Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

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 and include extraneous materials on H.R. 347 currently under consideration.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), the author of this bill, a distinguished former member of our Judiciary Committee and one who has just gotten over the mourning period because of his beloved Pittsburgh Steelers.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all Members to support this reasonable legislation. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I stand before you as a conservative member of the Republican Study Committee, former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, in strong opposition to this proposal. Across-the-board cuts are a lazy Member's way to achieve something. This will cut 11 percent for the security of the Congress. Since the tragedy in Tucson, I have had innumerable Members come to me as the chairman of House Administration and asking me what more we can do for the security of this House, our Members, and our constituents. There is not a single Member of this House who has asked me to cut security. Quite the contrary. This would cut 250 officers. It would not allow me to do the things you have asked me to do in terms of securing your offices here or at home. Secondly, the greatest obligation we have here, I believe, is oversight of the Federal Government. So what does this amendment do? It cuts us twice as much as those we are supposed to follow. It makes no sense whatsoever. If you want us to do our job and be secure in our job, I would humbly ask you to defeat this amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just say this: At the core of the Supreme Court decision was a protection of the First Amendment right of political speech, and that it would not be lost because you joined with others. As a corollary of that, the court in the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy talked about the fact that one of the real fears of the Founding Fathers was the government acting in disparate ways; that is, treating different groups differently for a political reason. And so I just say, in the scenario by the gentleman from Maryland, one would force an obligation of disclosure on one group and not another. So that the defense contractors, he said, would if he funded a statement on television, but the union members who work for the defense contractor would not; or those who are Federal employees represented by unions would not. I guess what we're saying here is we know that corporations influence elections, but it is absurd to assume that unions do. And if you believe that, then support this amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is a continuation of the effort by the other side to undo the evenhanded approach that was utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court in their decision in Citizens United. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment protections that you have for free speech are not in any way diminished by virtue of the fact that you say it not with a single voice but you join with others. Every response that we've heard from the other side has said, Well, we don't like what the court did, so what we're going to do is put certain requirements on those who are corporations but not the same requirements on those who are unions representing those who are employees of the Federal Government. And there is as much a conflict of interest in that regard as there is on those corporations that have contracts with the Federal Government. So, once again, they're trying to talk about how this action by the Supreme Court was unfair, it somehow requires that there is an unfairness involved, that our elections were taken over by corporations. Every study has shown that there were far more expressions of political thought in paid advertising by those on the left than those on the right in the last election, but we don't hear about that. If they would bring forward something that would have equal treatment, maybe then we could take a look at it. But the fact of the matter is we have seen effort after effort. We can recall last year when they brought it to the floor, one of the things they wanted to do is not only have uneven treatment with respect to corporations and unions, but they were engaged in an auctioning off of First Amendment rights according to whether you were a favored or disfavored group. We saw organizations that were given special exemptions. The National Rifle Association was one of them. And there were those on the left. And if you had enough political sway, you got exempted from the disclosure requirements. And that really is the definition of ``Capitol cronyism,'' where the government decides who is favored and who is disfavored, and that the essence of the decision by the Supreme Court was the acknowledgment that the First Amendment has its most essential protection in speech, which is political speech. And if that be the case, we should tread very lightly where we require disparate treatment between different groups, those favored and those which are disfavored. If there's one thing the First Amendment stands for, it is that we treat everybody the same. And this again is in keeping with what we saw last year. Some people are more favored than the others, and when you're talking about First Amendment rights and expressions of political thought, we should be very wary of it. And, by the way, nothing with the Supreme Court decision changed the prohibition against direct contributions to campaigns by corporations. That has been, that continues to be, and will be a felony. And if people on the other side have evidence of that happening, they ought to give that information to the Justice Department and have people prosecuted. So let's at least talk about what the facts are and let's remember the history of this effort on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether we're in an episode of ``Alice in Wonderland'' here or not. Just because you say something is true doesn't make it true. The gentlelady just spoke a moment ago and said we need to look at this; we need to scrub this. And yet she is asking her colleagues to vote against the rule to not even allow this to be brought up. What's the conclusion of that? What's the intimation of that? That we should allow these provisions to expire. Not that we would have time to look at it, but they would expire, one legislative day left. There are three major provisions in our effort to fight against terrorists. These are the provisions that initially were put under a sunset by the gentleman from Wisconsin when he was chairman of the committee. And then later on when we redid, reviewed, and reformed provisions of this, I authored and brought forward the extension with the sunsets on these three provisions. So I find it interesting to have my friends on the other side of the aisle tell us what we were doing and tell us now that there has been a proven unconstitutionality or unconstitutional basis for these three provisions. Interestingly enough, they refer to the lone wolf provision. That was known when it was first passed as the Schumer-Kyl provision. Now, some people may not be aware that those are two Senators, Members of the other body, I would say probably extending from the left to the right. Why did they put that in? Because we believe that we were actually burdening ourselves in a way that would not allow us to find out about terrorism before it was actually carried out. The lone wolf provision recognizes that the greatest threat we have today are, as was said by the two cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, less consequential attacks; meaning attacks on a smaller scale than that we saw on 9/11, still meant to do grievous harm to Americans, to cause us to see the loss of life, to do tremendous fiscal damage to this country, yet with smaller cells or even from individuals. Do we have to be reminded of what happened on that Christmas Day a couple of years ago? That was a lone wolf, even though these provisions wouldn't apply because he's an American citizen. Major Hasan was a lone wolf. Just to prove the point that we have to be concerned about lone wolves. The other two provisions, the business records and the roving wiretaps, I'd like to talk about those because there's been so much misunderstanding, misstatements.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I actually observed a Member of the other body this morning on television saying the reason that he voted against these extensions was that under the Constitution he believes that one ought to have a warrant so there's intervention of a third party that is a judicial officer. Well, these two provisions, the business records provision and the roving wiretap provisions, require the government to go to the FISA court to get permission to carry out those elements directed at any individual. And so let's just make sure we know what we're talking about here. We're talking about two provisions that require the government to go before the FISA court to get permission to utilize those provisions in their investigation. And the third part deals with the lone wolf definition, and the lone wolf requirement is needed now more than it was when it first passed because of the difference in the threat to us that has been recognized by our intelligence agencies and by the 9/11 Commission and, most recently, by Secretary Napolitano.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Les Oesterreich, a resident of Dixon, California, a man respected as an American, a husband to Pat Oesterreich, a father to their combined seven daughters, and a grandfather. Perhaps more germane to this moment is his position as chairman emeritus of Superior Farms, the largest harvester and processor of lamb in the United States. Under his leadership, the company has grown from having a single plant in Dixon, California, to having plants in Denver, Colorado, Boston, Massachusetts, Hawarden, Iowa, and Blue Island, Illinois, with contractual arrangements in Australia as well. Today, Superior Farms employs 494 employees and operates under an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), so that every employee has a stake in the company's bottom line. As CEO of Superior Farms, Mr. Oesterreich skillfully guided the company by working with other industry organizations. He was honored in 2008 by the American Sheep Industry Association with its Camptender Award. He served several terms as a director of the National Meat Association, and as chair of its Small Stock Committee. He was recognized by the United States Department of Agriculture for his work with the Agricultural Marketing Service on the implementation of fair standards for lamb grading. He served on the Advisory Committee for the Animal Science Department at California Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo and the University of California at Davis. His input to the American Lamb Board and the California Sheep Commission has guided those organizations, and during all these activities he has guided the growth and prosperity of Superior Farms to ensure that he recruited the brightest and best professional management talent available. Mr. Oesterreich's father worked for Armour Food Co. for 35 years and he learned a lot about the meat business during his formative years in Brownsville, Texas, and Sterling, Illinois. He started work in the slaughter facilities at age 16, then learned how to load trucks, and was finally trained in meat cutting, all at Armour. He joined Superior Farms in 1981 as general manager of the Dixon, California, facility and moved up the chain of management, by dint of hard work, to become its CEO in 2004. Off the job, he has served as president of the local fire district in Dixon; he is passionate about cars and horses; and he is a member of the American Quarter Horse Association. As Mr. Oesterreich moves into retirement, he leaves behind an incredible legacy to be continued by the professionals that he has recruited to Superior Farms. Men like Mr. Oesterreich make the United States of America a wonderful place to live. Congratulations, Les Oesterreich!

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let's be reminded of what the 9/11 Commission report observed. That report said the choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. In this case, freedom presupposes security. That's what we're talking about here. The distinguished former chairman of the Judiciary Committee basically has called into question the lone wolf terrorist provision. He says it's never been used. I heard this same argument on the floor last year before we had the domestic lone wolf known as Major Hasan. I heard the same argument on this floor last year before we saw the consequence of a loan wolf action in Times Square. I heard the same argument last year before we saw the lone wolf action of the Christmas Day bomber. I heard the same argument 2 years ago before we heard that. The fact of the matter is and the greater concern that we have today, as expressed just this last week by the Secretary of Homeland Security, is that the level of the threat is as high today as it has ever been since 9/11. When asked about it, she explained, as did the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, that it is the less consequential attacks done by those who are not directly associated with al Qaeda or with affiliate organizations, i.e., lone wolves, that cause them to be of greater concern today. CIA Director Leon Panetta, who is of this administration, has warned that it is the lone wolf strategy that I think we have to pay attention to as the main threat to this country. The gentleman from Michigan would have us wait until that threat is carried out before we then say, well, maybe now we have a reason to have the lone wolf provision. Professor Robert Turner of the Center for National Security Law has written as to how the absence of authority to conduct surveillance of a lone wolf terrorist undermined the FBI's effort to gain access to the content of Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop computer and how it materially impeded a critically important investigation that in the absence of FISA might well have helped prevent the attacks on September 11, 2001. Now, the distinguished former chairman of the committee has said this allows us to use this provision against anybody. Not true. It has to be someone who is not a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States who is engaged in international terrorism but who may not be linked to a foreign power or terrorist organization. Today, in the age of the Internet, when someone is incited or inspired by one of these individuals from a foreign country and then carries out a terrorist act, that is the definition of a ``lone wolf.'' The gentleman from Michigan would have us shackle ourselves so as not to be able to deal with this, as was explained by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a former agent of the FBI. These are antiterrorism cases, not criminal investigations. What we are trying to do is not collect the body parts after a successful attack and then try and find those who caused it and try and bring them to justice. No, we are trying to stop the attack in the first place and protect Americans. That's why you have the FISA court. That's why you have some of these different definitions. What we have done within the ambit of those definitions is try and protect the civil liberties of Americans while at the same time allowing us to take reasonable, responsible and, yes, proactive actions against those who would murder Americans. There is a difference between a criminal investigation and a counterterrorism effort. It is the difference between trying to prosecute someone for a crime that has already been committed as opposed to trying to prevent the death and destruction that would be rained upon the United States by these terrorists. I am the author of the sunset provisions. I brought this because I thought it required us to look at these three provisions because, yes, they were the most controversial; but I am convinced after looking at it in these years that these provisions have not been abused. At the same time, I am going to be working with the gentleman from Wisconsin and others to have rapid, intensive, active oversight of these provisions to ensure that we do not have some deprivation of civil liberties as we carry out these necessary functions.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I did not question the motivation of the gentleman from Michigan, nor would I; but I would question his conclusions and the impact of his decisions.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 2 minutes. What I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that with respect to roving wiretaps, it's only available after the government has been able to prove to the court that the target may engage in countersurveillance activity such as rapidly changing the cell phone number. It doesn't allow the government to make a general boilerplate application. It requires them, if they can't identify the individual, the very specific individual, to give some particularity in the request to identify that person as much as they possibly can. It is also a requirement we put in the law that once they have actually utilized this roving wiretap on different instruments of communication, they have to report to the court within 10 days as to what took place. So we have refined this as much as absolutely possible. What we're trying to do is keep up with technology. We know that some of these targets will buy 100 cell phones and use them for a single conversation and throw that cell phone away. You can't just think that's going to happen. You have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that there is a reason to believe that they are going to take these kinds of efforts to try and stop surveillance in these regards. Again, this is before the FISA court, and it only deals with these kinds of cases. This is not regular criminal cases. So the gentleman's concerns have been raised before, and we met those concerns in our prior treatment of this law. So it is a careful balance that we created here, to take into consideration the new techniques utilized by those who would threaten us and at the same time try and provide for a third party, a court, a Federal court made up of Federal judges, to look at this. We have to report before, and we would have to, that is, our agency activists, would have to report afterwards, within 10 days. I believe that's about as much protection as you can give and still be effective in this environment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for granting me this time. I sit on this floor as the author of the sunset provision that requires us to consider these three portions of the Patriot Act. I offered that when we had the reauthorization of the overall bill because I thought these were three sections that were at that time controversial and that we ought to be required to review it. So I did support the authorization for a year that we had last year, but I fully expected that the Judiciary Committee would hold hearings so that before this date we would have acted on any changes that anyone deemed necessary. I would say, I am not aware of any changes that are necessary, and I have followed this ever since they put the sunset provisions in. But nonetheless I had thought that during the last year while my friends on the other side were in charge, we would have acted. As a matter of fact, I believe our committee passed out a full reauthorization of the Patriot Act, that is, the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Conyers, but it was never brought to the floor for us to consider, under any rule, open or closed. So what we are asking for, in concert with the President of the United States, is to extend it to the end of this year so that we can carry out the constitutionally mandated obligation of oversight. Chairman Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, has a track record. I believe it was 13 hearings that we held on these subjects. We went through chapter and verse. We had the FBI before us. We had the Attorney General before us. We had the head of the criminal division before us. We had the ACLU before us. We had classified briefings as well as public hearings. We made some changes in 2005 pursuant to requests and information that was presented to us. Now, I know some of our members said after they voted against this on the suspension calendar, ``Well, look this bill's been in effect for 10 years. Times have changed.'' Yes, they have. And if we would examine the changes, we would see that these three provisions are more necessary today than they were when we first put them into the law. Why? Because as Secretary Napolitano, the Secretary in the Obama administration, stated just today, we are on as high alert today, as far as she's concerned in terms of the threat, as we have been at any time since 9/11. And as the two cochairs of the 9/11 Commission said in testimony last year, which is basically repeated by Secretary Napolitano and the head of the NCTC in testimony this week, we have a different threat today. We have the continuing threat of those of al Qaeda on the international scene, still attempting to probe and find where they might be able to provide a catastrophic event against the United States. But the new facts show that the greater threat to us today is, as they have said, less consequential attacks from smaller groups, some not even officially allied with al Qaeda, sometimes inspired by them, sometimes incited by them. And these three provisions go directly to the investigations that are necessary for us to deter that. This is not the regular criminal justice system where you examine the evidence after the crime has been committed to try to convict the individual. This is in the essence of deterrence, to make sure that we're not collecting body parts after the attack has occurred. As a result, we have tried to make changes in the law that will allow us to do what the 9/11 Commission said we couldn't do beforehand, connect the dots. Why do we have the lone wolf provision in here? Because that is more and more the concern we have to have. Now, this would not apply to Major Hasan because he is an American citizen. We are talking about lone wolf provisions for those who are not U.S. citizens. But he was a lone wolf, if you want to understand what a lone wolf is. He wasn't officially connected with al Qaeda or anybody else, but he was in conversation. He was incited by or inspired by. And if anybody doesn't believe that he committed a terrorist attack, they don't know what terrorism is. You talk about a lone wolf. How about the guy who was on the airplane on Christmas a little over a year ago? That would be a lone wolf. We might have been able to collect information on him had we had an opportunity to get some of this information.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Absolutely. I mean, the reason I came to the House of Representatives was in response to 9/11, to try to make sure we had the tools necessary to protect this country from these kinds of attacks and, at the same time, as someone who has devoted his entire life to enforcing the law but with the protection of civil liberties, to make sure that is done in this case as well. Let me just say one last thing about the roving wiretap. It is not controversial. It has been used in domestic criminal cases since at least 1980. And all it does is respond to new technology. You have a wiretap that now grants authority--once proven--grants authority to follow the person with whatever device he uses because-- guess what?--most people are not confined to a single landline today. That's all this does. And you would think that we would have the same provisions we use against criminals, that we could use those against those who would want to destroy Americans and America, terrorists.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman from California for taking this time and for yielding this time to me and I know to others as we come about this. You and I have and the other gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) were privileged to be in that crowd on Sunday where we celebrated Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. I was reminded that the last time I spoke with him was 20 years before on his birthday, his 80th birthday, when I was calling him from my office in Sacramento, and he was his usual open, affable, and interested individual who always had an expression of concern for the person he was speaking with and who didn't take himself too seriously but obviously took the job that he had very, very seriously. One of the insights into President Reagan I think is seen in a film that was done about Ronald Reagan's life that I saw recently, and at the end of the film or close to the end of the film, they had an interview with the Secret Service man who continued to be with Ronald Reagan to the very end, and this Secret Service man was distinguished by the fact that he was a fellow equestrian. He rode with Ronald Reagan, and it was the last time Ronald Reagan rode a horse. He went out riding with him, and when he came back he went to Mrs. Reagan and said, the President didn't have a very good day on the horse today, and that was a nice way of saying maybe it's time that he not risk injury by horse riding. And everybody knew that Ronald Reagan loved to ride horses. Probably his third greatest passion--his passion for his wife, his passion for this country, and then his passion for riding horses. And Mrs. Reagan told the Secret Service man, well, I can't tell him; you've got to tell him. And it was very uncomfortable. And the agent went up to the President and said very, very quietly, Mr. President, we didn't have a good day riding today. And Ronald Reagan sensed exactly what he was going to say, and instead of protesting, he made every effort to put the Secret Service agent at ease, knowing that it was a difficult thing for him. You have to understand that. He was being told that something that he loved almost as much as anything else in his life, his avocation, his-- some people play golf; Ronald Reagan rode horses. He was being told he could no longer do that, and instead of thinking about himself and the pain it was going to cause him and the lack of opportunity to enjoy himself, his first concern was for the person who was delivering that message to him, and he wanted to put him at ease. And that gives you a bit of an understanding of the character of the man who thought about what he was doing for others rather than what they were doing for him, or, excuse me, to put it this way: He thought more about what gratitude he had for what other people were doing for him, rather than accepting praise for what he was doing in that circumstance. I remember the last great speech that I remember that Ronald Reagan gave. It was at the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, and some of you may remember it. You've seen film of it if you weren't there. He wore a suit or a sport coat and a shirt that, if we wore it, we would be told you don't wear those sorts of things when you're appearing at a political event. It was sort of a maroon or almost maroon to brown jacket, and I remember the shirt had a white collar and it had stripes that were of the same color as the coat. And when he started to speak, and I was watching closely because my son, who at that time was in college, had gotten a pass to the floor of the convention, and I said, I want you to see the master speak, using that in quotation marks, because this may be the last great speech he ever gives. When Ronald Reagan got up, he looked every bit his age. In fact, he looked a little bit tired. As he started to speak, some young people in front of him began chanting his name and cheering him, and at first he couldn't hear very well. And then he realized what they were saying, and you saw that Ronald Reagan grin begin, and you saw him start to speak. And at the end of his speech, I guarantee you he was 20 years younger than when he started that speech. And he gave that vibrancy to the entire assembled crowd there in that convention hall, and I was so happy that I had my son there to be able to see this remarkable man give this remarkable performance at the end of his career. But when you think about that, sometimes you think maybe we just think about him as the communicator, and as we know in the final address he made to the Nation from the Oval Office, he said some people say that I'm a great communicator. It's not so much that I'm a great communicator, it's that I was able to communicate great things that came from this country. That always remained with me. I always thought Ronald Reagan had spent his whole life reading, thinking, thinking about this Nation, thinking about the principles that made this Nation great. And in my own mind, whenever I met with him with other Members of Congress or alone, you had this idea that he had developed this philosophical or political schematic. If you were speaking to him about a subject, he would put that schematic over that discussion. And if, in fact, it fit within those principles he had developed over a lifetime, he would basically allow you to go do it. He would basically give you a charge, and he would be behind you--may not tell you the details, but he would be with you. And if you didn't, if you had something that was outside that philosophical political schematic that he had developed over a lifetime, he would in some ways gently tell you that, No, I don't think we're going to do that. And you knew at that point in time that he wasn't going to be with you on it; but he was, again, thinking a little bit about you and the reaction that you would receive when he would tell you ``no.'' One of the most difficult things I ever had to do was to tell him ``no'' on the phone. I was in my office. He was calling on a vote. And I can't even recall what the subject was.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It may very well have been that. He called me personally to talk to me about that. And I had the hardest time saying ``no'' to him, but I did. The remarkable thing about it was that he didn't pressure me anymore. He didn't make me feel bad. He didn't say, Well, you'll hear from us again, or if you want something in your district. All he said was, I understand. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I got off that phone. I thought I was right in the decision I had made, but I felt badly that I had to tell him ``no,'' and I think that was it. One of the highlights of my first 10 years in the Congress was going to my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, on Air Force One with Ronald Reagan when he was going to unveil the stamp commemorating the 100th birthday of Knute Rockne--or as he said, ``Ke-Nute'' Rockne because that's what Knute Rockne's widow had told him was the proper pronunciation. And we flew there, and it was a great day. A little bit of rain. We got in the Athletic and Convocation Center, and it was standing room only. They didn't have enough room for all the students. The overflow crowd was in another room that had a television. There were four of us, graduates of the University of Notre Dame, who were Members of Congress at the time that he had with us and Dick Lyng who was the Californian who was the Secretary of Agriculture, also a Notre Dame grad. And in his speech, he said, ``I want to introduce you to the new Four Horsemen of Notre Dame,'' and then mentioned each one of our names. I have that on tape, and that is one of my highlights of my life. And at some point in time, I will make sure I make copies and give it to my children and my grandchildren. But he loved the fact that people remembered him for that role and for the spirit that he had there. And I am proud of the fact that after his recovery from that assassination attempt, the first public major address he made away from the Capitol was at the University of Notre Dame. Ronald Reagan was a hero to many of us. He was an inspiration to many of us, but he was a real man. He had his weaknesses as well as his strengths. He had his shortcomings, and he would be the first one to admit it. But above all, he was that person who told us, as Republicans, that we should approach the future not only with confidence, not only with hope, but with a sense of joy, an idea that this country is the greatest country in the history of the world and gives us the greatest opportunity to succeed. And he always felt a sense of gratitude that he was here, that he was born here, that he was allowed to raise himself up. And he thought that ought to be the opportunity given to everybody. When he came into a room, there was just a feeling there that was not there at any other time. And it's hard for some of us to realize that he has been gone for 6\1/2\ years now and that he would be 100 years old today. All we can say is, we're not looking backwards. We're trying to take the essence of the man, his commitment to the foundations of this country, his openness and his optimism, and utilize that at a time when we desperately need it. I never thought that he looked at a person and thought, You're African American, you're Caucasian, you're Hispanic, you're Asian. He looked at you and said, You're an American; and therefore I'm going to expect the best out of you, and this country is going to give you the opportunity to be the very, very best. So I thank the gentleman from California for this time. And this weekend was wonderful not only for us to reflect in our memories but also to bring the Ronald Reagan we know to the present people of America, particularly those young people who were not born when he was President of the United States and let them have a sense of what it was that commanded this country, that led this country, that inspired this country.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Before I yield 1 minute to our majority leader, I'd like to take 15 seconds to say when I find myself on the floor listening to my colleagues on the other side declaring Ronald Reagan to be the patron saint of Democratic Party ideas, I am bemused a bit because I served here when Ronald Reagan was President, and I don't recall those same words at that time. However, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 359, which terminates the taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions. At the outset, I just want to mention in response to something that was said by the other side, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Citizens United case decided by the Supreme Court. That changed not one iota of campaign finance law. Corporations still cannot make contributions to campaigns or candidates. It does not change that. Citizens United had to do with the question of whether or not one loses his or her First Amendment protections of free speech, particularly with respect to expressions of political nature, merely because they associate with another person. The Supreme Court told us that you do not in fact lose your First Amendment rights because you happen to say it jointly with someone else. As a matter of fact, they pointed out that some people with the least amount of influence in a society actually expand their influence in the political debate by joining with others. And then the question that the Supreme Court answered was, if that association happens to be corporate in nature, happens to be a union, happens to be a for-profit, happens to be a not- for-profit, whether that changes the dynamic as contemplated by the First Amendment protections, and they told us it did not. So let's get rid of that canard here on the floor right away. This has absolutely nothing to do with that. This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate contributions to campaigns or foreign contributions to campaigns, both of which remain illegal, with criminal sanctions, under the law. So let's get that out of the way to begin with so we don't have a lot of debate here that has nothing to do with the bill before us. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves at a unique juncture in the longstanding debate over this issue; but, frankly, in reality, it is a juncture no longer. Taxpayer financing of Presidential elections and party conventions of the two major parties is simply no longer defensible. The first tax liability contributions from American taxpayers to be diverted toward the funding of Presidential elections began 35 years ago in 1976. This new practice was, as we were told by the other side, supposed to raise the public's trust in their government as well as increase both the number of candidates and, thus, electoral competition and the financial footing between parties. I believe, Mr. Chairman, it has failed on all accounts. It did allow us to have Lyndon LaRouche be a participant in the Presidential elections. I am not sure when we have had someone who had been subjected to a criminal conviction and actually conducted part of his campaign while still incarcerated, but that was brought to us by way of this fine law. Since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on this system. As we speak, there is a balance of $195 million sitting in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund at the U.S. Treasury Department. And yet this system of electoral subsidization has not changed the public's perception of our Presidential elections or our politics. According to one survey after another, Americans continue to harbor deep distrust of their elected officials. So does anyone think that our Presidential elections over the past 35 years have shown a virtuous progression toward more accuracy and more honesty? Mr. Chairman, prominent Presidential candidates, candidates who even supposedly believe in this system, have opted out of this taxpayer financing scheme in recent years. In 2004 and 2008, several candidates declined public financing for their primary campaigns. And as was mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois, during the most recent Presidential election, for the first time, a nominee of one of our two major political parties withdrew from the public financing during the general election and instead went on to raise record amounts of money for his campaign. And I recall when I thought we heard a pledge to participate in this program because of the virtuous nature of the program. Somehow that was lost along the campaign trail. One of the things I would like to point out is this: There is this idea that somehow we are going to be able to suppress money that goes into politics. The fact of the matter is it is like a balloon, a water balloon. If you squeeze it on one side, it comes out on the other side. The question is: How do we get it within the system? We should be talking about the idea of this silly demarcation between our parties and our candidates where we limit in extreme fashion the amount of money that can be transferred or coordinated, as if somehow that corrupts the candidate to have him or her identified with the very party they represent. We ought to be working towards those kinds of changes that will allow a greater responsibility on the party and the candidates to express their positions and to hold to their positions, be responsible for their positions. But no, we talk about these ways of how we are going to somehow reduce the impact of money in campaigns. It hasn't worked under this system. It hasn't worked. In addition to Presidential primaries and general elections, if there is anything the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing, I would say--as much as I enjoy them--it is the week-long Presidential conventions. On our side of the aisle, in our party, I think we've had some indications of what I consider to be wasteful spending in preparation for our upcoming convention; and to say to the taxpayer that, in light of that, we ought to continue to subsidize the production of our Presidential conventions by the two major parties, it is very difficult to articulate and even to understand. They are, as I say, grand fun, wonderful occasions--week-long party gatherings that are, unfortunately, in this day and age, largely symbolic. One can't even argue something important is being decided because, unfortunately, they ceased to have real significance sometime ago, and that was part of our effort to try and cleanse the system. Rather than having people selected by these delegates that come to these conventions, we should move more and more to the primary operation and, of course, then earlier and earlier in the season so that somehow it becomes a 2-year event. I guess we're already in that. Taxpayers would be shocked, if not outraged, to discover that they have been funding these extravagant photo ops. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, since 1976, approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on publicly funding our Presidential primaries, our Presidential general elections, and our Presidential party conventions. The American taxpayer has paid enough for this unwise experiment. I think it should be ended and the balance in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account returned to the Treasury to be used for deficit reduction. I think we'd actually have the American people cheering us for that. According to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office estimate, the elimination of this program will save American taxpayers $617 million over the next 10 years. Now, some could say, Well, that's your opinion. We have our opinion. Why change things? Well, why don't we look to the opinion of the American people. Not a bad idea in this House. Simply put, this program does not have the support of the American people. Taxpayer support has declined precipitously over time. I remember, years ago, I thought it was a good experiment. I thought it was a good idea. I checked off for some of my taxes to go to this program. I was in hopes that it would actually prove to be a good change. I, like most Americans, though, who contributed to that in the past, have given up on the program. We don't believe it gave us what we thought it might. In 1980, for instance, the percentage of taxpayers participating through their tax form checkoffs was 28.7 percent. It was so popular that in 1985 it was 23 percent. It proved so successful that in 1990 it was 19.5 percent. Boy, it really proved itself by the year 1995, because then 12.9 percent of the American taxpayers decided they'd participate. In the year 2000, it dropped to 11.5 percent. In 2005, it was 9.1 percent. According to the IRS data obtained from the FEC, the checkoff rate in 2010 was 7.3 percent. In other words, on a direct vote, a plebiscite taken by the taxpayers of America, 92.7 percent reject the notion. Now, where I come from, that's a landslide. I think even in Chicago it would be a landslide-- even if you paid your taxes only once. Mr. Chairman, this candidate and convention subsidy is obviously unpopular. To paraphrase one former member of the Federal Election Commission, ``Any system of public financing must have popular support to succeed. Today's low taxpayer checkoff rates cast serious doubt on whether the public financing system has this support. When only one in 13 taxpayers are participating, it is very difficult to conclude that the public financing system has broad popular support.'' Mr. Chairman, as we promised in the Pledge to America and as we have promised here on the floor during these initial weeks of the 112th Congress and as we have verified by our transparency-enhancing rules package, our bipartisan votes to trim Congress' budget and end excessive congressional printing, by our determination to return discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less and now through this bill, the Republican majority is committed to fiscal stewardship, to having a relentless eye on waste and inefficiency, and to a continued commitment through this 112th Congress to reduce spending, to create private sector jobs, and to produce meaningful legislation that makes long-lasting reforms. Mr. Chairman, if we, in fact, mean what we say when we say we are willing to look at those programs that already exist and to judge whether or not they have proven to be efficacious, or efficient or successful, in promoting the principles that underlie their passage in the first place, we ought to start with this. This is a program that almost 93 percent of the American people who pay taxes reject, and we're asking them to participate. Maybe we ought to listen to what they are saying and, instead, allow the savings garnered by this particular bill to go toward deficit reduction. This bill, introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, should garner overwhelming bipartisan support. We should thank him for introducing it--and I do--and for his commitment to a more responsible and efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars. I would urge my colleagues to understand what this bill is and understand what it is not and to support H.R. 359. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the ranking member of our committee has been very fair in the proceedings that he had with us over the last number of years, and I appreciate that. We will continue that tradition. We were unable to have any hearings or consideration of this matter before our committee until yesterday when we finally were told by the minority party as to who they wish to have on our committee. We could not meet as a full committee until we had a complement of both Democrats and Republicans. We established our side several weeks ago. I am sorry that happened. We will have plenty of hearings in the future on this and other issues. What is the current system that we are hearing the other side defend? What has it given us? It has given us Lyndon LaRouche, but it would prevent Eugene McCarthy from being a successful Presidential candidate. That's what we don't hear. The system works against some people like a Eugene McCarthy, who was a poor fundraiser but managed to have a number of people who supported him, who gave him large contributions. And yet he was able to change the course of history, bringing down a sitting President and allow for--well, he was called the Pied Piper of the youth vote. So let's understand the complexity of the history of this law. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, this law has failed us. It has failed the American people. The American people have rendered their judgment. Nearly 93 percent of the American people who paid taxes have voted ``no'' to this system. That ought to give us good guidance as to where we could find savings to bring down our national debt. As I understand it, we are going to have an amendment from the Democratic side of the aisle which causes any money saved here to go to bringing down the debt. I hope that it comes forward, and I will support it. I hope we have the support of our colleagues for this bill.