Daniel Lungren

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, as was stated by the chairman of our committee, this is a sensible bill to improve administrative operations at the Library of Congress, and I'm pleased to support it. The bill improves operations at the Library of Congress related to surplus or obsolete property, the student loan repayment program, and the workers' compensation payment program. These are reasonable and sound changes. We discussed them at our committee markup. I support them. I thank my colleague and the staff for their hard work, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5681. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me say, Mr. Speaker, both as a Member of Congress and as the former attorney general of the State of California, I have long been concerned with the plight of those who have been victimized by crime. The anti-stalking law we had in the State of California was one that we worked with local law enforcement on and the agents that worked for me also worked on that in coordination with the local law enforcement officers. Certainly, those who have suffered from the threats of stalkers warrant our concern and our action. I also would like to acknowledge the work, the pioneering work, that was done by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) on this with the original Federal anti-stalking legislation. I certainly appreciate the motivations and efforts of the gentlewoman from California who brings this bill here today in an effort to respond to this serious issue. However, I must suggest that legislation of this magnitude is of sufficient importance that it warrants attention by our committee commensurate with the serious nature of the stalking issue. Regrettably, we have had no hearings on this bill, no markups, no legislative process of any kind. Until this evening, we did not even know the full contents of this bill, and now Members are being asked to vote on it. Further, it's my understanding the bill was added to the suspension calendar late last night. I understand that we may need to revisit the Federal statute now if this is not adequate to protect the victims of stalking. But having just received a copy of the final version of this legislation this evening, I do wish we had had more time to devote to this important bill. Certainly, victims of emotionally and physically devastating crimes like stalking deserve the very best this Congress can produce, rather than us perhaps making some errors in the bill that we are considering, particularly a bill that was finalized an hour before votes. Although this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules, the lack of process surrounding this vote seems to have suspended all of the rules, unfortunately. Nevertheless, the proposal does address issues of legitimate concern to stalking victims. I, therefore, support this measure, and I would argue that all Members should support this measure. However, I do feel it necessary to register strong disappointment considering the method with which this bill has been brought to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this bill. Anybody who has spoken with or in any way had an opportunity to meet with those who have been the victims of stalkers understands the terrible emotional impact that this illegal activity can have. Oftentimes, it is an act precedent to actual physical harm; but even when actual physical harm is not done, the emotional toll is, in fact, real and extensive. This bill, I think, furthers the interest that we have in the Federal anti-stalking law, but at the same time I do register my reservation about the manner in which it was brought forward without full consultation with those of us on this side of the aisle on the committee. Nonetheless, it's a good idea. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I hope it gets unanimous support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, in the mid-1990s, when I was privileged to serve the State of California as its Attorney General, we looked to New Jersey for inspiration to change our laws. At that time, if you were a sex offender convicted of a sex offense and you had served your time, even though that was public information, it was almost impossible for the public at large to know who you were and where you were living. So we decided to follow the New Jersey law in California and adopt Megan's Law, which gave information more readily accessible to the public about where these predators live. It has worked enormously well. The claims of those who thought we would somehow deprive those who had served their time of their privacy rights, or that we would somehow instill the seeds of vigilantism, have been proven wrong. It has worked very, very effectively. Since that time we have adopted laws such as Jessica's Laws, which says that those who are registered sex offenders cannot live near children, they cannot live near schools where children go, they cannot live close to the parks where they may play. And that has worked well. So some of these sex offenders have decided that they will ply their vicious trade, so to speak, beyond our shores. And those are the ones that this International Megan's Law directs its attention to. No longer will they have the mask of anonymity when they go looking for children to exploit in foreign countries. This is a simple law. It is a law based on information. It is a law based on the knowledge of those who have already committed and are likely to recommit. It makes eminent sense. We hope there will be a unanimous vote in favor of International Megan's Law.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5827 and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010 because the bill does recognize that an individual's Second Amendment right to lawful self-defense is not suspended during periods of financial hardship. The Second Amendment confirms the right of every American to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Neither Federal nor any State legislature is permitted to enact a law infringing on this most basic right. In 2008, the Supreme Court confirmed in its Heller decision that ``There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.'' This fundamental right to defend oneself and one's family with lawful and responsible gun ownership was reinforced just this year when, in McDonald, the court prohibited State and local legislatures from passing laws infringing on an individual's Second Amendment rights. Following passage of this bill, gun owners will be protected against overreaching legislatures but also from the harsh realities of the current economic crisis. Americans need not be reminded that our Nation is still mired in some of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. In my home State of California, bankruptcy filings in the first quarter of 2010 have increased approximately 41 percent over the first quarter of 2009. The bill we're considering today, recognizing that constitutional rights do not halt in the face of financial difficulty, creates a new Federal exemption that places a personal firearm beyond the reach of creditors and allows the debtor to avoid liens on the firearm if they would otherwise prohibit him from taking the new exemption. The Bankruptcy Code already exempts a variety of other basic items like linens and household goods that a debtor needs during a bankruptcy case to live a modest life and reorganize his or her financial affairs. The bill confirms that a debtor can maintain his or her own safety while the bankruptcy case is pending. The Federal bankruptcy exemption we are creating today is consistent with the principles embodied in the Second Amendment. I would urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. That is not enough for me to oppose this bill because I think the essentials of this bill are necessary for us to help protect those in Indian lands. But, Mr. Speaker, the nature of Indian land is very different in different States. Some States have very, very large reservations and very few tribes, with very large populations in those tribes. California has, by and large, very small geographic reservations and other properties that are sovereign territory of the Indians involved. We have relatively small bands, but large numbers of them. So we have a different set of circumstances with which we have to deal. I had hoped that we would be able to work legislation that would acknowledge that difference, but unfortunately that did not happen here. I will support this bill, but it is unfortunate that true concerns expressed by law enforcement in PL-280 States and other areas of the country were not taken into consideration here, and I hope we will have a chance in the future to amend this legislation.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I concur with the interpretation of the provision expressed by him, and I would like to thank him for his clarification regarding the intent of the language in section 201 of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, although I intend to support this legislation, the process under which the bill has been brought up can only be described as stranger than fiction. While it might have been appropriate to consider under suspension an act to protect Indian arts crafts, the guts of that bill have been replaced with language that dramatically affect the criminal justice system on tribal lands. The House Judiciary Committee on which I serve had no markup, either in subcommittee or at full committee, and although we did have a subcommittee hearing on a different bill, H.R. 1924, which I attended in full and found most interesting and helpful, we did not work our will on the legislation. Why am I concerned about that? Because there are some very specific parts of Indian law as it incorporates State law in PL-280 States that, frankly, are not fully addressed in this bill. Among other things, it is likely we will need to address the adequacy of the training standards in the bill which are less rigorous than the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission standards in my own State. As the former chairman of that commission, I realize the seriousness of the training requirements of law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, that is not addressed in this bill. Secondly, there is a concern expressed by law enforcement officials in my State about the adequacy of protection of information. Under current law, under the CLETS system, the California law enforcement system dealing with criminal justice information, it is not currently available to tribal authorities because of the lack of training and of a concern about liability. As this now will be made available through the national system with the Federal Government's work, the question of liability if there is misuse of that information remains, and local law enforcement in my State of California have informed me of their continuing concern on this.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman for that.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee, and I would like to address changes made to section 201 of the Tribal Law and Order Act that concern Public Law No. 83-280, commonly known as Public Law 280. This law was enacted on August 15, 1953, and Public Law 280 removed the Federal Government's special Indian country law enforcement jurisdiction over almost all Indian lands in the States of Alaska upon statehood, my home State of California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, and permitted these States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over those lands. The act specifically provides that these States ``shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country . . . to the same extent that such State . . . has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State . . . and the criminal laws of such State . . . shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State.'' Section 201 of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 allows the Federal Government to reassume criminal jurisdiction on Public Law 280 lands when the affected Indian tribe requests the U.S. Attorney General to do so. If the Attorney General concurs, the United States will reassume jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the General and Major Crimes Acts, sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18, that occur on the requesting tribe's reservation. The bill makes clear that once the United States assumes jurisdictions pursuant to this provision, criminal authority on the affected reservation will be concurrent among the Federal and State governments and, ``where applicable,'' tribal governments. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, to make clear that nothing in the Tribal Law and Order Act retracts jurisdiction from the State governments and nothing in the act will grant criminal jurisdiction in Indian country to an Indian tribe that does not currently have criminal jurisdiction over such land. I would yield to the chairman for that.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in my remaining time that I hope that this is a unanimous vote in support of this legislation. It gives a framework to the S&T directorate, and it is an assertion of the proper jurisdiction of this committee and of this House, and I do believe this moves us in the right direction. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4842, the Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization Act of 2010. It gives me great pleasure to work with the gentlewoman in bringing forward this authorization bill to the floor. This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the Science and Technology Directorate and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, and I want to thank the chairwoman for her bipartisan leadership on this legislation. This process started last summer with numerous stakeholder meetings, followed by meetings and recommendations from the Department of Homeland Security and concluding with the recent improvements and support of the House Science and Technology Committee. When it comes to homeland security, there is no room for partisanship. Chairwoman Clark and the chairman of our full committee, Chairman Thompson, working together with Mr. King from New York, the ranking Republican on the committee, all deserve a great deal of credit for reaching out across the aisle to craft a more effective bill, and, I must say, it does include provisions of importance to our Republican members. These provisions would include the establishment of research initiatives to bolster border and maritime security; the development of tools to enhance resilience to terrorist attacks and other incidents, especially in rural communities; research and testing of technologies to help secure the border and ensure the safety of our underground mass transit systems; as well as an assessment of how useful rapid screening tools for influenza and other biological threats would be at our border ports of entry. Our bill emphasizes management and administrative reforms that target the needs of the Science and Technology customers, those being the Border Patrol, TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, and ICE, by most closely aligning the Directorate's research and development activities with identified homeland security risks so there will be a more rapid application of the technology to the true needs as identified by S&T's customers. It will improve our homeland security by establishing a more rigorous process within the S&T Directorate for identifying, prioritizing, and funding these important research opportunities. It recognizes the need to prioritize research around risk and authorizes the establishment of a Testing, Evaluation, and Standards Division within the S&T Directorate to help ensure that technology is properly evaluated. So, Mr. Speaker, in order to foster closer collaboration between the Science and Technology Directorate and commercial companies with promising Homeland Security technologies, our bill authorizes the Office of Public-Private Partnerships to be established within the S&T Directorate. Importantly, title VII of our legislation establishes a Commission on the Protection of Critical Electric and Electronic Infrastructures to assess the vulnerabilities of this infrastructure and make recommendations for better securing this critically important infrastructure in the future. While we rely on the cyberworld for much of our embedded command and control systems, perhaps it is no more important than in the area of critical electric and electronic infrastructure, and it is our hope that this commission will help us in the Congress to prioritize those needs with respect to the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure and the protection of that infrastructure. We depend on the Science and Technology Directorate to develop state- of-the-art technology to protect our citizens and critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Timely and accurate intelligence is always our best defense against the terror threat. However, when we have no actionable intelligence, we must rely on the skill of our personnel and the effectiveness of our technology in order to detect, deter, and defend against the terrorist enemy. The better technology we develop and deploy, the stronger, therefore, our homeland security. We believe this legislation will help provide the necessary technology tools to bolster our homeland defenses. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight a very important provision in this bill that is critical to both Ranking Member King and the security of New York City, as well as to our Nation as a whole. It is the authorization and expansion of the Securing the Cities program. Securing the Cities is a vital Homeland Security program to help prevent terrorist attacks in major cities using nuclear radiological weapons such as a dirty bomb. The program has enabled the establishment of a network ring of radiological detectors on highways, toll plazas, bridges, tunnels, and waterways leading into and out of New York City, which, as we know, is perhaps the top terrorist target for al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations. The detonation of a nuclear or dirty bomb in the New York City Tri- State area or any other major metropolitan area would inflict serious damage to our country's economy in addition to the terrible tragedy of the human lives involved, and it would be much like the 9/11 attacks. Securing the Cities is a successful program that can and should be replicated in other areas around the country. That's why language in this bill would expand the program to at least two additional high-risk cities where these capabilities are most needed, therefore leveraging what we already have learned about building defenses against nuclear and radiological weapons in New York City to erect similar security perimeters in and around other cities. I want to remind our colleagues that the threat of nuclear or radiological terrorism is real. It's not just an academic exercise. It's not just some fiction. It is real. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, the WMD Commission, warned in 2008 that an attack using a weapon of mass destruction was likely to happen somewhere in the world by 2013. Commissioners Graham and Talent, appearing before our committee on April 21 of this year, repeated this warning. The President's National Security Strategy that was released earlier this year concluded this: ``The American people face no greater or more urgent danger than a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. The potential of nuclear or radiological terrorism is a nightmare scenario that we must guard against with every available capability and resource. We believe that authorizing and expanding Securing the Cities will help protect our country, not just New York City but the entire country, from such a danger.'' Now, let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that while I'm pleased we are considering this bill today, I do believe that the House should be considering a comprehensive authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security. This House has not done so since 2007, with one of the reasons being that we, frankly, have too many committees and subcommittees having jurisdiction over homeland security. The 9/11 Commission recommended, in 2004, that ``Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight review for homeland security.'' Unfortunately, the current jurisdictional web of congressional oversight under the Department of Homeland Security results in conflicting guidance to the Department and is a serious drain on its time and resources. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't say this as a Republican criticizing the majority in the House. This was true when the Republicans were in control. It is the remaining recommendation by the 9/11 Commission that has not been enacted into law here by this House. The chairman and the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, testified that this jurisdictional maze is unworkable, and they said it could make our country less safe. Those are strong words, but they repeated them in their testimony before our committee. I hope that we can streamline congressional jurisdiction moving forward so that Congress can enact a comprehensive authorization bill for the Department, which, I say, has not happened since its creation in 2003. The failure to do so jeopardizes our ability to ensure that our Nation's homeland security policies are as robust as they need to be to meet the evolving nature of terrorism. I want to again thank Chairman Thompson, Chairwoman Clarke, and Ranking Member King for all their help in crafting a very good bipartisan bill that strengthens our homeland security capabilities, and I would, of course, urge all my colleagues to support passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very valuable member of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I guess the polls show that the Democrats are in trouble, because every time that happens, Social Security is pulled out of their back pocket. Republicans are going to destroy Social Security. This party is the only party to save Social Security. Democrats must be behind in the polls because they are pulling out George W. Bush. I have looked all over this campus. I can't find him. I went down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He left. Maybe you folks didn't notice. President Obama is there. And what a real shame it is that current Democrats are running away from the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy. He told us, forget about class warfare; a rising tide lifts all boats. Maybe you ought to listen to some of those on your side who didn't talk about fear but talked about hope.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the late California State senator and former California Assembly Republican Leader Dave Cox, who passed away at his home yesterday, surrounded by his loving family. I had the great pleasure of working with Dave, and I admired not only his energy, but his tireless service to the people he represented. I was pleased that I was able to represent some of those same people in my congressional district, which overlapped his State senate district. He constantly strove to make government work better for people, and I do believe he accomplished this mission. His public service spanned more than two decades, and it goes without saying that he will be sorely missed across the entire Sacramento region. Dave served on the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Board, and was a 6-year Sacramento County supervisor before joining the California Assembly in 1998, and then the California Senate in 2004. Much can be said about Dave Cox the public servant, but let us remember that he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather as well. Dave, along with his wife, Maggie, raised three daughters, and were the proud grandparents of six grandchildren. I was pleased to be able to speak with him just a few weeks ago, when he had returned from receiving some treatment for the cancer. And he told me that he was going to return to the State senate, which he did several days later. Here was yet another example of a man serving the people he loved until the very end. He said to me at that time, well, he was only about 90 percent. And I said, ``Well, 90 percent of Dave Cox is better than a hundred percent of most of the people in public service.'' I am honored to remember my friend, the late Senator Dave Cox, a devoted family man, an exemplary public servant, and a trusted colleague. Eternal rest, grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I think, though, it is instructive to note the rather strange circumstances surrounding the process involved here. Usually process is not important, but I do think that we ought to use our rules to try and make it easier for Members to understand what they are voting on, that we try to make it as clear as possible as to the subject matter, that we give Members sufficient time so they can consider the actual language of the bill, and that we actually allow further and more robust debate on this floor. One of the laments I have, having returned to this Congress in 2005, is a lessening of the importance of the dynamic of the floor of the House of Representatives. When my party was in charge and now when the other party has been in charge, rules, in my judgment, have been far too restrictive. There have been far fewer amendments allowed on this floor for full debate. There have been far fewer Members recognized for the possibility of offering their particular perspectives. I do not think that is a good thing. I think that is a bad thing. Members should understand the consequence of the Suspension Calendar or of having something that is subject to a consent request for a suspension of the rules, because it is important for Members to understand that every single word of substance in a bill brought forward to this floor, other than the title, can be changed when you suspend the rules. I think that's important for people to know. Secondly, it is also disappointing that one week we will have an idea roundly criticized and even suggested to be blatantly unconstitutional. Then the next week, without, really, any further debate, without any hearings and without any new knowledge that has changed a review of the subject matter, it suddenly is no longer that. I never thought it was unconstitutional in the first instance, but sometimes our rhetoric gets away with us on this floor. I think you can have a vigorous and robust debate without exaggeration to such an extent that you dismiss things lightly as being unconstitutional. I am reminded of what Justice Scalia said in a speech a few years ago. He said, when he was a kid, growing up, and when you saw something you didn't like or that you thought was wrong, you'd say, There ought to be a law. As a matter of fact, there was a cartoon series on that: ``There ought to be a law.'' He said now the tendency is when you see something you don't like or when you see something you would change, you say, It's unconstitutional. While that may not sound that important, it is extremely important because, if you say, There ought to be a law, you are accepting the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a law. If you say, It's unconstitutional, you are suggesting that that subject matter has been removed from the arena of public debate and democratic processes, that is, removed from the legislative and executive branches and given exclusively to the judiciary, wherein they make the decision, and their decision ultimately is not appealable to the other branches of government. That is a tremendous distinction. In my judgment, we have seen the courts, over the last decades, trespass upon the appropriate democratic rights of the American public, that is, telling them they no longer have the ability to make the decision through their democratic branches of government. It is, rather, going to be in that nondemocratic--and I mean that intentionally. They are not supposed to be responsive as we are to the public. But because of that, where they rule on the basis of the Constitution ought to be in a very limited, relatively limited area. So I think we ought to be more careful when, instead of engaging in the debate on the subject matter at hand, we lightly suggest that our disagreement with it is that it is unnecessarily unconstitutional. Now, I realize I made the argument last week on the bill before us, the DISCLOSE Act, on the unconstitutionality, but I believe I did back that up with legal analysis and had extended debate on the floor on that, as opposed to just throwing it out as an argument against a single amendment or single section of the bill. With that, I would urge my colleagues to overlook the manner in which this was brought to the floor, accept the explanations and heartfelt concerns expressed by my friend from Michigan about the manner in which it came to the floor, and with all that, support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So further parliamentary inquiry. Under the rules of the House, a motion such as made by the gentleman to suspend the rules in effect suspends all rules, including rules that would govern the language of the bill as introduced and as given to the minority yesterday and up until 20 minutes ago.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it under the rules, or is it customary interpretation under the rules, that the minority receive a copy of the bill to be brought to the floor at some time before 20 minutes before it's brought to the floor? Is there no requirement for notice of the actual contents of the bill to be considered, even under a request such as has been made by the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So, as I understand what the Speaker is telling me, this request for consent to bring this to the floor at this time would have the effect of discharging the committee of jurisdiction, that is, the Committee of House Administration, and bring it directly to the floor to be handled now by another committee, the Committee on the Judiciary. Is that correct?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Mr. Hall just suggested that his bill is stronger than the motion to recommit that I had last week with respect to actions of those who represent state sponsors of terrorism, that is, those who lobby on behalf of those states. At that time, the majority position was that even that limitation was blatantly unconstitutional. Those were the words of Mr. Van Hollen on the floor specifically referring to what, now, Mr. Hall says is a lesser prohibition than what he brings forward. I presume that, therefore, their review of the constitutionality of this now reveals to them that it is constitutional for us to do this and the statements that were made last week on the floor against my motion to recommit are, in fact, inoperative. Here's what Mr. Van Hollen said: You're denying American citizens and voters the right to contribute to campaigns, to participate freely in campaigns. He's referring specifically to that section that I had in the bill talking about lobbyists. Now you're saying that they may not perform any lobbying activities whatsoever. I mean, I agree with the intent. I hope it is, in fact, constitutional. But it is just remarkable that you can come on the floor and condemn something as being blatantly unconstitutional, get a majority vested, 216 members of the Democratic Party voting against it, and then a week later come back and say, Look at us. We are now presenting a real tough restriction that's even tougher than what you offered last week, which was unconstitutional. But ours, which is more restrictive, is, in fact, constitutional. You know, we ought to do better than that. We also ought to do better than changing our handiwork just before we hit the floor. It is interesting to see the text of the bill, which still calls it a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, when, in fact, the substance of it deals with amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. But obviously someone, just before they got to the floor, understood that, and you can see some cut and paste at the bottom--it doesn't even have lines for the bill--which amends the title so that the title now reads, ``A bill to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.'' When I was in high school, I guess and even grade school, eighth grade, when we used to put things together, we would call it cut and paste, but I would hope that we could do better than that here in the House of Representatives on the floor of the House. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. CONYERS: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is the most interesting debate in which we are all going to support the amendment but the process has been corrupted, and I think it's been implied more than once that this bill of Mr. Hall's has been borrowed from our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And the fine detail in which we have scrutinized the parliamentary improprieties is absolutely amazing. It is not reckless to suggest that all of the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle are going to obviously support this measure. It's just that the proper credit has not been allocated to all the parties that have participated so ably in bringing this matter to the floor. I only wish there was some way I could correct that because I believe in fairness, and I want my colleagues to know that we're not trying to steal their thunder. I think that we all agree ultimately upon the objective. But constitutionally--and no one knows this better than the former attorney general of California--constitutionally you cannot preclude an American citizen from making a contribution, and that bill that was previously considered and discussed did that. You can, however, prohibit a foreign country from hiring lobbyists, and this is what we did and do. I am sure that it can withstand constitutional scrutiny and that we can go forward into the holiday, recognizing that we have done exactly what we set out to do. I yield to the gentleman from New York if he would like to make a further comment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. According to the copy of the bill that I have, 5609, it says that this bill is referred to the Committee on House Administration. If it is referred to the Committee on House Administration, how is that on this floor it is now being brought forward by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is not a member of the Committee on House Administration?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry.