Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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--

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would extend 1 minute of my time to the gentleman from Michigan, who I understand needs more time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, then I would ask, if it's a matter of custom, when did the custom change from 1 minute to 10 seconds?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, let's start with 1 minute and we'll see where we go from there.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I certainly am, in its current form.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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----

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.