Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

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. How much time does each side have, Mr. Chair?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So if I would say 5 seconds, it would be 5 seconds rather than if I had said 1 minute; is that correct?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is that amount of time deducted from the side which grants the speaker the 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, 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 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

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. 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.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. 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.