[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 143 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9478-H9484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ONLINE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ACT

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 1606) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of 
public communication.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1606

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Online Freedom of Speech 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

       Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term shall not 
     include communications over the Internet.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren) each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I seek to manage the time allocated for the 
opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California support 
the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will 
control the 20 minutes reserved for the opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).


                             General Leave

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1606.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the advent of the Internet Age has brought about a host 
of new ways for citizens to participate in the political arena. Web 
sites, e-mail, and blogging have provided new avenues for political 
activists to reach out to potential voters, to raise issue awareness, 
to solicit contributions, and to mobilize the get-out-the-vote efforts.
  The Internet has also generated a more widespread flow of news 
information through not only mainstream media sources but also 
independent Web sites and blogs. Most importantly, it has created a 
completely new opportunity for all citizens to exercise their right to 
free speech by opining on the most important issues of the day as they 
see them, as the citizens see them.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all of this activity is actually under 
attack today. When Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance 
Reform Act in 2002, the law apparently was unclear on what impact it 
would have on political speech on the Internet. The Federal Election 
Commission interpreted the law to say that Congress did not intend to 
regulate the Internet when it passed BCRA. The bill's sponsors 
disagreed, and they sued the FEC in the courts.
  A recent appellate court decision will force the FEC to implement a 
rule that would cover Internet communications. If the Congress does not 
act now and make it clear that it does not want the Internet to be 
regulated, the FEC will adopt a new rule to regulate the Internet; and 
by passing H.R. 1606, also known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act, 
Congress can prevent this from happening.
  H.R. 1606, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), 
amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude Internet 
communications from the definition of ``public communication,'' thus 
exempting Web sites, blogs, and online advertisements from Federal 
Elections Commission, FEC, regulation.
  This bill has very, very strong bipartisan support. In testimony 
before the FEC and before the Committee on House Administration, both 
liberal and conservative bloggers expressed their support for this 
exemption. Senate minority leader Reid has introduced a companion bill 
in the U.S. Senate and written to the FEC to express his belief that 
the Internet should not be regulated.
  The regulations proposed by the FEC could limit the ability of online 
activists to talk to campaigns, to give discounts on advertisements, to 
spend money maintaining their site, to link to candidates' sites, to 
advocate the election of a candidate, or to send political e-mails.
  The FEC would potentially grant some bloggers and online publications 
what is known as the ``media exemption,'' which would allow these 
bloggers to operate free of FEC regulation like any standard newspaper 
or news program. However, the rules were very unclear about how the FEC 
would determine who qualified for the exemption. Potentially, the FEC's 
rulings could become content-based restrictions on speech and on free 
speech.
  As we consider this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that 
the Internet is not like traditional forms of media. Unlike television 
and radio, activists do not require large sums of money to post their 
message on the Internet. Also, the number of people reached and the 
success of communication are not directly linked to the amount of money 
that is spent.
  In addition, the Internet is not an invasive medium. In other words, 
the recipients of communication are exposed to the communication only 
after they take deliberate and affirmative steps to find a particular 
Web site. Further, the Internet has generated a surge in grassroots 
involvement in the political process.
  Mr. Speaker, historically, Congress has regulated political speech 
only where it has the potential to cause corruption or the appearance 
of corruption. There has been no demonstration that the growth of the 
Internet has had a corrupting influence on politics. There is, however, 
ample evidence that the Internet has had a positive effect on our 
political system by encouraging young people, a whole new generation of 
people, to get involved in our political process.

                              {time}  1430

  Any Internet regulations would be complicated and difficult for a lay 
person to understand. Bloggers and other online activists should not 
have to worry about accidentally running afoul of campaign finance laws 
when they are expressing their own opinions on the Internet.
  Regulatory proponents claim regulations are necessary to reduce the 
influence of wealthy interests. In fact, Mr. Speaker, these complex 
regulations, if enacted, would actually increase the influence of big 
money and politics, because then only the wealthy could afford to hire 
election attorneys to be certain that they were abiding by these very 
complicated regulations.
  The Committee on House Administration, under Chairman Ney's 
leadership, had a hearing on this topic back last September; and, at 
that hearing, several Members of Congress and of the committee, 
including myself, actually suggested that the Congress needed to step 
into this process to clarify Congress' intent on this issue instead of 
leaving it up to Federal agencies and the court system.
  Congress began this discussion by passing BCRA. By debating and 
voting on this bill today, the House will clarify once and for all its 
intent on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House bill 1606. This 
legislation, under the guise of protecting bloggers, actually undercuts 
the progress made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and reopens the 
floodgates of corrupting soft money in Federal elections.
  I also rise in opposition to this legislation being considered on the 
suspension calendar when it is so clearly a

[[Page H9479]]

controversial matter on which there has never been a committee markup 
for members to offer amendments and, under the rules, we cannot offer 
amendments here today.
  The debate today is about what is the best way to approach 
coordinated expenditures that are campaign-related on the Internet. We 
all understand that the Internet is a wonderful tool for political 
activity. Its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to 
the body politic. I belong to moveon.org. I read my e-mails every time 
they are up. But, by the same token, its increased usage by candidates 
and parties and the increased resources being put into this technology 
for campaign advertising suggest that we need to be cautious about 
attempts to exempt all Internet activity from Federal campaign finance 
laws.
  Let me say a couple of words about bloggers, because bloggers have 
generated and received a lot of attention here. No one wants to 
regulate bloggers, not the campaign finance reformers, not the 
Democrats, not the Republicans, not the Federal Election Commission. 
That is clear. The question is whether to exempt individual speech, as 
I have proposed, or create blanket exemptions for entities as varied as 
labor unions and major corporations who make soft money contributions 
at the behest of candidates, on behalf of candidates, and at the 
direction of candidates.
  That is why The New York Times editorialized yesterday in opposition 
to H.R. 1606, and they argued that the bill uses freedom of speech as a 
fig leaf.
  The issue here is not individual speech. The issue is corrupting soft 
money. The primary constitutional basis for campaign finance regulation 
is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of candidates 
or officeholders. Creating a new way for Members of Congress or the 
Cabinet to solicit and then coordinate or control unlimited amounts of 
soft money is precisely the scenario campaign finance reform banned.
  We are talking about legislators. For example, let us say we had a 
prescription drug bill that was written by the pharmaceutical industry. 
This Congress could pass that bill in the middle of the night, and then 
Members of Congress who passed the bill could actually ask those same 
pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads 
for them to appear on the Internet.
  But let me give another example. What could happen is you could have 
an energy bill, provisions of which were written by the oil and gas 
industry. Let us say a company like Exxon, as a result of it, had the 
highest profits they have ever had, record profits because of gasoline 
prices going out of control. The same people who advocated for that 
energy bill that Exxon supported could go to Exxon and say, could you 
use some of those profits to support my campaign with a massive online 
campaign ad buy.
  This is no minor affair. This is a major unraveling of the law.
  As Senators McCain and Feingold have made clear, this is not free 
speech, this is paid speech, politically paid for with unlimited 
corporate and union contributions.
  It is important to note that the bill under consideration today uses 
the exact same language that the FEC tried and that a Federal court 
struck down. The judge in that case, Colleen Kollar-Kottelly, wrote 
that the provisions would ``permit rampant circumvention of the 
campaign finance laws and foster corruption.'' She went on to say that 
the provision would ``severely undermine'' the campaign finance law. 
Her rulings have gone before the D.C. Court of Appeals twice, and they 
have been upheld.
  Just days ago, a CNN poll found that the American people believe that 
corruption in government is the second most important issue facing this 
Nation after the economy. The American people are tired of the 
scandals.
  We are considering today a bill that flies in the face of public 
concerns about corruption and is likely to create new corruption and 
new scandals. The bill that we are considering will also allow 
political parties to use soft money to pay for Internet ads bashing 
candidates.
  Experience teaches us that professionals who are political will find 
ways to exploit any perceived loopholes. For example, the national 
party soft-money loophole started as a minor blip in the 1980s and 
exploded into a half a billion-dollar binge by the 2000 cycle. 
Corporations and billionaires will be enabled to pay for Internet-
related expenses of requesting candidates or requesting parties, and 
the public will not have a clue where this money comes from, because 
virtually all they will see is the Internet advertising designed and 
created by candidates.
  That is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Common Cause, 
opposed by Public Citizen, opposed by U.S. PIRG, opposed by Democracy 
21, and opposed by the League of Women Voters. That is why The 
Washington Post editorialized this week that this would be carving a 
huge cyber-loophole in the soft money ban. That is why The New York 
Times said yesterday, ``make no mistake about it. This bill is to 
protect political bagmen, not bloggers.''
  In protecting bloggers, we need to approach this the right way, and 
this bill is the wrong way.
  I have introduced a bill with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) called the Internet Anti-Corruption and Free Speech Protection 
Act of 2005. Under this legislation, communications over the Internet 
by individuals on their own Web sites would be treated the same as they 
are in H.R. 1606. But our substitute, which we cannot allow today, we 
are not allowed to present, would not blow open the same gaping 
loophole for paid advertising.
  Unfortunately, because the leadership has chosen to bring this up 
under a suspension of the rules, we are unable to offer our substitute. 
The suspension calendar is for naming post offices and other 
noncontroversial matters. It is not a place to create new loopholes in 
the campaign finance laws. Limiting the democratic process and stifling 
the debate is an unacceptable way to undertake such an important matter 
of public policy. It is wrong to do so. It is unfair. It is an abuse of 
power.
  So why are we rushing through this suspension? I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this suspension so that we might be able to have a full 
debate, including consideration of the Shays-Meehan alternative bill to 
protect bloggers, without creating new avenues for corruption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
respond to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts who referenced 
three editorial boards.
  I think it is important to note that these editorial boards are 
nothing more than paid scribes. They literally make their living by 
using the first amendment. But everyone knows that the Internet has 
negatively affected the cash flow of the institutional print media. It 
is the height of hypocrisy for the print media to use their right to 
free speech to opine against their competition on the Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech 
Act.
  My bill is a simple one. It is only one sentence long. It achieves 
one goal, but that goal is a worthy one: the protection of free speech 
on the Internet.
  Without this legislation, I fear that the cold, callous, and clumsy 
hand of Federal regulation may stifle political speech in cyberspace. 
Recently, we know the Federal judiciary ruled that, absent our 
congressional action, the FEC must regulate this form of speech, even 
though the FEC clearly does not want to. The newest battlefield in the 
fight to protect the first amendment is the Internet. Today, the 
Internet is free from FEC regulation. Clearly, it should remain that 
way.
  The Internet is a marketplace of ideas that welcomes all participants 
on equal footing. It is extremely cheap. In fact, if one has access to 
the Internet at home or a public library, it can be free, absolutely 
free. A Web site's success is driven by the quality of its content, not 
the quantity of funds that are poured into it. It is one of the most 
democratic forms of speech that we know today, and it is an outstanding 
opportunity for all individuals across

[[Page H9480]]

our Nation to participate in our democratic process and impact public 
policy.
  The Internet, Mr. Speaker, is the new town square; and campaign 
finance regulations are not appropriate there. Not only would such 
regulation be a nightmare to administer and enforce, it would place 
complex responsibility on ordinary citizens that would functionally 
restrict their political free speech and violate their first amendment 
rights. Today, thousands and thousands of Americans run blogs that are 
focused on politics, and millions of viewers visit their favorite 
bloggers' Web sites for commentary often not found in the mainstream 
media.
  Without H.R. 1606, I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for 
improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a 
candidate's press release to an e-mail list, and the list goes on. If 
bloggers are compelled to hire lawyers to navigate this complex, gray, 
murky world of Federal regulation, many will simply cease to operate. 
That would only leave the wealthier participants in this blog-osphere 
and undermine public access to information and the chance for smaller 
groups to participate in our democracy in this fashion.
  Those opposing the bill claim that some day, somehow, somewhere, 
there may be corruption. Yet the FEC itself could not see the threat of 
corruption that is present in a ``medium that allows almost limitless, 
inexpensive communication across the broadest cross-section of the 
American population.'' Let those who cry corruption cite examples and 
carry the burden in this debate to abridge the first amendment rights 
of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is a heavy burden to carry.
  In 2002, before I came to this body, Congress passed a sweeping new 
campaign finance law; and, in a rare moment of restraint, nowhere in 
the new law did Congress impose restrictions on the Internet. 
Consequently, the FEC, the entity solely devoted to regulating campaign 
activity, left that promising new technology alone.
  Under the new law, public communications were clearly defined; and, 
just as clearly, the Internet does not appear on this list. Mr. 
Speaker, I am quite certain that Congress was aware of the Internet's 
existence 3 years ago. Indeed, it is mentioned in other parts of the 
legislation.
  So, logically, the FEC declined to regulate public communications 
online, equating the give and take on the Internet to candidate forums 
and rallies and debates that are open to the public. Just like on the 
street corner, people can talk back to a blog by writing their own 
posts or establishing their own sites. How do you talk back to a radio 
ad except with another radio ad that costs perhaps tens of thousands of 
dollars to run? This is very different. Web sites and messages are very 
effective, very democratic, and very affordable tools, a different 
means of communication.
  Despite congressional silence on this matter, in 2004, a Federal 
court instructed the FEC to regulate Internet communications, and that 
process is under way. Because the vast majority of Web sites are 
independently and inexpensively operated, regulatory burdens are going 
to limit the Internet's usefulness as a political forum.
  I am gratified to see the thoughtful and energetic response of the 
blog-osphere to these proposed rules. It is just this type of free 
exchange of opinions that we are trying to protect today. The bottom 
line is that campaign finance laws must enhance, not hinder electoral 
participation; and I should note that campaign blogs and all official 
campaign activities will still be regulated by the FEC after the 
passage of this legislation.
  I am proud that my democratic colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, 
the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has cosponsored 
this bill, signifying that this is truly a bipartisan effort. In the 
other body, the distinguished Senate minority leader has partnered with 
my friend, Senator Coburn, to defend American freedom of speech online 
by introducing this identical language in the other body.
  Over 200 years ago, in this House of Representatives, James Madison 
stated, ``The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right 
to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments.'' Today, Congress 
finds itself debating the very same rights under far more modern 
realities.

                              {time}  1445

  New regulations are not the answer each time a new technology 
emerges. The bipartisan Online Freedom of Speech Act protects the first 
amendment rights of Internet users and prevents the FEC from making 
needless and arbitrary distinctions.
  When the choice is between more regulation and more freedom, we 
should always err on the side of freedom.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who knows and 
understands the rules and procedures of this institution as well as 
anyone who has ever served here.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the irony that we have people here 
defending vigorous open debate and free speech by invoking one of the 
most restrictive procedures of the House of Representatives. 
Apparently, people here believe that James Madison thought that there 
should be free debate except in the Congress of the United States.
  Under the procedure, and people should understand who will be 
monitoring this debate, for many of us the key issue is not the 
substance. Yes, I thing we ought to legislate. It is the outrageous 
high-handed arrogance we have seen now become, unfortunately, second 
nature to the majority, that brings an important bill invoking 
constitutional principles and history and modern technology, and how 
you integrate those, and the question of campaign finance, into the 
most restrictive procedure.
  We have 40 minutes to debate this. No amendments are possible. 
Apparently this is the perfect bill. This must have sprung like Minerva 
from the forehead of Zeus in perfect form, and here it is. God forbid 
that the United States Congress or House of Representatives should be 
able to amend it or change it.
  It will be here. Take it or leave it. And of course the assumption is 
that people who agree that we should not be restricting the free use of 
the Internet will be so intimidated by the fear that if they voted 
``no'' they will be criticized that they will fall in line.
  No, I do not think that works any more. I think the American public 
is smart enough to know that the end does not always justify the means 
and that the irony of purporting to defend free speech by shutting it 
down in the Congress of the United States is too bizarre.
  You want to know how restrictive this is? This procedure allows a 
total of 40 minutes for debate. Is 40 minutes a lot of time? This 
Republican majority has regularly kept roll calls open after debates 
have finished for longer than we get to debate this bill. They will 
spend way more than 40 minutes twisting each other's arms in private, 
rather than allow us to have the debate time.
  What, are we overworked? We are hardly as a Congress overworked. We 
would have plenty of time to debate it. Whatever happened to the notion 
that a bill comes out of committee, and I am a ranking member of a 
committee. I would not allow for my committee, if I could help it, a 
bill to come to the floor where there was substantial opposition under 
suspension of the rules.
  This has nothing to do with the substance. There are issues to be 
debated here. Forty minutes and no debate. The rules are suspended 
because free speech is so important to these supporters that free 
speech must be sacrificed as we get it. They are going to destroy the 
village in order to save it. If someone would explain to me, I would 
yield my time, why we could not have this as a regular bill under 
regular procedure.
  Is there some reason unbeknownst to me that kept us from having this 
as a bill that came to the floor, that people can go to the Rules 
Committee and we could have amendments and we could debate it for more 
than 20 minutes on each side. I would be glad to yield to any advocate 
of free speech who can tell me why it has become inapplicable in this 
bill.
  Well, I have no takers. Apparently, all we get in defense of this is 
free silence. And I will commend my colleagues for having the good 
sense not to try to defend their procedure.

[[Page H9481]]

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, as I recall, it was the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) who thought this would be an appropriate 
procedure to bring it to the floor on suspension. So there was no abuse 
of power. This is strongly supported by both parties. I anticipate it 
will pass today. Otherwise, we will take a rule, and we will do it the 
regular way.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let us 
do that. Let us defeat this now and send it to a rule. The gentleman 
from California's (Mr. Doolittle) idea of a substantive defense is 
maybe a tribute to the gallantry that he continues to exemplify long 
after it may have gone out of fashion. He says the reason this is a 
good idea is that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) 
said so.
  I highly esteem my colleague from California with whom I disagree in 
this case. But the notion that her imprimatur is in itself a 
substantive defense of failing to follow the regular procedure does not 
meet the argument.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I did opine at the 
hearings, since there was complete agreement among all of the Members 
present, that we did not want to regulate the Internet, that we might 
be able to take care of this on the suspension calendar.
  And I never have felt so powerful in the minority as I do today.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, you said 
all of the Members there present. How many were there?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I was the only Democrat 
present.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, how many Republicans?
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not remember.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, so apparently four or five 
Members have been able to do this. I will repeat that we have heard no 
substantive defense of why this came.
  I would agree with what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren) said, sometimes you do not know something is controversial; 
but once you learn that it is, then you have the regular procedure.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am planning to speak in opposition to the 
bill, but I thought that I heard the gentleman say a minute ago that he 
planned to oppose it. Is that correct?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, do I 
oppose it? Yes, I oppose it. Under this procedure I will oppose it. I 
will not support the diminution, the continued reduction of democracy 
in the House.
  And I think, yes, there could be a lot of free speech, but not by 
shutting it down in the House. I will say again, nobody can give us a 
substantive justification of why this is being done this way. Look, 
this involves the Constitution. It involves the complex issues of 
campaign finance regulation. It involves how you take technology and 
how you adapt basic constitutional principles to it, and that is to be 
debated by 20 minutes on each side, and that is to be preformed with no 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a joke. It is self-parody. Let us all defend free 
speech by not having any. I hope that this is voted down and that we 
then can have an appropriate debate under the rules of the House with 
amendments and with full discussion.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
respond to the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we are actually being accused of abuse of power, as I 
understand it, for bringing up the Senate minority leader's companion 
bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, again, invoking one other 
individual does not pass for substantive debate. I am surprised. Do you 
not understand what real argument is?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), who is a distinguished 
member of the House Administration Committee that did ask for us to 
bring this up under suspension.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the procedural objections to this, and 
certainly when I made the suggestion during our hearing that we could 
probably handle this on the suspension, I believed that was the case. 
Obviously, there is more controversy than I had believed at the time.
  But I still believe that this bill is very much worth supporting, and 
I do support this bill. If I believed what the New York Times and the 
Washington Post said, I would indeed be concerned. I was a strong 
supporter of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I signed the 
discharge petition.
  I voted for it. I am glad it passed. I would note, however, that what 
the bill before us does today is really a lot more modest than the 
rhetoric would lead one to believe. It does not repeal section 441(b) 
of the act that prohibits contributions or expenditures by national 
banks, corporations, or labor organizations. And all of the hoo-rah-rah 
about soft money and corporate money, I am sure it is sincere, is 
simply, as a matter of law, incorrect.
  What this bill would do would be to allow communications on the 
Internet to avoid the heavy hand of regulation. And I do believe that 
is important. Today, if a local candidate has a Web page and they 
decide to say something very positive about the election of their 
party's candidate for President, they have a problem under the FEC 
rule.
  And if my Web site, Lofgren for Congress, links to Feinstein for 
Senate, I probably am violating the rules. And there is no need for 
that. We do not want the heavy regulatory load on the Internet, nor do 
we need to do it.
  Under current law, unless we pass this exemption, Daily Chaos, which 
if they call me for a comment on a candidate and it was run on their 
daily Web site within the specified time, we might have an actual 
problem here unless they are entitled to the press exemption. It is not 
clear that they are.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important since the court was not 
sure what our intention was when we passed BCRA that we should make it 
clear that the Internet is not part of the public communications 
covered by the act.
  I do believe that in coming from Silicon Valley, especially so, that 
the ability to use the new technology to promote the viewpoint of 
individuals is essential to the growth of democracy. We have seen ever-
increasing numbers of people participate in elections.
  I think part of the reason for that is the ability to use the 
Internet to communicate. We are concerned, and rightly so, about the 
cost of TV. It costs a huge amount of money to run TV ads. Well, the 
cost to send an e-mail is almost nothing. So the use of the Internet is 
a great democratizer; that is little ``d,'' not big. We need to make 
sure that communications using the Internet are protected.
  Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that what this bill will do would be 
to protect the technology, to protect the Internet itself. It would not 
reduce in any way the prohibitions found in 441(b) any more than a 
corporation could use its funds to buy lawn signs or political signs; 
they could not pay for ads either.
  And so I do think that it is worth noting that for the record I would 
just like to say that in this case the bloggers have got it right. This 
bill will keep the FEC out of the business of regulating political 
speech on the Internet.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a friend of the Internet. In fact, I sponsored 
legislation that would exempt bloggers from FEC legislation.
  But the issue is how we draw the lines to balance. We do not exempt 
the Internet from laws controlling child pornography; we do not allow 
child pornography on the Internet. We do

[[Page H9482]]

not exempt the Internet from consumer safety laws. We do not exempt the 
Internet from intellectual property or copyright laws. We do not 
because we think those laws are important.
  We wrestle with the details of unavoidable and unintended 
consequences. Why do we do the hard work of wading through the details? 
Because why would we do anything else? Why should we disregard the 
integrity of the political process?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1606, the soft money loophole ban. 
Three years ago, Congress spoke: corrupting soft money should not be 
part of the Federal election process. When President Bush signed the 
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, he made unlimited Federal soft 
money donations illegal.
  Democracy was enhanced. Today, however, the House is debating an 
attempt to make soft money legal again. H.R. 1606 would allow 
corporations, labor unions, and wealthy financiers to make unlimited 
soft money donations for campaign ads on the Internet coordinated by 
candidates.
  Bloggers should be free to write whatever they want about candidates 
for office. But if this bill passes, the public will have no idea 
whether or not Internet campaign ads are being financed by secret soft 
money.
  Why is this bill on the suspension calendar? Americans are frustrated 
by the majority's corrupt habits of ramming through legislation in the 
middle of the night without an opportunity to read or amend proposed 
legislation.
  Today, the majority is pushing through a bill that would enable 
monied interests to regain undue influence on Federal elections. The 
bill should be considered through regular order with consideration of 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, the better way is the bill that the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) have proposed.
  Mr. Speaker, that should be an amendment to this bill on the floor. 
It cannot be under this procedure. This bill should be defeated.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I know the theme of the minority is the 
Republicans abuse power and they are corrupt; but I think this example 
is absolutely ludicrous, given that it was recommended by a prominent 
Democrat member of the House Administration Committee who happens to 
support the legislation.
  And she prudently recommended it because at the time it seemed like 
it was a relatively noncontroversial idea, supported by most of us. I 
would venture to guess that the outcome will be just as she assumed, 
that it will pass by the two-thirds vote required.

                              {time}  1500

  I just cannot sit here and listen to this recitation when it is so 
unfair, given the facts of this particular case.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is clear, ``Congress shall make no law 
abridging the freedom of speech.'' Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme 
Court ruled to the contrary that, in this instance, in political speech 
Congress may abridge the freedom of speech and it may do so under the 
guise of preventing corruption or the appearance thereof in campaign 
activities. I disagree with that decision, but the Supreme Court has 
spoken for now, so we must live with it.
  I am grateful to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who at 
least feel, as concerns the Internet, that there are compelling policy 
reasons why that should not be subject to this kind of regulation. 
Heaven help the average American if they fall under a regulation 
similar to what any candidate must now undergo for Federal office 
because that would basically mean that you would have to check with 
your accountant and check with your attorney before you engage in the 
Internet communication that might at all be perhaps close to whatever 
the line would be. In other words, it would have a chilling impact on 
people's exercise of what we believe should be their free speech 
rights.
  This rise of the Internet is one of the greatest democratic, with a 
small d, trends the world has ever known. Anybody with access to a 
computer can communicate throughout the world his or her views. Why 
would we seek to regulate such an activity and to place this chilling 
impact out there?
  I commend, by the way, the FEC. They correctly decided not to 
regulate the Internet. Unfortunately, the big government campaign 
reformers found that intolerable, filed suit in Federal court and were 
vindicated with the judge ruling that, indeed, the law required the FEC 
to regulate. In the absence of our passing this kind of legislation, 
the Internet will be regulated.
  Mr. Speaker, we must put an end to this now before it spreads out of 
control. Please vote yes for the Hensarling bill. I am so grateful the 
gentleman introduced it, and I commend him for it. Please support 
freedom of speech. The Online Freedom of Speech Act is what this 
legislation is called.
  Now is the time to draw a clean, clear, bright line and say if you 
are engaging in speech over the Internet you do not have to check with 
your lawyer or your accountant. You are a free American, and you have 
the opportunity to engage in free speech over the Internet. Vote yes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I can appreciate the gentleman from California's consistency. He was 
opposed to campaign finance reform. On the floor, he said he was 
opposed to any limit. He would just as soon have no limits at all on 
any campaign finance. He thinks corporations should give.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the bill. We passed a bipartisan campaign 
finance reform act 3 or 4 years ago to close huge loopholes in campaign 
spending, including the soft money loophole. Now the Internet is 
becoming an increasingly important medium for campaign spending and 
advocacy. According to some surveys, 37 percent of the adult population 
and 61 percent of Americans use the Internet to determine how they 
would vote in an election.
  Now I do agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that, 
had this bill gone through the regular order, we probably could have 
worked out some compromises that would have protected the rights of 
individuals and bloggers and so forth, but we do not have that ability 
at this point, so it is either an up or down vote on a complete 
exemption.
  In the absence of this compromise, we have to depend on the FEC for 
regulation. Because if we do not and if this bill passes, we will in 
effect have an exemption to BCRA that will allow for unlimited 
advertising and advocacy over the Internet.
  I do not believe that bloggers or individuals will ever be fined by 
the Federal Election Commission. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this bill when it comes up later today.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a strong supporter of campaign finance reform.
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1606 and ask us to 
come back with a procedure that will permit the Shays-Meehan 
alternative.
  This bill opens a huge loophole in the campaign finance laws. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and others have been bulldogs 
in moving us toward a more perfect democratic union by keeping 
government of and by the people, not of and by some of the people and 
by special interests; and this act would not add protections of freedom 
of speech on the blogosphere as it is purported to do. Rather, it would 
bring large amounts of money back into deciding who can buy the largest 
microphone in a Federal campaign.
  It will smother, not enhance, the voices of true grassroots 
movements.

[[Page H9483]]

This would compromise not only the blogs it purports to help, it runs a 
great risk of harming the political procedure. There are too many 
questions raised by this. The procedure circumvents open debate.
  All of us believe that bloggers should not be subjected to 
censorship. I myself am an occasional guest blogger on political Web 
sites. Bloggers, like traditional journalists, should be able to 
communicate with their audience without any fear of violating FEC 
regulations. However, this legislation is not ready for prime time.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it and come back with a procedure that 
will permit the Shays-Meehan alternative.
  Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has been a courageous hero in the fight for 
campaign finance reform.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1606, the 
Online Freedom of Information Act. This controversial bill purports to 
protect the freedom of speech of Internet bloggers but instead creates 
a major Internet loophole for soft money in our Federal campaign 
finance laws. These are exactly the soft money expenditures the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1992, BCRA, sought to prohibit.
  Internet advertising should be no exception and ought to conform to 
the same rules as those governing other media. H.R. 1606 is the wrong 
way to address the issue of bloggers and will only lead to new 
corrupting soft money scandals and campaigns. The Internet has 
increasingly and rightly been used as a powerful political tool in 
recent elections, but it is negligent that we would permit it to be a 
safe haven from our campaign finance laws.
  Under H.R. 1606, House members and other federal candidates would be 
permitted to control the spending of soft money--provided by 
corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals--to buy Internet 
advertisements to support their campaigns. State political parties 
would also be allowed to spend soft money on Internet advertising to 
attack and promote federal candidates. And, these contributions would 
never be disclosed in campaign finance records.
  If the Congress is really concerned with protecting Internet 
bloggers, I urge consideration of legislation introduced yesterday by 
my colleagues Representatives Shays and Meehan, which reaffirms that 
bloggers communicating on their websites are not covered by campaign 
finance laws without allowing Members of Congress and other federal 
candidates to use corrupting soft money to support their campaigns.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the 
Online Freedom of Speech Act.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in this time when a cloud of scandal hangs over 
Washington, when the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United 
States has been indicted for perjury, making false statements, when a 
top White House official is led away in handcuffs, indicted on charges 
of making false statements related to an investigation of his dealing 
with lobbyists, at a time when a top Republican lobbyist and fundraiser 
has been indicted for fraud, when that investigation is the subject of 
a Department of Justice investigation, and today over in the other body 
there is a hearing going on looking into possible other misdealings, at 
a time when the American people have indicated that they are fed up 
with scandals, how can this House support a bill that would open up new 
avenues for corruption to enter the political process?
  The courts have clearly argued that the reason why you can limit 
campaign contributions is because of corruption and the appearance of 
corruption. Why would we take a step backwards from campaign finance 
reform and open up a loophole so big that you could drive a truck 
through it?
  Finally, I keep hearing Senator Reid's name mentioned here. I want to 
assure you of something. If the Senate brings up this bill, they will 
get more than 20 minutes a side to discuss it. They will discuss it for 
as long as it needs to be discussed. That is what we should have done 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I spent 8 years of my life as the Michigan Secretary of 
State. That was a job where I had a principal responsibility as the 
chief elections officer of that State. During that time, we made 
constant attempts to increase voter participation and voter turn-out, 
particularly among young people. And I believe this bill does that.
  Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for the right of freedom of speech and 
for the first amendment. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606, the 
so-called Online Freedom of Speech Act. The legislation will exempt the 
Internet from campaign finance laws, thus opening up a major loophole 
for unlimited union dues money, corporate treasury money and large 
individual donations to once again corrupt federal elections.
  I understand that many web loggers are concerned that somehow 
campaign finance law will restrict their speech, and I believe allowing 
bloggers the assurance that they will not be so burdened is something 
that we can ensure. Unfortunately, H.R. 1606 goes far beyond exempting 
bloggers and allows federal candidates and political parties to again 
make use of soft money in federal campaigns.
  That is why Marty Meehan and I introduced legislation that would 
preserve the soft money ban and protect bloggers from unnecessary 
regulation. Because H.R. 1606 was considered under suspension of the 
rules, though, we were not allowed to offer this alternative approach. 
That is why we must defeat this bill.
  If this law were to pass, a member of Congress could simply go to a 
large donor, corporation or union and control their spending of $1 
million in soft money to pay for political advertising all over the 
Internet.
  This is precisely the type of behavior prevented when Congress passed 
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. By all accounts, the law is 
working--despite concerns about the law being the death knell of the 
parties, the parties were strengthened as they raised more in hard 
money in 2004 than they raised in hard and soft money combined in 2002 
and greatly expanded their donor base.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1606 and oppose the 
return of corrupting soft money to our political process.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud 
cosponsor of H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which is 
bipartisan and bicameral legislation offered by my colleagues, Mr. 
Hensarling and Mr. Wynn, as well as the Minority Leader of the other 
body. That's across the aisle support we don't see often enough these 
days.
  This bill is designed to protect the free speech rights of Americans 
whose only alleged crime is wanting to use the Internet to express 
their opinions. These individuals find themselves in jeopardy because 
an activist court decided to radically expand the meaning of a law 
beyond what Congress intended. The Court decided that the FEC, the 
agency in charge of regulating our election laws, was in error when it 
decided it did not have the authority to require the regulation of free 
speech on the Internet.
  As a result of this ruling, all computer users and bloggers now stand 
to see their first amendment rights thrown out in the name of 
``freedom''. The ruling effectively says that individuals have fewer 
free speech rights than giant media corporations that pay people to 
offer their opinions. Using this twisted logic, large newspapers and 
media companies oppose this bill because they fear the competition 
bloggers pose to them. I disagree with the mainstream media elites at 
the Washington Post and the New York Times who seem to think that an 
unregulated media is dangerous, unless it is them who are being 
regulated.
  What is disturbing and dangerous to me, and to the constituents I 
represent in this House, is the ease with which so many advocate 
government regulation of speech.
  Mr. Speaker, bloggers don't have to spend millions of dollars on 
printing presses, nor do they have to invest in TV or radio broadcast 
towers. They are able to share their opinions and ideas free of charge 
on the most powerful tool of free speech the world has ever known.
  Bloggers are everyday citizens. They are our neighbors, friends, and 
coworkers who want to be able to share their ideas without asking 
permission from a gatekeeper in the mainstream media and certainly not 
from a government official. They are the historical descendants of 
Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine and other pamphleteers who 
contributed enormously to our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I read a children's book called House Mouse Senate Mouse 
to school children across my district, to try to help them understand 
the government that we will one day to turn over to their care. It 
shocks me that

[[Page H9484]]

these schoolchildren have a better understanding of the meaning of the 
freedom of speech than some federal judges.
  Mr. Speaker, we are trying to spread a message of hope, opportunity, 
and freedom around the world. I support this legislation so that we 
don't lose the ability to have that message shared among the American 
people.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1606, 
legislation that will exempt blogs, e-mail and other online speech from 
campaign finance laws.
  When Congress passed campaign finance reform in 2002, the legislation 
did not identify political speech over the Internet as a target of the 
new regulations. The proponents of the law argued its intent was to 
restrict money not speech. But in April a federal judge sided with 
campaign finance reform zealots and ruled the FEC cannot completely 
exempt online speech from the requirements of the Campaign Finance 
Reform law.
  I'm not here to revisit arguments for or against campaign finance 
reform.
  I'm here today to call for Congress to recognize the Internet as a 
safe harbor for political speech.
  Everyday thousands of bloggers register displeasure or support with 
Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, even their local elected 
officials.
  But now, we are on the cusp of a new FEC regulation that could stifle 
free expression.
  Without Congressional action today, arbitrary restrictions would be 
imposed on blogs and other web content deterring participation from the 
very segment of our population that we want to encourage to be 
politically active.
  Thomas Jefferson was right when he said: ``The basis of our 
government being the opinion of the people, the very first object 
should be to keep that right.''
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will protect, in its infancy, what 
could be a powerful medium (or media) for the opinion of the people to 
be heard.
  The way our Nation communicates today is almost unrecognizable for 
those of us that were in Washington, DC during the 1970s.
  We have seen the innovation and democratization of the Internet in 
just the last decade. This legislation will promote democracy and 
shutter those who intend to manage through regulation this amazing 
engine of communication and knowledge.
  The Internet, through such safe havens of individual expression and 
opinion like blogs, has put the power in the hands of the people, where 
it truly belongs, precisely where Thomas Jefferson wanted it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for introducing this important 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1606.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________