On the recordJune 10, 1998
Oh, I am sorry. I just did not realize the gentleman was taking the seventh inning stretch so early in the evening. What we are talking about here is a recognition that this bill cannot be assailed on its merits, so we have, and here is what they have done: First of all, they bring forward a constitutional amendment that they have not allowed to have a subcommittee markup or a committee markup. It had a hearing over a year ago, but, no, went further on that, and we have not had that process of debate and discussion that refines procedures. If, in fact, people try to bring this to the floor without subcommittee markup, people would be yelling at it. Secondly, the inaccurate claim was made that because you are for a constitutional amendment in a certain area, you must think no legislating is possible. And the gentleman confuses the issue of soft money. Buckley clearly says you can limit contributions. The ban on soft money here is a ban on contributions. Maybe a later Supreme Court might say no to it. I must say also I am further impressed by this. This Congress voted for the Communications Decency Act as part of the Telecommunications Act. It was defeated 9 to 0 in the Supreme Court. By the way, the people of constitutional knowledge who were surprised that the Supreme Court did that was quite slender. That did not stop Members from voting against it. That is another new-found trait of the gentleman from Texas.
Source
govinfo.gov




