.

So, as I understand what the Speaker is telling me, this request for consent to bring this to the floor at this time would have the effect of discharging the committee of jurisdiction, that is, the Committee of House Administration, and bring it directly to the floor to be handled now by another committee, the Committee on the Judiciary. Is that correct?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Is it under the rules, or is it customary interpretation under the rules, that the minority receive a copy of the bill to be brought to the floor at some time before 20 minutes before it's brought to the floor?

Is there no requirement for notice of the actual contents of the bill to be considered, even under a request such as has been made by the gentleman from Michigan?

So further parliamentary inquiry.

Under the rules of the House, a motion such as made by the gentleman to suspend the rules in effect suspends all rules, including rules that would govern the language of the bill as introduced and as given to the minority yesterday and up until 20 minutes ago.

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 one-third 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 further--and I don't oppose going further--but now we are told to go even further is not only the proper thing to do, but it's 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 don't know how you change your tune that way. I don't 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 didn't 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 moment's notice, the bill is changed in everything but its title. Every word changed.

And I suspect that some Members listening in their offices aren't 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 don't 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, it's 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 that's 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 don't realize what's 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

Mr. Hall just suggested that his bill is stronger than the motion to recommit that I had last week with respect to actions of those who represent state sponsors of terrorism, that is, those who lobby on behalf of those states. At that time, the majority position was that even that limitation was blatantly unconstitutional. Those were the words of Mr. Van Hollen on the floor specifically referring to what, now, Mr. Hall says is a lesser prohibition than what he brings forward. I presume that, therefore, their review of the constitutionality of this now reveals to them that it is constitutional for us to do this and the statements that were made last week on the floor against my motion to recommit are, in fact, inoperative.

Here's what Mr. Van Hollen said: You're denying American citizens and voters the right to contribute to campaigns, to participate freely in campaigns.

He's referring specifically to that section that I had in the bill talking about lobbyists. Now you're saying that they may not perform any lobbying activities whatsoever.

I mean, I agree with the intent. I hope it is, in fact, constitutional. But it is just remarkable that you can come on the floor and condemn something as being blatantly unconstitutional, get a majority vested, 216 members of the Democratic Party voting against it, and then a week later come back and say, Look at us. We are now presenting a real tough restriction that's even tougher than what you offered last week, which was unconstitutional. But ours, which is more restrictive, is, in fact, constitutional. You know, we ought to do better than that.

We also ought to do better than changing our handiwork just before we hit the floor. It is interesting to see the text of the bill, which still calls it a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, when, in fact, the substance of it deals with amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. But obviously someone, just before they got to the floor, understood that, and you can see some cut and paste at the bottom--it doesn't even have lines for the bill--which amends the title so that the title now reads, ``A bill to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.''

When I was in high school, I guess and even grade school, eighth grade, when we used to put things together, we would call it cut and paste, but I would hope that we could do better than that here in the House of Representatives on the floor of the House.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is the most interesting debate in which we are all going to support the amendment but the process has been corrupted, and I think it's been implied more than once that this bill of Mr. Hall's has been borrowed from our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And the fine detail in which we have scrutinized the parliamentary improprieties is absolutely amazing.

It is not reckless to suggest that all of the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle are going to obviously support this measure. It's just that the proper credit has not been allocated to all the parties that have participated so ably in bringing this matter to the floor.

I only wish there was some way I could correct that because I believe in fairness, and I want my colleagues to know that we're not trying to steal their thunder. I think that we all agree ultimately upon the objective. But constitutionally--and no one knows this better than the former attorney general of California--constitutionally you cannot preclude an American citizen from making a contribution, and that bill that was previously considered and discussed did that.

You can, however, prohibit a foreign country from hiring lobbyists, and this is what we did and do. I am sure that it can withstand constitutional scrutiny and that we can go forward into the holiday, recognizing that we have done exactly what we set out to do.

I yield to the gentleman from New York if he would like to make a further comment.

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 that's 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 didn't like or that you thought was wrong, you'd 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 don't like or when you see something you would change, you say, It's 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, It's 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 nondemocratic--and 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.

Madam Speaker, this week the United States Supreme Court actually decided a constitutional question of extreme importance, and it had to deal with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The interesting thing was they reached this conclusion by looking at the text of the Constitution, the words of the Second Amendment. What a shame we didn't do that last week when we were dealing with the DISCLOSE Act, where we essentially eviscerated the First Amendment, the First Amendment protection for political speech.

Instead of saying that it exists for all and that we should protect it for all, we decided that some are more equal than others. We auctioned off parts of the First Amendment last week. Let us hope that the Senate will not repeat that mistake, and that we understand that perhaps the best way to understand what the Constitution means is to actually look at its words. Sometimes you can find the rights expressed there far more easily than looking at penumbras and those that emanate from penumbras. At times it makes sense for us to pay attention to what the Founding Fathers actually said.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, we're going to start talking about a rule and then go into the substance of a bill called the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act supposedly talks merely about disclosure of political speech, but what it really does is affect the First Amendment to the Constitution which says, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say, Congress will pass laws which allow some people to speak but not others, and yet that's what the bill does that's being brought to us.

If you happen to be a big organization, a large special interest with a lot of money and have been around a long time, you are exempt from the disclosure requirements. But if you happen to be somebody like, oh, the tea party or a smaller group or you don't have all the money or you haven't been around for 10 years, you have the imposition of the burden of disclosure which, in some cases, will make it impossible for you to exercise free speech.

You know, the First Amendment talks about speech. My friends on the other side of the aisle love to talk about how it protects, oh, nude dancing or something like that. How about talking about political speech.

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.

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.

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

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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, I rise today to recognize and honor Connor Ellison.

This past Saturday, June 19, 2010, Connor's Hope-Team Donate Life successfully completed a 3,005 mile-long bike ride across the United States in 6 days, 20 hours, and 39 minutes in the Race Across America. The team started their journey in Oceanside, California and completed the crossing in Annapolis, Maryland. Team Donate Life is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting organ donation and transplantation.

Connor Ellison, a 12-year-old Folsom, California resident, became the youngest rider to ever compete and finish the Race Across America--the world's toughest bicycle race. Connor is an inspiration to all of us, as he accomplished this great feat while battling a serious liver disease called Congenital Hepatic Fibrosis.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of Connor Ellison and Connor's Hope-Team Donate Life.

Madam Speaker, once again, we have discovered that there appears to be some glitch in the majority's effort

to bring the so-called DISCLOSE Act to the floor. It apparently is over how many people get exempted from the disclosure rules that otherwise prevail.

We have had the NRA exemption, which was for organizations which have over 1 million people, which have actually existed more than 10 years, which have people in all 50 States, in D.C. and in Puerto Rico, and which have less than 15 percent of their funds from corporations. Now we understand they have dropped it to 500,000.

Madam Speaker, we did not take the oath to the Constitution to only uphold part of the Constitution. It is time that we stop auctioning off the First Amendment and start understanding that we here are supposed to protect the First Amendment, not parcel it out, not deny it to some and give it to others. The First Amendment is for all Americans, not just for those favored by one party or another.

Madam Speaker, there is uncertainty on this floor as I speak as to whether or not we are going to bring up the DISCLOSE Act this day in the Rules Committee or on this floor this week. The reason appears to be that a special exemption has been given to just a select number of groups, starting with the National Rifle Association, but also not including the Gun Owners of America; including the Humane Society, but not including other agricultural groups in America.

In other words, we are saying that free speech is free for some but not all. And as I looked at this exemption that's been given, you have to have over a million members. You have to have members in all 50 States. You have to have existed for more than 10 years. It is obvious we have now gone from too big to fail to too big to file. In other words, if you have got enough juice here, you are not going to be included. But if you do, you are going to be excluded, and you are going to be allowed in this election period to fully use your First Amendment rights. That's not what the Constitution's all about.

Madam Speaker, I take these 5 minutes to speak on a subject that is of utmost importance but that does not regularly get discussed here on the floor, which is the First Amendment to the Constitution, that part of it which deals with freedom of speech--that is, with freedom of political speech.

Now, obviously, the First Amendment of the Constitution does not merely protect political speech, but in the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, known as Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.

In other words, they said, if you look at the essence of the First Amendment protection, it goes, first and foremost, to political speech. They had this in laying the premise for the decision that they came to because the Supreme Court realized that the First Amendment's protection for political speech had been under assault by various pieces of legislation passed by this body, not that it was done for evil purposes or intentionally to undercut the Constitution of the United States; rather, it was done in a good-faith effort to try and deal with political campaigns and with the position of money in political campaigns.

The Supreme Court decided back in the 1970s, in Buckley vs. Valeo, that money is speech, meaning that the money you have you can use as you see fit to further your speech. You can print pamphlets; you can buy a megaphone; you can buy a radio ad; you can buy a television ad; you can hire somebody to represent your interest to appear in an ad for you. In other words, the Supreme Court recognized that, in the way that we communicate, oftentimes, it takes the use of money to further that communication.

So they made a decision at that point in time that, by terms of the First Amendment, you could not stop one from using one's money to express one's point of view. Then they went to the point of asking, But how does that apply when you are giving money to a candidate?

In those instances, the Court said that the government might be able to put some restrictions on speech--that is the use of money--but only if it is for the purpose of avoiding the corruption of the process. That is the only basis upon which the government can put some limitations, or parameters, around political speech.

In the Citizens United case, they had to decide: As people individually and as associated with others--and the First Amendment talks about freedom of association--what are they allowed to do, permitted to do, protected under the First Amendment, when they expend funds to express a point of view during a period of time that is close to an election?

That is why the Court said that First Amendment freedoms are at their height when the speaker is addressing matters of public policy, politics and governance and has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office, because that is the point in time when you might have the most influence on your fellow citizens.

Now, what does this have to do with what we are doing here on the floor?

Well, there is a bill that has been introduced, called the DISCLOSE Act--Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. We are led to believe by the majority that all this does is promote disclosure. Yet, in fact, what it does under its very terms is chill political speech, so much so that the National Rifle Association came out with a large complaint about the bill, saying that it would have an undue burden on its operations in expressing itself and would intimidate membership. Now, some people scoffed at it and said, Well, it's the National Rifle Association talking again.

But what happened?

We have found that the majority listening to the National Rifle Association has created a specific exemption for that group and for others similarly situated, but not for others. That is the crux of the question: Do we have a situation in which now we say not only too big to fail but, for some, too big to file?

It is an affront to the First Amendment, and my hope is that we will not bring this bill to the floor, because, of all things, we should be most protective of the speech of our fellow citizens when they engage in political debate.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard today some comments from our friends on the other side of the aisle about fiscal responsibility and about creating jobs, but the one thing we haven't heard from them is anything about the budget.

If they were from Hollywood, they would be up here saying, ``We don't need no stinkin' budget.'' If they were involved in, oh, Presidential politics a few years ago, they would say, ``Where's the beef? Where's the budget?''

Fiscal responsibility starts with knowing where you are and where you are going. Every family in America adopts a budget, but I guess we are too big to fail. We are too big to create budgets because we can just print money after money after money. The fundamental proposition is, as stated by the chairman of the Budget Committee a couple years ago, if you can't budget, you can't govern.

They've told us they can't budget. They're proving to us they can't govern. The problem is this is not a game; this is not a Hollywood movie; this is real life, and real people are hurting.

Let's get down to the business of helping people by being responsible here, and let's start with a budget. Everybody understands that, perhaps, except the Democratic leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we are setting new records here in this Congress and in this government. We are now approaching, if we haven't already leaped over it, the $14 trillion mark for the national debt.

Fourteen trillion dollars. It doesn't just kind of trip off your tongue. It's a huge number. It's a number that is difficult to contemplate. And yet we sit here, working very diligently on suspension calendar bills, doing virtually nothing about the national debt except adding to it day after day after day.

If you were to have a household income, and you were trying to determine what to do with your debt, it seems to me the first thing you would do is you would adopt a budget. You would adopt a budget to try and figure out your income, your expenses, how much debt you could have. But we have been informed by the majority that we're not even going to start with that this year. We are going to forget about even coming up with a budget, I guess because we're so embarrassed about the numbers that would be in there.

Let's at least do what families do: adopt a budget and then keep it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Fire Chief Steven Foster for his 20 years of service to the Cosumnes Community Services District as he now retires.

The Cosumnes CSD serves an estimated 169,000 south Sacramento County residents in a 157-square mile area. Its award-winning parks and recreation services--including the operation of 83 CSD parks--operate exclusively within the Elk Grove community. It provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the cities of Elk Grove and Galt and unincorporated areas of south Sacramento County.

Foster, in addition to his duties as Cosumnes Fire Chief, has been an officer in the California Fire Chiefs Association and has been serving as chair of its legislative committee this year.

Over the years, Chief Foster became the Fire Marshal and ushered in new fire codes. Rising to the rank of Deputy Fire Chief, he was responsible for the Department budget and guided the purchase of numerous properties for future fire stations, managed the construction of Fire Station 72 in Franklin Reserve, and renovated and expanded Station 74 in Laguna.

Foster is a past President of the Sacramento County Fire Marshals and Fire Chiefs Associations. He also has been active in the Elk Grove Rotary Club.

Steven Foster is on the executive board for the Sacramento Area Fire Chaplaincy. He is a member of the Elk Grove Rotary Club, and is a past president for both the Sacramento County Fire Chiefs Association and Sacramento County Fire Marshals Association.

I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Steven Foster on his retirement for his dedication to our community.