Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I take to the floor at this time to talk about an issue that is of the utmost importance to this country, one that I have worked on for several decades, and one that has an urgency to it that cannot be denied, and that is the issue of immigration. It is a multifaceted issue, one that has a number of subtexts to it but, nonetheless, is one that will not be confronted. The challenges will not be met unless or until we recognize the problem or the challenges as they truly exist. And what I mean by that is this: immigration, in all its aspects, is a part of the heritage of this country. Immigration is one of the cornerstones of this Nation. It has been said--and I think it is true-- that this is a Nation of immigrants. And what that means is that most of us, with the exception of those who are Native Americans, trace our ancestry to some foreign country, some foreign shore. The rate of immigration has gone up and down over the two-plus centuries of the existence of this country. It has varied in terms of where the greatest numbers come from over the centuries. It has resulted from and has been altered by decisions made by previous Congresses and Presidents in terms of the laws that prevail with respect to immigration. But the fact of the matter is that we now are facing a question of immigration policy that has not, in fact, worked for some period of time to the extent that is necessary. There are several aspects of it, as I mentioned before. One is the area of legal immigration. This country has a glorious history in terms of inviting and accepting and embracing peoples from all over the world. I think I can say without contradiction that this country has had the most open policy with respect to immigration over the years of any country in the world. We had restrictions at times, some that, as we look back now, appear to have been at least misguided. We have had some discriminatory practices in the past with respect to people from certain parts of the world, certain parts of Asia at times. There was, in fact, a bias, if you will, towards Europe, and particularly Western Europe, over a number of years. But in the 1960s, there was a decision made in this country by way of our laws that moved us towards a worldwide quota system, meaning that the chances for peoples around the world were to be in some ways viewed as equal, meaning that we did not have a bias towards Europe, we did not have a bias towards some other part of the world. The idea was that we would try and make our immigration policy work such that someone who wished to come to the United States from a country in Africa or a country in Asia would have a similar chance as existed for someone in Europe. So that was a major change in our overall policy. When I came to Congress in 1979, that was essentially where we were, but we also realized that there had been a lack of enforcement of the laws with respect to legal immigration such that we had a significant number of people who had come to the United States without the benefit of papers, or to say it another way, who had come into this country illegally or had overstayed their legal status in this country and were now here illegally. One of the consequences of a lack of proper enforcement, one of the consequences of having large-scale immigration is that it overrides, in a significant way, the law that would look out and say no matter where you are from in the world, you would have approximately an equal chance of coming to the United States. And if you had illegal immigration from particular areas of the country, that would, in a sense, create a bias under the practice, if not the actual law, for that part of the world. We found, interestingly enough, that the largest number of people who had come to this country or were in this country without proper documentation came from Central and South America, the largest number of them from a single country, that is Mexico, which is not altogether surprising when you realize we have a common border with Mexico that ranges from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific coast and is approximately 1,960 miles long. If you have visited it, if you have traveled along its entire length as I did back in the early 1980s as a member of the Immigration Subcommittee, you will find the topography such that it is difficult at times to actually have a border that is marked and a border that is controlled. Nonetheless, that does not excuse us for not exercising the control that we should have. Because of the fact that we had this dilemma of a large number of people who had come to this country illegally and at the same time we're attempting to enforce the law such that a worldwide quota system would still, in fact, be worked, in the 1980s there was an effort to try and reform our immigration laws. I was a part of that as a member of the Immigration Subcommittee. We were, as Republicans, the minority at the time. So as the top Republican on the subcommittee, I was not the chairman. I was, in fact, the ranking member. I am pleased to say that at that time I had a great working relationship with the then-chairman of the subcommittee, Ron Mazzoli, a Democrat from Louisville, Kentucky. Perhaps the fact that we both were graduates from the University of Notre Dame and shared an affinity for our alma mater assisted us in working closely together. And also, consequently, there had been a bipartisan commission established in the first instance by President Carter and continued on by President Ronald Reagan. It was cochaired by Father Theodore Hesburgh, the former President of the University of Notre Dame, a person much admired and someone that I had known for most of my life and Ron Mazzoli had known, as well. In a very interesting way, we worked together acknowledging the proper roles of the commission and the Congress and shared information, and I think we shared the same hope that we could come up with legislation that would reform our laws. In 1984, we passed an immigration reform law here in the House of Representatives, and there was a similar law passed in the United States Senate. There was a call for a conference. And in a practice that is somewhat different from what you observe today in the Congress, at least for the last several Congresses, at that time you actually had a physical conference where you had Members from the Senate and the House representing those two sides of the Capitol meeting in public session attempting to try and work out a conference report. I recall meeting in a large room where the table, as it was set up in a rectangular fashion, was very large to accommodate all of the Members of the House and all the Members of the Senate who were there attempting to try and deal with the issue, and our staffs assisting us. We spent, I think, actually an entire month in conference attempting to work out a conference report. We were unsuccessful. We came back in 1985 in the new Congress and began working both in the Senate and the House. At that time, the common name of the bill changed from Simpson-Rodino to Simpson-Mazzoli, recognizing the tremendous effort made by the chairman of the subcommittee, Ron Mazzoli. And I recall being at this position on the floor of the House, when this was the minority leadership table, being the Republican floor manager of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. We spent well over a week on the floor debating. As I recall, we had well over 200 amendments that were in order, most of which actually got debate on the floor of the House. And there was consideration of some issues within the overall issue of immigration reform that I think went from liberal to conservative, from issues of legal immigration to illegal immigration, agricultural work, seasonal workers. Just about everything was considered on this floor in almost totally open debate. I was proud to be a part of that debate. I was proud to have garnered the sufficient number of votes on the Republican side to join with those on the Democratic side so that we passed that bill. We went to conference. We completed action on that. We sent the bill to the President. I can recall driving back to the residence I had here in this area on an afternoon when I was listening to the radio and hearing the report that the White House had announced that President Reagan was going to sign the bill. I almost drove off the road at that time. I recall that I had worked with the administration but that it was not a perfect bill--I've never found a perfect bill here--and there were many naysayers. So you were never sure until the President made the decision that he would sign it, and I was pleased to be at the White House when the President signed that bill. It was a true compromise. It did result in the largest legalization that we'd ever had in the United States. I don't believe it was total amnesty--I would reject that notion--but it was, in fact, a legalization. The genius of that compromise was that there would be legalization on the one hand and that there would be enhanced enforcement going forward on the other. If one would look at the reports of illegal immigration that followed the signing of that bill into law by President Ronald Reagan, one would see an interesting thing: the numbers coming across our southern border dramatically dropped immediately after that law was passed. In large measure, it was because of the widely held belief that, in fact, we would enforce the law, that there was enhanced enforcement, and that we were going to be serious about it. I haven't looked at those numbers in a long time, but it seems to me, as I recall, that for a period of, maybe, 12 to 18 months we saw a significant drop in illegal migration into this country. Then it became evident that enforcement was going to be slow, if at all. The fact of the matter is that there was not enforcement. There was not enhanced enforcement as there wasn't enforcement. There wasn't a serious effort. That was a combined result of a failure to follow through on the part of the Congresses and the administrations. As a result, after a significant drop for a short period of time following the passage of and the signing into law of Simpson-Mazzoli, we saw a ratcheting up of illegal immigration into this country. That was in 1986. Fast-forward to the present time. We have had the result of that ratcheting up of illegal immigration into this country. We have had a situation in which, since people saw that we weren't going to enforce the law, there was an encouragement, in essence, to come to this country in any way one could. There was, as the sociologists called it, the magnet that caused people to come to this country or invited people to come to this country or attracted people to come to this country; and that magnet, otherwise known by sociologists as the ``pull factor,'' was called the prospect of jobs. I had argued on the floor of this House back in the 1980s that, in fact, we had to recognize the reality of the reliance of American agriculture on foreign workers to a significant degree. Now, I'd come from the Southwest. I'd come from southern California. I had seen that close up. I had gone to the fields. I had seen the conditions in which people would live just for the possibility of coming to the United States for a job. Since we--the people through our government--didn't control it in a fashion in which the government actually determined the number of jobs that would be available, determined who would come in, how long they would stay, under what circumstances they would work, and in what areas of the country they would work, it happened anyway, without any controls whatsoever, and the problem was exacerbated. One of the fundamental changes I've seen or differences that I've observed in being in the Congress these last 8 years, as opposed to the 10 years I was from '79 to '89, is that the problem, as I saw it in the Southwest, is not nearly confined to the Southwest now; it is, in fact, a national problem. You will find the presence of those who are here illegally who are working in agriculture all over this country. You'll see the increase in seasonal work because you'll see the increase in the demand for ``local produce,'' for locally grown crops. As you see that, you see the demand for seasonal agricultural workers expanding to other parts of the country, and we don't control it. We don't have a workable system. Some people say, well, we have the guest worker program under the Labor Department, the H-2A program. It, frankly, doesn't work. It works for about 4 percent of the agricultural industry in the United States. I say that as someone who helped draft the legislation as a part of Simpson-Mazzoli, not because that's what I thought was the best we could do, but that it was the best that was able to be accomplished in any legislation that was going forward. So we now are confronted with a situation in which we have had large-scale illegal immigration into this country after the passage of Simpson- Mazzoli and the failure to implement the enforcement side of that. We also are confronted with the question of legal immigration and the fact that, right now, I believe, we set aside too many visas for those folks who have particular skills that we believe might help this country at the present time. I'm not in any way denigrating unskilled workers, and I'm not in any way denigrating those people who come to this country without skills and then develop them once they're here. Our history is replete with those who have accomplished great things in having come to this country with nothing more than a desire to do well, a commitment to hard work, and using the intelligence and the other skill capacities given them by God. I do say it makes no sense when we have a situation in which we take peoples from around the world who come to this country because we have the greatest colleges in the world and who develop expertise in science, technology, engineering, mathematics--and in areas that might have an immediate impact on some of the most important growth industries as we look to the future--and we say to them, if you get your degree here, you've got to go to your home country for several years and then apply to come back to this country in order to work here but that Canada will allow you in right away or that many other countries will allow you in right away; or go back to your home country and, thereby, compete with the United States' economy amidst emerging economic growth in your home country. I saw this very, very closely at hand when I saw one of our major technology companies actually build a plant just over the border in Canada, utilizing a core of those people who had graduated from American colleges, who had come from foreign countries, and who were immediately accepted into Canada. Then Canada was able to build a workforce of about 1,000 people around a core of probably no more than 100 people who would have been required to go back to their home countries from the United States. They basically said, Hey, you don't have to go there. You can come to Canada--and we lost the potential for 1,000 jobs going right across the border because of a policy which doesn't fully understand the appropriateness of our matching up with those people who have particular skills and wish to stay in this country after they've been trained in this country: their skills and our needs. Now, we did vote on the STEM Act here this past week, which was one attempt at dealing with that question, but it was only one attempt at dealing with that question. In some ways, in my judgment, the changes we need to make in legal immigration have been--I don't know if I'd use the term ``held hostage,'' but they certainly have been put on the back burner because of the desire for us to deal with a true problem that is more prominent, and that is illegal immigration. So why am I talking about this? Well, I'm not going to have the chance to work on this after January 2. While I devoutly desired the opportunity to do that, there has been a decision made otherwise. I still have the passion for dealing with this issue, because I think it's so important to this Nation. I think it goes to the identity of this country, and I think it goes to the future of this country. I reject the notion that we either have to be a Nation of immigrants or a Nation of laws. I think we can be both a Nation that welcomes immigrants and a Nation of laws. I think we have to understand that there is nothing wrong with this country as a sovereign Nation making decisions with respect to immigration law that are in the best interest of America. Sometimes I think when we're talking about international law, we're talking about international relations, and we're talking about the work of the United Nations, and we're talking about working with other people in the world; and we lose sight of the fact that the first obligation of the Federal Government is to have the interest of the people of this country at heart, that the obligation of the State Department, for instance, is to represent the national interest of the United States. And so I make no apologies for the United States asserting that it has a right to make decisions in the area of immigration that are in the best interest of the United States. I guess the tough question is what is in the best interest of the United States. Again, I would say it is to show that we can be both a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws. So I refrain from using the phrase ``comprehensive immigration reform'' because that has become a watchword or a watch-phrase for amnesty, and I understand that. I avoid using the term ``pathway to citizenship'' for those who have been here illegally because that, in fact, is defined as amnesty--and for good reason, in many circumstances. But I do think we have to apply a multifaceted response to a multifaceted challenge or problem. So, first, in order to gain the confidence of the American people, we have to admit that when we did the last major immigration reform, and we've had some bills since then, but I'm talking about the major immigration reform Simpson-Mazzoli, we did fail to implement the enforcement side of things. The American people understand that. They think they were shortchanged; I think they were shortchanged. We have to admit that readily. That is part of the context in which we have to deal with the issue; and I think we have to, therefore, accept it, acknowledge it, and learn from those mistakes. So we need to have a commitment towards enforcement. We need to have borders that are controlled, not just because of the issue of immigration or illegal immigration, but because of the threat in a period of asymmetric warfare or an asymmetric threat where those who are committed to do us harm are not just nation states but maybe transnational terrorist organizations or maybe those that have been known as lone wolves who are incited by, inspired by, and committed to the values that have been expressed by those terrorist organizations who spread their venom around the world seeing who might be attracted to it. And if, in fact, you have a situation like that, you ought to be even more cautious than before about those entering into this country with terrorist thoughts and terrorist desires against this country. So for any number of reasons, we need to have a commitment to controlling our borders, number one; and, number two, we have to acknowledge that one of the magnets, or one of the pull factors, causing people to come to the United States or inviting people to come to the United States is the prospect of employment that does not consider the legal status of those who seek that employment. And so that's why I think an E-verify system or something very much like that has to be a part of what we do. Third, we have to acknowledge that in the area of agriculture, there is a proven need for foreign workers. People can argue about it, but I would just say look at the example of the State of California, my home State. We've seen that for well over 100 years we've relied greatly on foreign workers for agriculture. They've been legal or illegal depending on whether or not we've had a program. I have for many years looked back at the bracero program to see both its positives and its negatives. Its positives were basically categorized as a government-sponsored, regulated program that allowed people to come into this country to seek work in the area of agriculture and give them legal status while they did. That's the positive. The negatives are that in many ways there weren't protections for the workers and because one who came under the bracero program was tied to a specific employer, if he or she had a complaint about that particular employer, they often found themselves back in their home country before they ever had any adjudication of that complaint. So I think you have to devise a program that would determine the number of people that come here, determine under what circumstances they come here, determine in what areas of the country they can be here, but in a sense allow them to be free players in a free market that is defined by the job, that is, agriculture. And particularly because of the seasonal-worker nature of much of agriculture that they engage in, allow them to go from employer to employer. There are enforcement mechanisms that can be put in place to ensure that they stay in agriculture, and there are significant penalties that you can apply if they fail to get a job or get a job in agriculture. One of the things that I've had as part of any proposal that I've presented is that you take the amount of money that would go into Social Security, the employer and the employee contribution, and that goes into a fund that first is responsible for paying for the administration of the program so there's no burden to the taxpayer. Secondly, that money would go into a fund that would pay for any cost incurred by local jurisdictions for emergency medical care that was rendered to those individuals. And, third, that which would be remaining would go into a fund that would--that is for the contribution by the employer and the employee for that particular individual--be dedicated to that individual but would be redeemable only if they returned to their home country and were physically present there. If they weren't during the period of time they were supposed to be home, they would not have that fund. That money would be forfeited. If they did, they would be able to redeem that money back in their home country. My idea would be that they would be able to work in this country for 10 months out of any calendar year, and they'd be able to go back and forth during that period of time. One of the things that we have discovered is that as we've increased our ability to enforce our control of the border, if someone successfully gets across the border to work in the United States, they now have a great incentive not to return home for fear they won't be able to make it back. So in a very perverse way, the very success of our increased enforcement has made it more likely that they will stay here permanently rather than return home. So we need to develop a program that is based on the facts as they exist. And participation in the program doesn't put them on the road to citizenship. It doesn't grant them any rights with respect to citizenship or permanent resident status. It is a temporary worker program. I do not think that other industries have proven the case that they need those kinds of foreign workers. I really don't. In terms of construction, for goodness sake, why do we have the high unemployment rate among African Americans in this country and among Hispanics who are here legally in this country when the construction trade is a great trade to learn, is a wonderful way to be able to earn one's living, and has an opportunity for people to move from just someone working at the job site up to learning their trade and becoming a contractor or subcontractor in some ways. So I would not suggest that we expand the Guest Worker Program that I'm suggesting beyond agriculture, but I do believe it is appropriate in the area of agriculture. Probably the most difficult thing to deal with in this entire arena is the question of those who have been here for a substantial period of time in illegal status, illegal immigrants who have been here for a long period of time, those that have put down roots in the community. There are those that say, look, the best way to do this is just take care of the problem by putting them on the road to citizenship. And there are those who have suggested things such as voluntary departure or enforcement of some other mechanism. And while I appreciate the sincerity and the thinking that goes into both those positions, my belief, after being involved in this for over 30 years, is that neither one of those positions is going to ultimately succeed. So what do we do? In baseball we have something, when a ball is pitched to the batter the batter wants to get the wood on the ball. He wants to hit it in the sweet spot, right? He wants to be able to maximize the energy that is generated by his swing against the ball. And one of the best ways to do that is to hit that sweet spot in the bat. So I've been looking for the sweet spot on this issue. Some people call it the midway; some people call it the compromise. I call it the sweet spot. It seems to me that we could do this. And I've proposed this in legislation, and I would hope that at least it would be considered in the next Congress by those who will remain. And the idea is that you would identify those individuals who've been here for a significant amount of time. And of course that's up to a decision by the future Congresses as to what that time is. Is it 5 years? Is it 10 years? I mean, what is it? But I think you'd have to establish what characteristics of roots in the community would identify these individuals. Certainly you wouldn't grant this to someone who just got into the country yesterday or last week, I don't think, because I think that would then encourage further illegal immigration in the future. People say, hey, look, they make it fairly easy, they're going to do it down the line. So you have to understand about the consequences of the impact on those who are looking at it from afar, as well as those who are immediately impacted. So you first determine what the period of time would be that would establish them as people who have roots in the community. Secondly, I think you have to make sure that they haven't committed crimes of another nature, the crime of coming into this country, remaining in this country illegally, but not any other crimes. And people say, well, gee, it might be this crime or that crime. Well, you know, that's a consequence of your action. I think this would be for those people who have not committed other crimes in this country. It seems to me there ought to be a requirement that they know English or are engaged in the study of English. Why do I say that? I'm not opposed to foreign languages. I wish I knew some foreign languages. I have enough trouble with English. But if we are a country of immigrants, as we profess to be, and as we are, I believe, you have to have some unifying, identifying characteristics that bring you together. One is the sense of the understanding of the civil institutions we have. But certainly, one is the manner in which we express ourselves. So a common language, I think, is particularly important to a country of immigrants. It brings us together. It allows communication. It allows us to come together as a community, without giving up or in any way disparaging our heritage. So I would have that as the second requirement. Third, it seems to me, there ought to be a requirement for a study of some of those civil institutions of our society. There should be an understanding of what the essence of the democratic institutions are because people coming from other countries have other traditions, other systems. I'm reminded of this, when we had large-scale refugee numbers coming into this country. I was a young attorney in southern California. I remember going down to Camp Pendleton with other attorneys and volunteering our time to teach those in the refugee community, and that was one of the places that they first came in California, to Camp Pendleton, before they then found sponsors and came to other parts of our country and the state. Giving them simple instructions in the law, and the way the courts worked, and what your rights were. Fairly elementary, but nonetheless, necessary. And it was indelibly impressed on me that some of the things we do in our system are not immediately apparent, and people from different backgrounds, different cultures, different countries may not appreciate it. If they are coming here, one of the great things about this country is assimilation. And so that's why I would require a study of civil institutions, and our governmental structure among them, for those individuals. Next, people talk about a particular fine, and I don't know what that number would be, but I understand that to be appropriate. Now, under those circumstances, what would I say they have? Would they go to permanent resident status? No. I would create a new category of legal status in this country called a blue card or red card, whatever you want to call it, in which they would, for a period of time, maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, but they could repeat it, they could re-up this. During that period of time they would have legal status in the United States. They could work in the United States, live in the United States, go to school in the United States, but they would not be on the road to citizenship. In order to do that, they would have to have a touch-back in their home country, and they would get in line behind everybody else. Now, why do I think that's important? I think at the base of the objection to amnesty, as I understand it, is this idea that it is unfair to cut in line. If you're a kid and you're at school and you're waiting in line to get a drink of water, you're waiting in line to go to the bathroom, you're waiting in line to get your lunch, and you see somebody cut in line, you immediately know that's not fair. We all know that's not fair to cut in line. So why should someone who didn't follow the law cut in line in front of those who have waited in their own country for their opportunity to come to the United States? So my sweet spot in this particular argument would be that, while you have an ability to remain in the United States, in order to get on the path to citizenship, and not give you an advantage over somebody else from your home country, you must touch back in your home country and you must get in line behind everybody else who followed the law. I think that is an approach that at least ought to be considered. I'd hoped to be here in the next Congress to be able to raise that and to fight for it and to see how others would view it, but I won't have that opportunity. I hope to be on the outside, and whatever I do, to have a chance to continue to influence the debate, following whatever the lobbying rules are. I know I can't directly lobby, but hopefully, as an American citizen I can talk about those issues in that first year, and I can talk about why it's important for us as a country. And yes, I've said in our own conference, it's important for us as a party, my party, the Republican Party. We have to understand the dynamics that are involved there. I've seen it happen in my home State. I've seen what the political implications are, and I think we ought to pay attention to them. But, beyond that, far more important than that, far more fundamental than that is the fact that this country has to confront this issue in a reasonable fashion, in an intelligent fashion, and in a fashion that improves the state of this country. So I know there are men and women of goodwill in this House and in the Senate who will and can work together. I would make a humble request of the President of the United States, that he toss aside partisanship, and that he join those Members in the Congress and those of us who will be in the public, out in the public, in an effort to try and deal with this issue. With all due respect, when the President of the United States went down--I think it was to El Paso--a couple of years ago and said Republicans want to build a fence, and then they want to build a moat, and they want to put alligators in it, that is hardly an invitation to cooperate. That image, in and of itself, when you realize the history of the Rio Grande, and when you realize the history of people coming across the Rio Grande to this country, that image is devastating. It does not open people's hearts to the possibility of reaching a compromise. It drives people away. And so my hope would be that the President would, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, work with those who are in the House and the Senate to try and come up with a compromise that deals with the issues of this day under the grand rubric of immigration, and that, putting aside partisanship and political advantage, work in good faith with Members of the House and Senate to accomplish this task. And I would ask this: that those in this House and those in the Senate and those in the administration under the direction of the President begin working on this early, not late. If the work is done early, as we did in 1985, the chances of being able to actually accomplish a completed legislative vehicle and have it on the President's desk for signature are greatly enhanced. Don't wait until it's campaign year politics and certainly don't wait until it's the next Presidential election year for politics. Try and work on it now. This country is lesser for the fact that we haven't dealt with an issue of this importance. This country is lesser for the fact that we have all the tensions that exist as a result of a failure of the law to respond to the realities of the time. And we put ourselves in a conundrum where, in just one instance, I would cite men and women in the farm community in my home State of California who have farmed for generations and have seen the reality of the labor market for agriculture--our men and women who are patriotic and love this country and want to follow the law, who in fact would support an E-Verify system which would allow them the certainty of having legal workers but who on the other hand recognize the need for foreign workers--these people would be put into a no-win situation, a catch-22, where on the one hand they would be forced to follow the letter of the law, knowing that they would not have the workers that would allow them to continue in the generation's old farming business that they have or, on the other hand, as patriotic Americans in their own way, nonetheless be forced to break the law in order to retain their livelihood. That's unacceptable. That is shortsighted. That is self-defeating. And it is something that we should not allow. Now it's easy to get up here and do a Special Order and talk about how I would solve the problem. It's much more difficult to have a completed solution to a problem. And I understand that. I in no way suggest that this is easy or it will come quickly. But I do believe we have men and women of goodwill, of patriotic hearts, who can and are prepared to work on this issue. And I would hope that the President of the United States, now almost in his second term, would understand the seriousness of the issue, the immenseness of the challenge facing us, and would understand that in the best interest of the United States it would behoove us to work together to solve the problem. I'm not sure what I'm going to do be doing in the next year, but I do know that I want to be involved in the debate, and hopefully I can applaud my colleagues that remain here as they succeed in dealing with this very difficult problem. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for listening to me and I encourage my colleagues to deal with this issue in the spirit of goodwill that I know they have. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on 9/11, I was in the city and, therefore, was an eyewitness to the impact of the attack on the United States in the Capital City. I had a friend who was on the airplane that was crashed into the Pentagon. There was a gentleman who was a partner in the law firm that I had just joined who was on that airplane. A young man who had attended school with my children and his family had worshiped at the same Catholic church was on the level hit by the first airplane in the Twin Towers. And understanding the nature of the attack against the United States, at that time, I felt a strong urging to once again be involved in public service. And that was the genesis of my decision, when the opportunity presented itself several years later, to return to this body. That was the compelling reason. I was privileged to be appointed to the permanent Homeland Security Committee, and I was privileged to serve as chairman of one of the subcommittees; and since that time, I have been privileged to continue to serve on that committee as well as to serve on the House Judiciary Committee where we had responsibility for, among other things, the PATRIOT Act and FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, both of which were, in my judgment--and are, in my judgment--essential to our response to the threat that existed at the time of their creation and the threat that remains. One of the ironies of my service is that I am elected from a district in Sacramento County, California, nearly 3,000 miles from the site of the attack in New York and the attack here in Washington, D.C. And while we have had a plot to blow up L.A. airport that was thwarted by tremendous work by a Federal employee on our northwestern border, it has been somewhat difficult to articulate in sufficient terms the threat that remains to us, as a Nation, to my constituency. But those in California are not alone in their failure to understand the urgency of the moment. I think we, as a Nation, have, as a result of the successes that we have achieved in our defense of this Nation, allowed ourselves some level of complacency and a misapprehension of the danger that remains. When I served in the Congress in my first tour of service from January of 1979 to January of 1989, I for several years was a member of the House Intelligence Committee. At that time, the phrase ``homeland security'' or the word ``homeland'' was never uttered. If you had uttered it then, it would have a foreign sense to it. Protect the homeland, wasn't that what Hitler was talking about? There was a strange notion to that term. It, of course, began to be used in normal parlance after 9/11. And now it regularly trips off our tongues, ``homeland security,'' ``the Committee on Homeland Security,'' ``the defense of the homeland,'' because we understand that the nature of the war in which we are presently engaged is very different than the wars that we have engaged in in the past. Those were wars of territorial conquest. Those were wars where you could gauge success or failure by the amount of territory that you had taken, by the number of people who had died, by the men and armaments that were proceeding into battle. And in some ways, you could anticipate the success or failure by the location of the troops, by the array of weapons. Today we're facing a very different threat. In addition to fighting the war that has gone on in the Middle East--with our men and women in uniform performing bravely and as well as any that we have ever had--we are now dealing with an enemy that is not defined as a nation-state solely, is not defined as a physical army moving to our shores but is in many ways engaged in the essence of asymmetric warfare. That is, not pitting one military force against a military force, one grouping of military equipment versus another but, rather, the essence of asymmetric warfare in attempting to create psychological more than physical damage but physical damage if they may do so. On 9/11, we suffered tremendous physical damage. We lost over 3,000 people. We saw one of the symbols of American capitalism destroyed, one of the symbols of American free enterprise, one of the symbols of one of America's greatest cities. We also saw an attack on the Pentagon. It didn't destroy the Pentagon. It didn't cause the number of casualties you would see in a major battle, although every life lost was a tragedy; but it was a psychological blow to the United States. It was in some ways the foundational principle of terrorism. How do you exact the greatest amount of terror, a lack of confidence, a fear in a people, particularly in the civilian population, while doing what would be, relatively speaking, a small amount of damage? I don't want to diminish the amount of physical damage that was done, but relative to the scenes that we have seen from World War II for destruction of entire cities, for destruction of buildings and infrastructure that existed not for years, not for decades, but for centuries. Yet, the threat is as great as the threats we have faced before. Within the context of this war of terror, as opposed to the war on terror, because the war is really against those who would destroy us utilizing terror, I don't think you should define a war as against the tactics used by the enemy. You have to define the enemy. We've had some difficulty in doing that in part because of political correctness, but an essential part of this war on terror is found in the world of cyber. That's what I would like to address this evening for a few moments, cybersecurity. I think one of the great failings of this Congress and one of the things that I regret having not accomplished before I leave this House in several weeks is our successful addressing of the threat we find in the world of cyber. The cyberworld is difficult to grasp because you can't smell it, you can't feel it, you can't touch it, and you can't hear it. Yet it is embedded in virtually everything we do. If you would look at the world of computers, the world of technology, the world of connectivity of those things, and the wireless world--that is a term that needs to be defined, and we don't have the full time to talk about that because wireless means partly wireless instrumentalities and partly wired instrumentalities and partly cables, which are utilized to spread what started may end as wireless communications to distant lands. Nonetheless, because you can't physically see it in most instances, it is not readily apparent that it is there. While the essence of this new computerized technology-connected world allows us to do things we never dreamed of doing before, and while that enhances our standard of living and permits us to be able to receive goods and services and specific essential communications instantaneously from far away places, it also creates tremendous vulnerabilities. To the extent that you are connected, you're also vulnerable. To the extent that you rely on that connectivity to be able to send control decisions to distant places, you also create a vulnerability along that pathway; you create a vulnerability for someone who might be able to capture that control. And as you understand the place that the cyberworld plays in our critical infrastructure, that which gives us the guts of the underpinnings of our standard of living--power, electricity, water, just to name a few--you understand if someone controls those or interferes with those or sends off false messages on those, the world as we know changes. And if those who control in that way by hacking, by intervention, by malware, if they are successful, they change our standard of living tremendously, and not for the better. What do we have to do? In the first instance, we have to recognize the problem. In this body, we've not recognized that problem. In the Senate, they have not recognized that problem. With all due respect, even though I work very closely with the administration, it hasn't been priority enough. The public doesn't understand it or appreciate it in part because it is not a politically sexy thing to talk about. I grew up in southern California where a news director many years ago coined the phrase ``if it bleeds, it leads,'' meaning we will put it on TV if you can find a car crash. You find somebody bleeding somewhere, we'll put it on TV long before we'll put some good that someone has done on TV. Cybersecurity doesn't bleed until someone invades it, someone captures it. One of the remarkable things that happened over the last couple of years was something called Stuxnet, S-t-u-x-n-e-t. Stuxnet is an example of--I'll call it malware or a virus or whatever you want to call it. It was an intrusion into an already-existing IT system, the Iranian Government's system that they utilized for purposes of developing their nuclear weapons systems. At least that is what is suggested in the public press. According to the public press, whatever this was that was interjected there laid dormant for a period of time, gave off false signals that everything was okay to those who were operating the system, and then at some period of time carried out commands that were contrary to the integrity of the system, causing, as reported in public articles, the centrifuges in their nuclear system to basically destroy themselves. Why is that important? It was the first example we've seen publicly of a physical destruction of a system. I would call that in the nature of critical infrastructure as a result of a cyberattack. We've seen suggestions of other such things. Whoever did that, thank God they seemed to be on our side. But now the genie is out of the bottle. And if it were done by those who are friends of ours, what would happen if people captured it that were not friends of ours? Now that it has been done successfully, evidently they know it can be done. So you can have people who try and reverse engineer it, or you can have people just start from ground zero saying, look, it has been done, let us now theoretically determine how it was done and how we can do it. My point is once it has happened, we should understand that there are those who want to destroy us that will use it against us. Let me ask a question, and that would be: What would happen if someone introduced malware or viruses into several of the major medical or health systems in this Nation? If you went to the hospital and instead of you having accurately recorded what your blood is, you had another blood type and you're going to need a blood transfusion during that surgery, what if they were able to change the indications you have for indications or the contraindications that you have so you would be subjected to medicines that were not, in fact, good for you? What if that happened in a couple of major health systems in this country in different parts of the country? Would that be a psychological attack on the Nation if we shook the confidence people had in the system? What if they were able to invade a financial services operation so that your account could not be verified and someone else's account couldn't be verified? What if, in fact, they controlled some of the systems that deal with our trains so that trains would be colliding rather than missing one another? What if they controlled the critical infrastructure that we call our water systems or our electricity delivery systems? I mean, these are real questions. What do we need to do? We need to understand that it's going to require cooperation and a collaboration between the public sector and the private sector. Look, I'm a small-government guy. I believe in limited government. I also believe that the limited government we have ought to work, that it ought to be robust. In my judgment, the Federal Government has a responsibility in the area of cybersecurity; and we have been, in some ways, not facing up to that. This administration and the previous administration have done some tremendous work in advancing the cause-- Congress has examined it; we've held hearings; we've put forth some proposals--but we haven't had a completed project. We need to do a number of things, it seems to me. Number one, we need to make sure that we understand that, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, the entry point for the private sector ought not to be NSA, because it's part of the military. It ought to be DHS. Some people say, I didn't like DHS. Well, DHS exists. It has for a decade. It has gotten more robust. It has gotten much, much better in terms of its competency in the area of cybersecurity. We ought to build on that. We ought to have that as the entry point so that we don't have a violation of what we know as posse comitatus, or the idea of civilian control over the military. NSA is unbelievably good. They're the best in the world at what they do, but we've got to make sure that there is the proper relationship. I think the previous administration and this administration have established the means of doing that, but it ought not to be the idiosyncratic answer by one administration to another. It ought to be institutionalized so we know that that's the permanent structure and that people can rely on it. Secondly, we need to create a platform of trust and confidence and experience between the public sector and the private sector to be able to utilize the information that comes to one or the other. What do I mean by that? When the Federal Government learns about cyberattacks that are taking place in one place, they ought to be able to give that information to other elements of the private sector on an immediate basis so they can protect themselves against that. At the same time, we ought to set up a platform to establish that confidence so that the private sector will feel better about giving their information to the government so that they can help them protect against that attack and let others know that that attack might be there. That comes with experience. That comes with trust and confidence that can only be established over time, and we need to have a structure that allows that to happen. I produced legislation to do that. Unfortunately, it never reached the floor of the House of Representatives for reasons I won't go into, but the fact of the matter is that we still need to do that. You can say you want to build trust by establishing something, but you have to have it established. You have to have people there. They have to understand one another. They have to work with one another. They have to gain that trust. That takes time. We need to do it immediately. We need to have some sort of means by which we work with the private sector that involves itself in critical infrastructure in such a way that the impact of a failure of that piece of infrastructure to the public will be protected against. Let me give you a simple example. This was an example that I paraphrased from former Secretary Chertoff. Let's say you are a piece of the critical infrastructure and that you realize that a failure will cause $1 billion worth of damage to your company, but that the impact on society may be $50 billion. The delta between $50 billion and $1 billion is one that has to be, in some ways, dealt with in terms of that relationship between the Federal Government and the private sector; and we haven't figured that out yet. My way of doing it was to create a voluntary program by which you would have different elements of our economy deal with DHS, with the support of others, coming up with what would be best business practices. Then, if those best business practices were adopted by those within that element of the economy, they would get liability protection, liability immunity. Now, some say, wait a second. That leads to the slippery slope, and the Federal Government is going to come in with a crash on you. Look, I don't know the perfect answer, but I was trying to find the lightest regulatory touch we could have. If those who are worried about the Federal Government becoming too heavy handed are truly concerned about that, they ought to think about this: if we have a successful cyberattack against a part of our critical infrastructure, my fear is that Congress and whoever is President at the time will overreact because the public will require it. Wouldn't it be better for us to anticipate it? Wouldn't it be better for us to get ahead of the crisis and then have a means by which we defend against it? We know we're not ever going to be totally, 100 percent successful; so when it happens, we should diminish the impact on whatever part of critical infrastructure we have. Third, mitigate against the damage when it occurs; and, fourth, be available to rebuild, respond and have the services available to the public sooner rather than later. I had hoped to be here another 2 years to work on that--I will not be--but I will be on the outside, wherever I am and in whatever I do, urging this Congress to look this issue squarely in the face and to do something about it. I am absolutely convinced, as Secretary Panetta said, that one of the greatest threats to this Nation is a cyber-Pearl Harbor, and the potential of that is greater because the capacity to strike against the country is more diffuse than ever before. The capital investment for a successful cyberattack is much less than the capital investment needed for weapons of mass destruction. We ought to understand it, and we ought to understand that sooner rather than later. Cybersecurity ought to be an issue on the front burner of this Congress going forward. There ought to be an effort for the administration and the Congress--Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal--to work for the good of this Nation. I can think of no external threat that is greater than the threat of cyberwarfare. As I leave this place, I don't know if I'd call it a confession, but it is an admission of mine that we have not done all we've needed to do. I'm not blaming anybody. In the aftermath of 9/11, the first thing we had to do was to try and protect against a similar attack. We have strengthened our air travel in this country. We have strengthened our security against an attack to our ports. We have strengthened our ability to protect against a terrorist attack on our chemical facilities, although we still need to do more there. We have protected our transportation systems to a greater extent than existed before. We have greater cooperation and coordination among all levels of law enforcement. There is a greater level of respect among the private sector parts and the public sector; but cybersecurity remains, in my judgment, the lagging indicator and the lagging response. I would hope that partisanship would be thrown aside. I would hope that fear of the government--although I understand that well and I've been a proponent of that--of an overly sized government and an overly strong government will be tempered in the sense that we understand the threat to all of us and to our standard of living in so many different ways is real and that, right now, we have the greatest minds working on cyber. The last thought is this: if any young person is looking for a job or a career for the rest of his or her life, start training in the area of cybersecurity. We need to do more in terms of our educational programs. We need to do more in terms of our training. China is training a lot more people in cybersecurity than we are. It's not just because they have a larger population; it's because they're dedicated to it. We could lose our edge if we don't do that. So I would ask this Congress going forward and I would ask this administration going forward to put cybersecurity at the front of the line, not at the back of the line, in terms of training our people, educating our young people, identifying this as a career path for so many of them, making the commitment in our government in terms of the budget that is necessary, but also in terms of that spirit of cooperation and collaboration that must exist between the private sector and the public sector. We are at risk. There is a real and present danger out there. We have the capacity to respond to it. We have the ability to be the best in the world at this. We have the ability to protect ourselves better than any other country in the world, and we will if we will turn our face towards the problem rather than away from the problem. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. It is my hope that this country recognizes the threat, deals with the threat, and successfully looks to the future for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It was 24 years ago that I left this House, I went to the LA Coliseum, I saw Notre Dame beat SC, and then I went on to see them win the national championship. Last Saturday, I went to the LA Coliseum, and I saw Notre Dame beat SC. In 6 weeks, I'm going to go to the national championship game and see Notre Dame win again. I don't know whether I'll have another 24 years, however.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield for just one moment?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank my friend for yielding, and I must say that I very much appreciate the time that he has taken to recognize those of us who are leaving this institution who hail from the State of California. Twenty-four years ago, in 1988, I stood on this floor during this month to say good-bye to the House for the first time. I was privileged to be elected in 1978, just before Ronald Reagan came to Washington, D.C. I was proud to be one of the first seven Members of Congress to endorse him for President in 1979 and to travel with him at that time. I recall that whenever he was campaigning east of the Mississippi, he asked those of us Members of Congress who supported him to attend his political press conferences with him. What we would do is basically stand behind him and use ourselves as a backdrop to show that Ronald Reagan had some connection with Washington, D.C. It was a proud moment for me. It was even a greater experience for me to serve for 8 years in the Congress while he was President of the United States. He, in fact, showed that you can change a country and you can change a world through the power of your ideas. It was wonderful to be a foot soldier in the army of Ronald Reagan as we transformed this House, as we transformed this Congress, as we transformed this Nation, and as we allowed liberty to ring much louder than it had before. One of my proudest moments in the House of Representatives is being a member of the House Administration Committee that accepted the statue of Ronald Reagan from the State of California to be one of the two official statues here in the House Chamber. I was privileged to write the legislation which officially accepted it. If you look at that legislation, it permanently places the Ronald Reagan statue in the rotunda of the United States. So it will take a positive vote of the Congress to ever remove it. That is probably appropriate. When people look at that statue of Ronald Reagan, they should see the crack along the base, and those cracks are there because that is a piece of the Berlin Wall with Ronald Reagan standing above it. Our belief at the time was that this would allow for generations in the future, children in the future, when they're accompanied by their parents, to ask their parents why they would put a statue here honoring a President that's cracked at its base, and it will allow those parents and others to explain to those children the story of the defeat of communism and the victory of freedom. For 10 years, I was able to work here in the House. I went home 2 years later and ran for attorney general. I was lucky enough to be attorney general of California for 8 years. Following an unsuccessful attempt to be Governor, I thought that I was finished with public service, but I happened to be here in Washington, D.C. on 9/11. I happened to be one of those not here in the Capitol, but in an office building downtown, one of those which was evacuated. We stood on the street corner for hours until we were allowed back in the building. I recall that while it was a terrifying moment, it was a unifying moment because people that you didn't know, black, white, Hispanic, and Asian, were all coming up to one another and asking who was attacking us. It was a threat, but it was also unifying in that we felt they were attacking us. It didn't matter what our color was. It didn't matter what our religious belief happened to be. It was that we were all Americans. I was joining a law firm at the time, and I was going to have an office here in Washington, D.C., and I had the copies of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights that had been made off the original copies and given to those of us as Members of Congress on the bicentennial of the Constitution. After I went back to the office, I got a hammer and some nails, and I tacked it up to the wall because I was trying to make a statement that no matter who it was that was attacking this Nation and us, they weren't going to succeed and they weren't going to destroy this country and they weren't going to destroy this constitutional democracy. I vowed at that time if I had the opportunity, I would seek public office again to see if I could add something to the fight against terrorism. So I've been privileged to be a member of the Homeland Security Committee for 8 years, and I've been privileged to be a member of the Judiciary Committee where we've worked on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and we worked on other acts that were extremely important like the PATRIOT Act, where on the one hand we ensured that the civil liberties of this country would not be trampled upon, but we also ensured that this Nation would not be destroyed by those who wish us ill and wish to destroy us. I've been privileged to serve as chairman of the House Administration Committee and served before that as the ranking member in attempting to try and make this House function better and attempting to help Members become better Members in servicing their constituents, and to try and provide a modicum of security for this House to ensure that this institution is not attacked physically or through the cyberworld, or in other ways. I have to say when you are lucky enough to be one of the less than 11,000 people in the history of this Nation to be a Member of this House, to be a Member of the Congress, you realize how lucky you are, you realize what a privilege it is, and you realize that this institution was here before you were, will be here after you leave; and if you can put a mark on it that helps it maintain its integrity and allows it to be the symbol of freedom that it has been, that you will have achieved something. One of the things I attempted to do, and was successful in, was making sure that the national motto ``In God We Trust'' is not only here over the rostrum, but as people come to the new entry way to the Congress of the United States, the CVC, the Capitol Visitors Center, the first thing they see are the words ``In God We Trust'' illuminated in stone. So in a funny way you can say I left my mark on this place. One would not think it would be controversial; but believe it or not, we were sued for putting that up there. But it is there, and it will be there as long as this institution remains. I would just say thank you to those who have elected me. I was privileged to serve from southern California and northern California. I was privileged to represent the entire State. I was privileged to have my children on the floor with me as I was sworn in and have my grandchildren on the floor with me when I was sworn in in my second tour. Not many men and women get that opportunity. So I thank the people of my State. I thank my colleagues from all over the country, but particularly those from California. We are a band of brothers and sisters. We've worked together over the years. We have worked, I think, with integrity, with honesty, and hopefully with a modicum of humility, understanding how important this place is and understanding that as long as you consider what you do important and yourself not so important, you will succeed. So I thank my friend from California, and I thank my colleagues from California for this opportunity to at least say another good-bye.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to share some comments here in the last few weeks in which I am privileged to be a Member of this House. I thought I would read into the Record a letter that I penned to my constituents upon the conclusion of my election process. I said at the time: I'm satisfied that enough votes have been counted to determine that I will not be representing the citizens of the Seventh Congressional District during the 113th Congress. It was a tough campaign, and I accept the outcome. I congratulate Dr. Bera in his victory, and I wish him well as he accepts this new challenge. It is my hope that Dr. Bera approaches Congress, as have I, with a humble heart, respect for the institution, and a desire to perform his duties in the best interest of the people he represents and the country. No one can fulfill the obligations of public service alone. The contributions of my wife Bobbi and our family have been inestimable. I could never thank them enough. My staff has worked tirelessly on behalf of others. There are no better public servants anywhere. I'm proud of the work that we've accomplished representing Californians both in the California Department of Justice and in the United States Congress. The experience of 18 years serving in the House of Representatives and 8 years as California's Attorney General truly has been an honor and one for which I will be forever grateful. During my time in the House, we were able to build coalitions across the aisle to advance legislation that not only benefited the people of the district, but all Americans. I'm proud of the meaningful working we have achieved with Folsom Dam, our levees, U.S. port security, chemical facility security, cybersecurity, criminal justice reform, immigration reform, national security, human trafficking, reining in government spending, and the myriad of other issues that came before the Congress. Bobbi and I wish to thank the multitude of volunteers and supporters who were by our side in this effort. Your support is gratifying and humbling, and for that we are immensely grateful. God bless you, and God bless this land of ours. I read that to suggest the feelings that I have at this time when I am approaching the end of my service in this House. One of the thoughts that I have as I do that is the question of civility in this House, in the Congress, in the political dialogue, and in the country at large. If one examines the history of the House of Representatives, one understands immediately that we are governed not by Robert's Rules of Order, but by, in fact, Jefferson's Manual, the manual authored in the first instance by Thomas Jefferson. If you analyze the spirit--and I believe the letter--of that manual, you will find that President Jefferson believed that vigorous and robust debate was appropriate, but he also understood the nature of man. He understood that we sometimes did not maintain the type of discourse that would be of honor to us and this House. As a result, he envisioned a place for debate, a place for legislating, reflecting the views, aspirations, and hopes of the American people that would guard against the temptation, the tendency, perhaps, to allow the emotions of the day to govern and cause conflict on this House, indeed, physical altercations or confrontations. One of the manners in which he believed that we could guard against that was to have Members of the House address the presiding officer rather than directly respond to another Member. Some may think this is arcane. Some may think this is outdated. Some may think this is difficult to understand. Yet it serves a purpose. It reminds us that while we're on the floor, that we are here representing this country. We're elected from different districts, but we are here as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. We address one another through the Chair as the distinguished gentleman or gentlelady from a particular State. We don't call people by their first name. Frankly, if we do call them by their last name, it is an adjective describing the particular person from the State that they represent. There are those who find it difficult to understand why it is wrong to traverse the well, why it is inappropriate for someone to walk here in the well because this is a large Chamber. It would seem natural that you would move from Point A to Point B. Yet the idea is as I am addressing this House, I am addressing the presiding officer. For someone to traverse the well is in essence an act of rudeness, an act of incivility, a lack of respect for those who are speaking and the institution. It is as if I were speaking to someone immediately in front of me and someone walks between the two of us while we're having the conversation. One would immediately understand that to be not in keeping with proper conduct. Yet I think sometimes we forget the purpose of the rules that we have here. I would say I was taught when I was a young attorney that you are to be court-ready. If you're a male Member of this House, you are to wear a coat and tie. You could vote easily without a coat and tie. You could vote easily in shorts here. You could vote easily in a T-shirt here. But what would that do? That would in a very real sense demean the institution of the House, and it would suggest that perhaps we weren't ready to do business. I recall several decades ago when a number of school districts believed that in an effort to increase the level of comportment in school, they would have students wear uniforms. It was unheard of at the time, yet they found that when students wore uniforms, in some ways the ``gang colors'' didn't come into play. People weren't looking at who has the rich clothes versus who has the poor clothes. But more importantly, I remember a comment by someone who was in favor of it and said this reminds the young people that they are there to do work to advance themselves for their future. In other words, it was their ``work clothes.'' That is a similar sort of thing that we do in this institution. Those are just some physical manifestations of the kinds of things that lead to the idea of civility in this House. The other thing is that we follow the precedents of the House, rulings of the House that guard against us bringing uncivil behavior to this House, that guard against us from violating the spirit of this House. What do I mean by that? One of the rules is you should not do anything that brings the House into disrepute. One of the many precedents in the House is if you engage in a debate in which you question the motivation of your opponent, you question the motivation of a Member of the Senate, you question the motivation of the President, that is considered out of order, and you can be called to account for that. How do we do it in this place? Again, some would consider it an arcane way. Another Member gets up and asks that the person who has spoken those words have his or her words taken down, and the process is, of course, the reporter transcribes the words, those words are then uttered, they are considered by the presiding officer with the assistance of the Parliamentarian. If, in fact, they're offensive words, unless one is granted unanimous consent to have those words removed from the Record, that person is not allowed to speak for the rest of the day. Some would say what is that? It's like timeout in a schoolyard. No, it really goes to the essence of this place. We are here as representatives of the people of the United States from particular districts and particular States, but part of our purpose in representing our constituents is being able to articulate on their behalf, being able to argue on their behalf, being able to speak on this floor. Therefore, the penalty of not being able to speak on the floor goes not just to the Member, but goes to those he or she represents. They are rendered silent for that day. If you really think about it, that is, in fact, a particularly pernicious punishment because it goes to your ability to represent your constituents. It seems to me that those who have been privileged to serve in the House, less than 11,000 in the entire history of this body, have an obligation to understand that this is beyond each and every one of us. It is the institution, the continuing perpetual institution of democracy in our country. We should be very proud to be a part of that. Civility should be a part of that. Tough, vigorous, robust debate should be a part of it. Insulting, demeaning language, calling into question the motivation of another ought to have no place here. And while we are here--someone suggests in a cocoon--that is, the Chamber of the House, I would rather consider it to be a venerable place. A symbol of the institution with the words of our national motto is above the very rostrum: ``In God we trust.'' As we think about that, we also should understand that we are part of more than just this institution. We are a part of the society in which we play, hopefully, a significant role. The manner in which Members get to have the opportunity to represent their constituents is through a process that we call ``political.'' It is through an electoral process, and the electoral process reflects our society as well as giving guidance to our society. There, I fear, the level of civility has been diminished. Let me give you an example--and I'm not suggesting in any way that this made the difference in my election, but it is my observation, having been a part of it, that the rules of civility have been tossed aside. There was an ad run against me and the gentleman from Florida and others, but it was made specific to each of us and our individual races in which they had a girl who was approximately 5 years old, looking into the camera, asking this question, ``Why does Dan Lungren want me to die?'' as did a 19-year-old, who indicated that he had suffered some paralysis from an accident, as did an approximately 40-year-old woman for some disease she had. Stunning. Stunning. The only thing I could see on the other side of the philosophical divide would be someone who was an Army vet, having been paralyzed, sitting in a wheelchair, looking at the camera, and saying about a Member who had voted against a defense bill, Why do you want me to die? Why do you want me to be in a wheelchair? In either case, the civility is out the window. The ability to talk about an issue that is underlying is lost. In the example I gave, the questions would be, was it an appropriate level of funding for defense? Were there certain problems with the defense bill? Not, do you want this veteran to die? In the case that I cited in which I was the subject of that ad, the issue was embryonic stem cell research, not the question of what is the moral and ethical thing to do in a very difficult circumstance. I remember when President of the United States George W. Bush had a national address to the country in which he talked about the difficult moral and ethical decision about whether you would have lines of stem cell research allowed that originated from embryos. It was the question of when life begins. Is that an individual? Is it a potential individual? Is it an individual who has any rights? None of that talked about in the ad. There was the question of umbilical cord blood stem cells, of which I have been privileged to be a leader with Chris Smith from New Jersey and others, and of having a press conference, I remember, with the great basketball star Dr. J, because, in fact, we had found that using blood cord stem cells had actually already been applied to some people with success, including, I believe, to some in this Nation who suffered from sickle-cell anemia. Forgetting totally about adult stem cells, the ad appeared the very week that the Nobel committee announced its prize for medicine to the two scientists who had unlocked the key in the ability to take adult stem cells and reprogram them back to induced pluripotent cells, meaning that they had the capacity to become different types of cells. Then, in just the 2 weeks before, I believe it was a German experiment in which they successfully cured paralysis in dogs by using cells from the dog's nasal passages. There can be a legitimate debate about the moral and ethical concerns surrounding stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, but to have an ad that reduces it to the question of whether a 5-year-old can look in the camera and say, ``Why does this Congressman want me to die?''--how does that elevate the debate? How does that in any way enhance our ability to make very difficult decisions? Does that condemn anybody who happens to have traditional values consistent with the traditional teachings of the Catholic church and other churches to be ridiculed? To be condemned for a lack of concern for fellow human beings? And to have the ad run in the last weeks of the campaign without any ability to respond to it. I ask you, is that civil? That ad was produced by the pro-majority PAC, by the way, with connections to some Members of the House. They don't have to abide by the rules in terms of advertising, but my question is, where does that leave us as a Nation when we can't talk about difficult, serious issues--issues of morals and issues of ethics and issues of conduct-- without reducing it to that level? Look, I'm, as they say, a big boy. I've been involved in politics and government a long time. I know campaigns can be tough. But is that an excuse for losing any sense of proportionality? Any sense of respect for one another? Any sense of civility? We hear many in the press decry the level of debate--but yet, not a peep about ads such as that. We hear people decry the lack of respect for one another--but yet, not a mention made of ads like that, which, I think, eliminate civility. Some would say the rule of traversing the well while someone is speaking is unnecessary. Why would you complain about that? If you don't understand the basis of civil conduct in the House, you would say that makes no sense at all. If you do understand it, you will understand that it is part and parcel of the entire complex of things we do that either shows respect or disrespect for the institution we serve and for our fellow Members. I'm not a Pollyanna. I've seen campaigns since I was a very little kid. I think I was 4 or 6 years old when I handed out literature for one of my neighbors who was running for Congress for the first time. I've been blessed to be involved with this. It has been a great ride to be able to represent my fellow constituents here in the House of Representatives in two different tours of service and as the California attorney general. I want tough and vigorous and robust debate, but I do wonder whether the coarseness of the debate, whether the lack of any respect for another's thoughts or another as a person makes us a better or a lesser Nation. There is something called ``appeal to the better angels of human nature.'' Maybe once in a while we ought to do that here. Maybe once in a while we ought to not only listen to a great speech by Abraham Lincoln or a great speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. or a tremendously written statement by George Washington, but maybe we ought to listen to what they say, and how they say it, and the respect with which they held those who may have disagreed with them. This is a great institution, representing the greatest country on the face of the Earth. So I don't say this as a loser's lament. Maybe it's a lover's lament. I love this country. I love the State that I represent. I love the people of this country. It is in a real sense an unconditional love, but it is not an uncritical love. We have an obligation to review, to criticize, to constantly guard against the lesser angels of human nature. You can do that with all the vigor in the world, and you can do that with all the respect in the world. If, in fact, we wish to solve the problems of this Nation, recognizing that there has to be some work across the aisle, perhaps the first way in which we do it is to think, how can I be civil in the discussion that I have even though I think my opponent, my counterpart on the other side of the aisle, is dead wrong? I always thought Ronald Reagan had the best attitude. I would probably sum it up this way. They said that he always saw the glass as half full rather than half empty, but I always thought he had what I called the openness of a confident and a cheerful conservative. He believed that we ought to conserve essential values of this country; we ought to avoid the fad of the day. And he believed that we ought to be proud in expressing our point of view. But I do believe he also thought that he could sit down with just about anybody and attempt to persuade them, much like my friend and someone who I considered almost a brother, Jack Kemp. I used to say about Jack: I'm sure there's somebody out there who doesn't like Jack Kemp, but I don't think Jack ever met someone he didn't like. And I don't think Jack Kemp and I don't think Ronald Reagan ever believed they met a man or woman that they couldn't persuade to their side. And maybe if we kept that in mind, how do we continue to work by putting all of our effort into persuading not only our side but persuading those who disagree with us to the rightness of our position, we might in fact find and they may find that we have far greater commonality of interest and approach than we ever thought. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you know me at all, you know that I don't give up easily. You know that I don't back down from a fair fight or any fight. And you know that I believe deeply in those principles and values that brought me to this place, and I believe deeply that I have not lost them. But I do respect those who have a different point of view, and I respect their sincerity and I respect their genuineness, but I can question their judgment without calling into question their motivation. And maybe that's the summation of what I'm trying to say here. I have had the great privilege of serving this House for almost two decades. I've had the great privilege of serving 8 years as California's attorney general, so 26 years in public service as an elected official. I don't give up on this place. I don't give up on this country. I don't give up on its people. We've always had difficult times, and the key to solving those difficult times is to recognize their difficulty, recognize their presence, and recognize that we have no right to say it's not our job. When we are in this place in this time, it is our job. And I would hope and I would pray that we would approach that, and my colleagues would approach that, and those that come after in this new Congress, that they would approach it with a sense of civility and a sense of love of this country. And if we do that, I have no fear for our future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Sutter Club and their upcoming commemoration of Ronald Reagan. To those unaware of the Sutter Club's history, it is located in the heart of Sacramento, California and is one of the State's oldest social clubs. The club was founded in 1889, roughly forty years after the historic California Gold Rush. Located less than two blocks from the California State Capitol, nearly every Governor of California has been an honorary member of the club. In addition to California's Governors, many state legislators, mayors and dignitaries are among the Club's roster. This list also includes U.S. Senators Booth, Kuchel, Johnson and Downey as well as U.S. Supreme Court Justices Earl Warren and Anthony M. Kennedy from California. As someone who had the privilege to know and serve with Ronald Reagan, I am appreciative of the dedication being performed by the Sutter Club. Ronald Reagan served our State and Country with great distinction and he is a source of pride for every Californian. As a club member from 1967 to 1975, then Governor Reagan frequently used the venue for events. Ronald Reagan had a lasting impression on the Club's history and was honored by the Sutter Club each of the eight years of his administration. To this day, club members continue to have a deep and lasting connection to Ronald Reagan, many having served with him as Governor and President. On November 9, 2012 the Sutter Club will name one of its historic dining rooms the official ``Ronald Reagan Room'' during a commemoration ``State Dinner'' at the Club. It is my distinct pleasure to submit these few words in the Congressional Record to recognize the Sutter Club and their commemoration of a national hero.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, let's remember where we are. Up until 1965, we had a quota system that essentially gave advantages to certain countries to get their people in here versus others. We removed that in 1965. We went to a worldwide quota system based on the fact that everyone around the world would have an equal chance to get to the United States based on their talents and their reason for coming here. In about 1981, there was a cry that we weren't getting enough Irish coming in here. Tip O'Neill--I recall, I was here on the floor at this time--Tip O'Neill and Teddy Kennedy worked together to create the Diversity program that allowed anybody to apply for it at 12:01 a.m. one morning. What do you know, only the Irish knew about it. We got essentially Irish in. That worked for a while. Then we changed it so that they and others were no longer allowed, and we only allowed certain countries in. We're going back to a quota system by country. It doesn't make sense. It ought to be a worldwide quota system. In addition, I would just say that most African American immigrants in the U.S. do not come through the Diversity program. We have many who are engaged in the STEM program study here. Just 3,000 from Nigeria alone would be able to participate.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it may be a voluntary checkoff, but the money is not voluntary. It is part of the income tax you are required to pay. While we all do support government, I would wonder, if you made the income tax entirely voluntary, whether we could get anything close to what we do now. It is, in fact, the tax that you must pay. So that part is not voluntary. Secondly, I'm surprised that one would not want to attribute this to reducing the deficit even though it's only $36 million, as suggested by the other side. If we can't even do this here, what confidence can the American people have that we would deal with the tougher issues and larger amounts? If $36 million is too difficult for us to use to somehow reduce the deficit, what hope is there that we can do anything seriously in this Congress or Congresses in the future? I must respond to the repeated suggestion that we have done nothing in this Congress. The Obama administration would be surprised, since they said that the FISA amendments, which we passed on this floor with 301 positive votes, were the number one priority for the administration in the area of intelligence. In the aftermath of what happened just a couple of weeks ago, one would think that we would understand the seriousness of intelligence. And that which is the greatest tool, according to the DNI currently and previous DNIs, that tool, which got strong bipartisan support, was indeed an important thing for us to do here. We had three free trade agreements that we finally approved. They have been waiting around for a number of years. The consensus is they create jobs in this economy and give us a fair playing field in which our workers can compete. We had a transportation bill that we passed. We dealt with the interest paid on student loans. And I would just say, for 2 years in a row, we have, in fact, spent less on discretionary spending than we did the preceding year. I think that's the first time we've done that in a generation. There are other things that I could talk about. It is a shame that the other body has not acted on the nearly 30 bills we've sent over there that deal with jobs. Oh, yes, we also had my bill, H.R. 4, which repealed that section of the President's health care bill that placed an inordinate paperwork burden on small business, and that was the number one priority of the small business community in the country. I wish we would do more. I wish we would have the cooperation of the other body. It's very difficult to negotiate when the other party won't come to the table or even articulate what their position is; but, nonetheless, I would suggest that those things I have spoken about are not unimportant. But, of course, that's a digression because that's not talking about the bill before us. The bill before us is a simple bill. All it does is say that the party's over. The taxpayer will no longer pay with taxpayer dollars for the conventions of the two national parties. Doesn't stop them from having their conventions, doesn't denigrate their conventions, doesn't take them off television; it just says the American taxpayer will not pay for it. We're going to save $36 million. Fairly straight forward, fairly simple. I would hope that we would have a strong bipartisan vote for this, because it is truly a bipartisan problem and timely, because many of our constituents, at least when I was home in the district, said, Why are you in the Congress voting to put taxpayer dollars for these conventions? That was a tough question to answer. We can answer that question here in a very bipartisan way by passing this bill. With that, I would ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5912, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Workforce and the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame we've come to a point where it can be said on the floor of the House attempting to save the taxpayers of America $36 million is a waste of time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Cole is the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5912, which would terminate taxpayer financing of party conventions. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to say that party conventions today are by and large week-long televised movie sets and almost entirely symbolic. Although conventions do provide important insight into party platforms and Presidential candidates, spending millions of taxpayer dollars to fund them, particularly in today's environment, is simply untenable. American taxpayers should not be subsidizing political party conventions. With our historic levels of deficit spending and our national debt over $16 trillion and climbing, this Congress and this President need to be thinking very differently about how we use taxpayer dollars. Since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on publicly funding our Presidential primaries, our Presidential general elections, and our Presidential party conventions. Each party's national convention this year received almost $18 million in taxpayer funding. While I believe we should be getting rid of public funding of Presidential campaigns as well, at a minimum we should pass this commonsense measure to stop financing our parties with taxpayers' dollars. The American taxpayer has paid enough for this unwise experiment. It should be ended. Mr. Speaker, this bill, introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, I would hope would garner overwhelming bipartisan support. I thank him for introducing it and for his commitment to a responsible and efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This should stop funding going to all party conventions. It is a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5912, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5912) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party conventions, and to provide for the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction, as amended.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize outstanding employees of the Officers (Clerk of the House, Sergeant at Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer) and the Inspector General of the U.S. House of Representatives who have reached the milestone of 25 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the recipients of the House Employee Excellence Award. The House's most important asset is its dedicated and exceptional employees, whose work, often behind the scenes, is vital in keeping the operations and services of the House running smoothly and efficiently. The employees we recognize today are acknowledged and commended for their hard work, dedication, professionalism, support of House Members, their staffs and constituents, and for their contributions day-in and day-out to the overall operations of the House. These employees have a wide range of responsibilities that support the legislative process, ensure the security of the institution, maintain our technology and service infrastructure, and contribute to a more effective and efficiently operating House support structure. They have accomplished many great things in a wide range of activities, and the House of Representatives and its Members, staff, and the general public, are better served because of them. We honor the individuals named below for 25 years of dedicated service to the House. Collectively, this group has provided four hundred and twenty-five (425) years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives: Kevin M. Allison, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Harold Blakney, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Thomas H. Blatnik, Office of the Sergeant at Arms Clarence G. Butler, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer David Carreiro, Office of the Clerk Darren Dahlstrom, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Scott Derrick, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Kelda Y. Dunklin, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Wesley D. Jones, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Kent Kahler, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Kevin S. Kelley, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Ronald M. Mullvain, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Sandra Q. Pilkerton, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Deborah M. Robertson, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Joe T. Taylor, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Kimberly von Harders, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Richard E. Wright, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer We also recognize and congratulate four House employees for receiving the Employee Excellence Award. This is a merit-based award, given to one employee from each House Officer organization, and the Office of Inspector General. Selected employees exhibited outstanding overall job performance and displayed a willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty throughout the last year. We honor the individuals named below for receiving this prestigious award. Monica Barnabae, Paige Beatty, and The HRCCC Staff, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Stefan J. Bieret, Office of the Sergeant at Arms Charles M. McGee, Office of the Clerk Joseph C. Picolla, Office of Inspector General On behalf of the entire House community, I extend congratulations and once again recognize and thank these employees for their professionalism and commitment to the U.S. House of Representatives as a whole, and in particular to their respective House Officers and the Inspector General. Their long hours and hard work are invaluable, and their years of unwavering service, dedication, and commitment to the House set an example for their colleagues and other employees who will follow in their footsteps. I celebrate our honorees, and I am proud to stand before you and the nation on their behalf to recognize the importance of their public service.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that all Americans reflect upon the tragic loss of life in the American consulate in Benghazi. When one of our own pays the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our Nation, we're all touched by the loss. All four of these brave Americans will forever be remembered in the annals of American history as heroes. In particular, I would like to take the time to pay tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens, a native of northern California. Although I did not know the Ambassador personally, his father, Senior Assistant Attorney General Jan Stevens, ably served our State in the California Department of Justice while I served as attorney general of my home State. This tragedy hits close to home with all of the employees of the California Department of Justice who work with Jan Stevens. I wish to join with them, with friends and family members of the Stevens, and with all Americans in offering our thoughts and prayers as we mourn the loss of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The FISA Amendments Act under consideration here today requires an individualized court order in cases where an American is the target, no matter where they may be located. Here's the reason why this is important. It is the change in communications, the nature of communications that required us to do the amendments. If we fail to pass this, we will, as former DNI Director McConnell stated, we will lose two-thirds of those dots, those bits of information, the intelligence that we need to connect to protect us. We will put in very much manner the country at risk. If you look at a simple risk analysis, you have to do threat, you have to do vulnerability, you have to do consequence. We can figure out what the vulnerability is by our inspection of our own resources and infrastructure. We can figure out what the consequences are. What we have to have, in order to figure out the threat, is a means of collecting intelligence. We have to pass this law, a bipartisan law. I recall being here and having the former Speaker of the House spend, I think, 7 minutes arguing on behalf of this, and the gentleman who is Number two on the Democratic side as well. It has never been partisan. Hopefully, we can have bipartisan support expressed in the vote for these amendments.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I would just have to say this is critical to the protection of the American people. With the events over the last couple of days, we need not be reminded of this solemn responsibility 1 day after the 11th anniversary of 9/11. If you will recall, one of the main points made by the 9/11 Commission in their after-action report was that we, as a Nation, had not done enough--that is, the Government of the United States had not done enough--to connect the dots to warn us sufficiently to protect against the attack which caused the death of over 3,000 on our homeland. In order to connect the dots--that is, the items of information, the intelligence--you have to have the dots, you have to have the intelligence. That's precisely what the extension of these amendments will allow us to do. But initially, it's important to understand from the outset of this debate what this legislation would do as well as what it does not do. We are seeking to address the essential need for us to be able to monitor communications by terrorists and other foreign adversaries located outside the United States. We're not debating the PATRIOT Act here. We're not talking about national security letters. We're not talking about those things that are directed at Americans. The annual certification procedures provided under the FISA Amendments Act do not allow the targeting of Americans outside the United States. Thus, if an American is targeted anywhere in the world, or if a person is targeted within the United States, an individualized court order is required. In cases involving a foreign terrorist outside the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approves annual certifications submitted by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. This is a court made up of article III judges, judges with lifetime appointments, with the independence that was accorded them under the Constitution. And I would remind my colleagues that the appellate review, the appellate division of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is also comprised of article III judges. It is important to note we're not providing for warrantless surveillance here. In fact, the FISA Amendments Act has enhanced the statutory protections afforded to U.S. persons under the law. Because it was the first time, under these amendments that we wish to extend, we required an individual FISA court order to conduct overseas intelligence collections on U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Even if they're overseas, we now require that. It was not required by statute before that. Before that, the Attorney General approved such collections against U.S. persons outside the U.S., pursuant to an executive order of the President. We all know that executive orders of the President can be changed by a President while in office, or a succeeding President. I would submit that if you are concerned about civil liberties, and I assume everybody in this debate is, returning to the good old days prior to the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act is not a step forward for civil liberties. It should also be understood that we're not seeking to extend the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in its entirety. Today we're attempting to achieve the rather modest purpose of the 2008 amendments. Again, court approval of annual certification by the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Attorney General, identifying categories of foreign intelligence agents outside the United States is required. An individualized court order is required in other cases. The legislative history of FISA is instructive. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report that accompanied FISA in the initial act in 1978 clearly expressed Congress' intent to exclude overseas intelligence activities from the reach of FISA. These were the words of that report: The committee has explored the feasibility of broadening this legislation to apply overseas, but has concluded that certain problems and unique characteristics involved in overseas surveillance preclude the simple extension of this bill to overseas surveillance. In other words, overseas surveillance was never the focus of the 1978 act. Rather, it focused on domestic surveillance of persons located within the United States to ensure that there were protections in that regard.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, today, September 11, 2012, is a beautiful day outside. The sun's in the cloudless sky, much like it was 11 years ago. We remember those tragic criminal terrorist acts. We remember the heroism of those who responded. But there's something we can do more than just remember. There's something we can do in addition to the prayers that we offer. We can act tomorrow to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments which allow us to respond to the criticism rendered by the 9/11 Commission, that is, that we did not do enough to connect the dots of intelligence to warn us about that attack and future attacks. The FISA amendments allow us to connect the dots so we can analyze those dots, so we can bring the intelligence to bear, so that we can protect our people with the courage and the bravery of those men and women who are in uniform, guided by the intelligence that we collect and that we apply. It is as strong a statement as we can make this week to ensure that we do not blind our eyes to that which is out there that may threaten us. Let us work together in a bipartisan basis to pass that, and let us give those tools that are necessary to protect us.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the great things about Frederick Douglass is that he inspired a nation not only by the example of his lifetime in releasing the bonds of slavery and becoming a free man, but he was self-educated. He was a great orator, a great writer, a great inspiration to this country. There's not too many people that you can talk about that actually can take credit, tremendous credit, for the passage of three amendments to the U.S. Constitution--13th, 14th, and 15th. There's not many people who were on the right side of history in such a tremendous way, someone who not only worked to encourage African Americans to fight in the Civil War on the side of freedom, but also later on to work to ensure that the message of freedom that was the promise of both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution was embodied specifically in the Constitution by these amendments. He was a powerful man who was very proud of his history and proud of his place in history in terms of leading a political movement and showing that African Americans were not just freed slaves that somehow got their freedom at the suffrage of the other members of society, but that they fought for it, they struggled for it, and they had both physical courage and intellectual power that inspired the Nation to recognize the fact that we had fallen so far short of the promise of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I'm afraid that too many young people today don't know the story of Frederick Douglass. In a small way, this may help to rekindle the interest in Frederick Douglass so that when the young people come here to this Capitol, as they often do, and they look at the statues and they ask who is that and what did he do or what did she do, people can now look proudly to the statue of Frederick Douglass and explain what it is he did and why his powerful legacy is still an inspiration to all of us today. So I would hope that our Members would unanimously support this legislation and that we would soon see Frederick Douglass return to the United States Capitol in this way. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6336) to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept a statue depicting Frederick Douglass from the District of Columbia and to provide for the permanent display of the statue in Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.