Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5825, Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5825, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MODERNIZATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 28, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we dealt with the issues of torture and military tribunals under a closed rule. No amendments allowed. Today we deal with the issue of domestic spying, also under a closed rule.
Never mind that there are profound constitutional issues at stake. This Republican leadership has decided it is more important to debate suspension bills than matters that could likely undermine the most sacred rights of our people.
This bill authorizes more warrantless surveillance of American citizens than Congress has ever authorized in American history. And if this rule passes, it will be debated on the House floor for an hour and a half.
The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. Today, the Republican leadership found time on the floor to rename post offices and to congratulate Little League teams, but it cannot find the time to thoughtfully debate this far-reaching bill. This Congress has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all.
After hours of testimony in the Rules Committee this afternoon listening to both Republicans and Democrats, offering thoughtful amendments and substitutes, the Republican majority on the Rules Committee said ``no'' to every single one of them.
During the Rules Committee meeting, I asked the Republican authors of this bill whether or not they would be open to considering thoughtful amendments and substitutes. They said it was up to the Rules Committee, that they did not really have an opinion.
No opinion, Mr. Speaker? No opinion on whether Members who believe there should be judicial oversight on domestic spying should have the right to offer an amendment? No opinion on whether or not a bipartisan substitute should be made in order? No opinion? Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the House floor, as the distinguished gentleman from Florida pointed out, the Chairman of the Rules Committee defended his decision to not allow Democrats to offer thoughtful amendments to the torture bill. He said that we should have offered a substitute instead.
So, today, Democrats and Republicans attempted to offer a full bipartisan substitute to this domestic spying bill, but the Rules Committee refused to make that in order, too. How do you defend that, Mr. Speaker? How do you look Members of your own party in the eye and say your ideas do not matter?
If the Republican leadership does not agree with the bipartisan substitute, then they should defeat it on the House floor after a full and open debate. Instead, they cower behind procedural tricks, parliamentary sleight of hand and closed rules. No wonder the American people are disgusted with Congress.
Let me speak for a moment to my friends on the other side of the aisle. No matter what our policy differences, I would like to think that we all think democracy is a good thing. I would like to think that we all want good legislation to come out of this House. I am sad to say that I am having a hard time thinking that anymore.
If my Republican friends want this trend of closed rules, of no amendments, of no democracy in the House to continue, then by all means vote for this rule. Just go along to get along.
But if you believe, as I do, that the monopoly on good ideas is not held by a few members of the leadership in a closed room, then vote ``no.'' Have the guts to vote ``no.''
Thoughtful Republican amendments are routinely shut out by the Rules Committee, including here on this bill. The only way to bring this trend to an end is to start defeating closed rules and to demand more openness in this House of Representatives. If you continue to reward bad behavior, then bad behavior is what you will continue to get.
Let us put a stop to this nonsense. Let us stop diminishing this House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov