« Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas | Main | Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. »
November 03, 2005BELTWAY BLOGROLL
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Excerpts from the Congressional Record, Nov. 2, 2005
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.
For many of us, the key issue is not the substance. (Yes, I think 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 [and] 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.
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? Let us defeat this now and send it to a rule. Under this procedure I will oppose it. I will not support the diminution, the continued reduction of democracy in the House.
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 performed with no amendments.
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.
Posted by | 12:41 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/309
