[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12565-12569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  BARRING POLITICAL SPENDING BY LOBBYISTS WHOSE CLIENTS INCLUDE STATE 
                         SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5609) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
prohibit any registered lobbyist whose clients include foreign 
governments which are found to be sponsors of international terrorism 
or include other foreign nationals from making contributions and other 
campaign-related disbursements in elections for public office, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5609

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF STATE 
                   SPONSORS OF TERRORISM.

       The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 27. PROHIBITING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF STATE 
                   SPONSORS OF TERRORISM.

       ``No person may perform lobbying activities on behalf of a 
     client which is a country the government of which the 
     Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of section 
     6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued 
     in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, 
     section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any 
     other provision of law, is a government that has repeatedly 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman please state his inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. My parliamentary inquiry is 
this: I understand that we are dealing with H.R. 5609, and I have, just 
20 minutes ago, been given the copy of H.R. 5609, which, in every 
respect, after the introduction, is different from the 5609 that we 
were prepared to speak on just 20 minutes ago.
  My question is, under the rules of the House, is it appropriate to 
completely remove the text of the bill that we were prepared to deal 
with and exchange it for an entirely new language which refers to new 
sections of the U.S. Code of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, where 
the original 5609 referred to another section of the code?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill in an amended form.

[[Page 12566]]


  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. State the parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. According to the copy of the 
bill that I have, 5609, it says that this bill is referred to the 
Committee on House Administration. If it is referred to the Committee 
on House Administration, how is that on this floor it is now being 
brought forward by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is not 
a member of the Committee on House Administration?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has entertained a motion from the 
gentleman from Michigan to suspend the rules.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That motion now before us, if adopted, would 
discharge any committee of referral.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. State the parliamentary inquiry, please.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So, as I understand what the 
Speaker is telling me, this request for consent to bring this to the 
floor at this time would have the effect of discharging the committee 
of jurisdiction, that is, the Committee of House Administration, and 
bring it directly to the floor to be handled now by another committee, 
the Committee on the Judiciary. Is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion, if adopted, would discharge the 
committee of referral.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. State the parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it under the rules, or is it 
customary interpretation under the rules, that the minority receive a 
copy of the bill to be brought to the floor at some time before 20 
minutes before it's brought to the floor?
  Is there no requirement for notice of the actual contents of the bill 
to be considered, even under a request such as has been made by the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A motion that the House suspend the rules 
may convey an amendment, and five copies of the amendment are at the 
desk.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Under the rules of the House, a motion such as made by the gentleman 
to suspend the rules in effect suspends all rules, including rules that 
would govern the language of the bill as introduced and as given to the 
minority yesterday and up until 20 minutes ago.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This motion will be adopted if approved by 
two-thirds of the House.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. State your parliamentary inquiry, please.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, is there anything--I note that the custom 
of the minority is to give about 3 minutes notice on motions to 
recommit. Is there anything under the rule requiring the minority to 
give more notice than that of 3 minutes on a motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot at this time entertain that 
inquiry as a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, could I ask for regular order? We have 
had, I don't know how many--this could go on all night if the gentleman 
is just opposed to campaign finance reform.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan may proceed.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. CONYERS. No one disrespects the sincerity and abilities of my 
friend from California, who has raised these questions.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise their remarks and include extraneous 
materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, 1 week ago the House passed 
historic campaign finance reform that was designed to curb improper 
corporate and foreign influences on the American electoral system. 
Everybody in this House is in support of the attempts of this committee 
and the House Administration Committee to accomplish this aim, to rein 
in, to eliminate improper corporate and foreign influences on the 
American electoral system. There is not a Member in this House that is 
not in support of that. So this bill hones in on the most toxic foreign 
influences, countries whose governments the Secretary of State has 
determined sponsor terrorism.
  H.R. 5609 amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to prevent any country 
specifically designated as a state sponsor of terrorism from hiring a 
lobbyist in an attempt to influence the laws and policies of the United 
States of America. By their actions, these states have forfeited many 
privileges of doing business in the United States. The business of 
government should be no different. We should not allow states that 
sponsor terrorism to be able to hire lobbyists to influence our 
lawmakers and our laws.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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

[[Page 12567]]

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. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, I want to applaud the parliamentary wisdom of the 
distinguished gentleman from California, who supports the matter that 
is before the House, but he has very pointedly pointed out that the 
process, the procedure has not been appropriate from his point of view.

                              {time}  1630

  As he knows, we had a hearing on the constitutionality of Citizens 
United on February 3, 2010. But I concede to him and apologize that 
there was no markup, and I hope that that will assuage the gentleman's 
very particular objection to the process here.
  Now, of course, some of the excellent points that he has raised 
really go to the rules of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS: I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  If we are going to go into this detail and the gentleman has 
presented an able case here during this debate, I think that we ought 
to--and I would like to join with him in examining the rules of the 
House of Representatives which would have to obviously go through some 
revision to satisfy the many points that my friend from California has 
raised.
  With that, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the author of this 
measure, and it is Mr. John Hall of New York, the original sponsor of 
the bill, whom I commend very much.
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the chairman.
  I rise today to urge strong support for H.R. 5609, which will ban 
lobbying for countries that are state sponsors of terrorism.
  Last week, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act, a bill I cosponsored. 
This bill is a big step forward in undoing the damage done by the 
Supreme Court in their recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. It will 
shine some light on corporate campaign spending by requiring the 
sponsors of political ads to disclose their identity, much as we 
candidates for Congress have to stand by the ads that we fund.
  Importantly, the DISCLOSE Act includes provisions I fought for to 
keep corporate money from overseas out of U.S. elections. After all, 
Madam Speaker and Mr. Chairman, do we want companies like BP choosing 
our candidates for Congress or companies from Saudi Arabia deciding 
U.S. foreign policy? I don't think so.
  The bill we are considering today is a natural extension of the 
DISCLOSE Act. H.R. 5609 guards against a potential loophole that 
hostile foreign governments may use to try to influence our government. 
By hiring a lobbyist in the United States, a government like Iran could 
potentially influence U.S. foreign policy, a danger with potentially 
disastrous consequences. And this, Madam Speaker, is a risk we cannot 
afford to take.
  I think we can all agree, regardless of political party, that 
American elections must be decided by American voters and U.S. policy 
must be decided by the U.S. Government.
  I would also add that this provision is much tougher than the 
minority's motion to recommit. That motion would have only banned 
certain activities by lobbyists for states that sponsor terrorism. This 
bill bars such lobbying altogether.
  And secondly, the motion to recommit was clearly unconstitutional and 
destined to be struck down. The minority's proposal would have allowed 
the government to prohibit an American citizen from making campaign 
contributions or independent expenditures on his or her own behalf on 
the basis of a business contract. This would have clearly violated the 
First Amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS: I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HALL of New York. In contrast, H.R. 5609 is constitutional. These 
foreign countries have no First Amendment rights.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5609.
  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

[[Page 12568]]

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.

                              {time}  1640

  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. HALL of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would just comment that I certainly don't have the 
experience or the legal knowledge of my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, so far be it for me to get into the fine points of 
constitutionality or rules of the House; but I suspect that when the 
other side of the aisle was in the majority, they may have made some 
last-minute changes in bills like this.
  Be that as it may, the minority side's motion to recommit last week 
included partisan provisions, which seemed to make it a ``gotcha'' vote 
to try to ensnare Members of the majority, including the provision that 
the chairman mentioned of prohibiting individual American citizens from 
making contributions. This is more narrowly tailored, more 
constitutionally sound, and ultimately stronger than that motion to 
recommit. It simply prevents terrorist nations from having roles in 
U.S. policy. It should be an easy ``yes'' vote for both sides.
  If there is a problem in saying that we have moved it too quickly, I 
would apologize. I would thank the gentleman from California for the 
ideas that he had, some of which are in this piece of legislation, and 
I would say that we should all agree that moving quickly on this cause 
is a good thing. The faster we can stop foreign terrorist nations from 
buying their way into our political system, the better.
  In closing, I would just urge strong support for this bill, saying 
that we can't afford to let a hostile government have any control over 
U.S. policy, directly or indirectly. So I urge my colleagues to vote 
for this critical bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).
  Mr. McMAHON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5609, which I 
am proud to offer together with and to follow the lead of my colleague 
from the great Hudson River Valley of New York, Mr. John Hall, to amend 
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 in order to prohibit lobbying 
by foreign governments that are on the United States Department of 
State's ``State Sponsors of Terrorism'' list.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, for his eloquent explanation in defense of this bill as we 
have gotten it here on the floor this afternoon.
  As I have listened to the equally eloquent and feisty arguments from 
the gentleman from California, who is in apparent opposition, I cannot 
make the legal argument, but certainly, Shakespeare would have said, 
``He doest protest too much.''
  That being said, currently four countries are on the State 
Department's ``State Sponsors of Terrorism'' list--Cuba, Iran, Sudan, 
and Syria.
  In Cuba, close to 12 million people live in one of the few remaining 
purely Communist countries in the world, the only one in our 
hemisphere--one without human rights and without democracy. They are 
limited by the Castro government in their jobs, education, even in what 
appliances they can buy, and where they can live.
  Iran is a theocracy which continues on a disastrous path to enrich 
uranium in order to create a nuclear weapon. Their intransigence 
against international inspectors threatens Israel, Europe and the 
United States. Dissenters of the government are routinely killed, 
minorities are jailed, and people are afraid to speak out. Iran 
threatens United States' interests and any progress to make Iran or 
Iraq a stable and civil society.
  Sudan is a country that has been in a protracted civil war between 
the Animist and Christian south and the Muslim north. The Darfur region 
of Sudan has seen a humanitarian disaster--killing millions and placing 
Muslims against Muslims as the world has stood helpless. Sudan is a 
state sponsor of terrorism against its own people.
  Finally, Syria, a country which continues to threaten our strongest 
and most reliable ally in the Middle East--Israel. Syria has fueled 
civil war in Lebanon through their support of Hezbollah, has had a 
direct implication in the assassination of Lebanese Prime

[[Page 12569]]

Minister Rafiq Hariri, and they continue to support Hamas in Gaza. I 
represent over 50,000 Syrian Jewish refugees who have fled the anti-
democratic country of Syria to build better lives in the United States.
  This bill only affects people registered to represent one of these 
foreign governments on the ``State Sponsors of Terrorism'' list, not 
companies which are doing business in those countries.
  I urge my colleagues, irrespective of the course that this bill took 
to get on the floor, to support this legislation and to stop the 
ability of any country on the ``State Sponsors of Terrorism'' list from 
directly or indirectly influencing our Congress.
  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.

                              {time}  1650

  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. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5609, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam 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.

                          ____________________