mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. meehan ) xz4002690 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 . 
