Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chair, obviously, if you attempt to speak on the floor and your microphone is not near you or they have turned it off, you can't exercise your right to represent your constituents here--I yield myself such time as I may consume--and that is the problem with this bill. It does not allow the free exercise of the First Amendment right to speech. The Constitution of the United States refers to that First Amendment. And, unfortunately, in many, many decisions by the Supreme Court, they've talked about everything other than political speech. Yet in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the court finally got it right. The majority opinion says the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints prohibited to or restrictions differing among different speakers allowing speech by some but not by others. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this bill does. Benjamin Franklin stated: Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a Nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Unfortunately, that is what we have here before us, Mr. Chairman. Just because you call something ``disclose'' or ``disclosure'' does not make it so. When you prohibit speech, as has been done here; when you have onerous disclosure obligations placed on some but not all; when you make no distinguishing, that is, constitutionally justifiable distinguishing differences between groups, that is, you cause some to be subjected to provisions of disclosure and others not; when you specifically have five or six provisions in which you exempt unions as opposed to corporations of all stripes, then you have rendered the bill unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, I would have asked if it were proper to have a unanimous consent request to extend our debate for 4 hours, but I know that's not in order. The majority has decided to stifle debate by allowing only a single hour of debate on this issue dealing directly with the First Amendment. We have spent in excess of 10 hours in this Congress talking about the naming of post offices, but we have determined that we do not have more time than an hour to discuss something as important as the First Amendment to the Constitution. When we allow ourselves to become an auction house for the First Amendment, where some, because of their power and influence, are allowed to exercise First Amendment rights, unfettered, and others are not, it is a sorry day. And to do it under the rubric of disclosure is even worse, but that's what we have here. Mr. Chairman, in the time given to us, I hope that we can explain exactly what this bill does and what it does not do and why it, in fact, not only is dangerous to the First Amendment but is directed at the heart of the First Amendment, which is vigorous political speech, particularly close to an election. It may make some Members uncomfortable. As a matter of fact, in some of the hearings and markup of this bill, we had Members saying, If I had my way, I'd make sure no one could say anything about our campaigns except those of us who are candidates. Unfortunately, there's something called the First Amendment. And I know it's bothersome to some on the other side. I know it's an obstacle to what they want to do. But when I came here, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and all parts, not just the Second Amendment by way of specific exemption, but of all amendments, the first as well as the second, and every other. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, we're going to start talking about a rule and then go into the substance of a bill called the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act supposedly talks merely about disclosure of political speech, but what it really does is affect the First Amendment to the Constitution which says, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say, Congress will pass laws which allow some people to speak but not others, and yet that's what the bill does that's being brought to us. If you happen to be a big organization, a large special interest with a lot of money and have been around a long time, you are exempt from the disclosure requirements. But if you happen to be somebody like, oh, the tea party or a smaller group or you don't have all the money or you haven't been around for 10 years, you have the imposition of the burden of disclosure which, in some cases, will make it impossible for you to exercise free speech. You know, the First Amendment talks about speech. My friends on the other side of the aisle love to talk about how it protects, oh, nude dancing or something like that. How about talking about political speech.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Connor Ellison. This past Saturday, June 19, 2010, Connor's Hope-Team Donate Life successfully completed a 3,005 mile-long bike ride across the United States in 6 days, 20 hours, and 39 minutes in the Race Across America. The team started their journey in Oceanside, California and completed the crossing in Annapolis, Maryland. Team Donate Life is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting organ donation and transplantation. Connor Ellison, a 12-year-old Folsom, California resident, became the youngest rider to ever compete and finish the Race Across America--the world's toughest bicycle race. Connor is an inspiration to all of us, as he accomplished this great feat while battling a serious liver disease called Congenital Hepatic Fibrosis. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of Connor Ellison and Connor's Hope-Team Donate Life.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, once again, we have discovered that there appears to be some glitch in the majority's effort to bring the so-called DISCLOSE Act to the floor. It apparently is over how many people get exempted from the disclosure rules that otherwise prevail. We have had the NRA exemption, which was for organizations which have over 1 million people, which have actually existed more than 10 years, which have people in all 50 States, in D.C. and in Puerto Rico, and which have less than 15 percent of their funds from corporations. Now we understand they have dropped it to 500,000. Madam Speaker, we did not take the oath to the Constitution to only uphold part of the Constitution. It is time that we stop auctioning off the First Amendment and start understanding that we here are supposed to protect the First Amendment, not parcel it out, not deny it to some and give it to others. The First Amendment is for all Americans, not just for those favored by one party or another.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, there is uncertainty on this floor as I speak as to whether or not we are going to bring up the DISCLOSE Act this day in the Rules Committee or on this floor this week. The reason appears to be that a special exemption has been given to just a select number of groups, starting with the National Rifle Association, but also not including the Gun Owners of America; including the Humane Society, but not including other agricultural groups in America. In other words, we are saying that free speech is free for some but not all. And as I looked at this exemption that's been given, you have to have over a million members. You have to have members in all 50 States. You have to have existed for more than 10 years. It is obvious we have now gone from too big to fail to too big to file. In other words, if you have got enough juice here, you are not going to be included. But if you do, you are going to be excluded, and you are going to be allowed in this election period to fully use your First Amendment rights. That's not what the Constitution's all about.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I take these 5 minutes to speak on a subject that is of utmost importance but that does not regularly get discussed here on the floor, which is the First Amendment to the Constitution, that part of it which deals with freedom of speech--that is, with freedom of political speech. Now, obviously, the First Amendment of the Constitution does not merely protect political speech, but in the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, known as Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. In other words, they said, if you look at the essence of the First Amendment protection, it goes, first and foremost, to political speech. They had this in laying the premise for the decision that they came to because the Supreme Court realized that the First Amendment's protection for political speech had been under assault by various pieces of legislation passed by this body, not that it was done for evil purposes or intentionally to undercut the Constitution of the United States; rather, it was done in a good-faith effort to try and deal with political campaigns and with the position of money in political campaigns. The Supreme Court decided back in the 1970s, in Buckley vs. Valeo, that money is speech, meaning that the money you have you can use as you see fit to further your speech. You can print pamphlets; you can buy a megaphone; you can buy a radio ad; you can buy a television ad; you can hire somebody to represent your interest to appear in an ad for you. In other words, the Supreme Court recognized that, in the way that we communicate, oftentimes, it takes the use of money to further that communication. So they made a decision at that point in time that, by terms of the First Amendment, you could not stop one from using one's money to express one's point of view. Then they went to the point of asking, But how does that apply when you are giving money to a candidate? In those instances, the Court said that the government might be able to put some restrictions on speech--that is the use of money--but only if it is for the purpose of avoiding the corruption of the process. That is the only basis upon which the government can put some limitations, or parameters, around political speech. In the Citizens United case, they had to decide: As people individually and as associated with others--and the First Amendment talks about freedom of association--what are they allowed to do, permitted to do, protected under the First Amendment, when they expend funds to express a point of view during a period of time that is close to an election? That is why the Court said that First Amendment freedoms are at their height when the speaker is addressing matters of public policy, politics and governance and has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office, because that is the point in time when you might have the most influence on your fellow citizens. Now, what does this have to do with what we are doing here on the floor? Well, there is a bill that has been introduced, called the DISCLOSE Act--Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act. We are led to believe by the majority that all this does is promote disclosure. Yet, in fact, what it does under its very terms is chill political speech, so much so that the National Rifle Association came out with a large complaint about the bill, saying that it would have an undue burden on its operations in expressing itself and would intimidate membership. Now, some people scoffed at it and said, Well, it's the National Rifle Association talking again. But what happened? We have found that the majority listening to the National Rifle Association has created a specific exemption for that group and for others similarly situated, but not for others. That is the crux of the question: Do we have a situation in which now we say not only too big to fail but, for some, too big to file? It is an affront to the First Amendment, and my hope is that we will not bring this bill to the floor, because, of all things, we should be most protective of the speech of our fellow citizens when they engage in political debate.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we have heard today some comments from our friends on the other side of the aisle about fiscal responsibility and about creating jobs, but the one thing we haven't heard from them is anything about the budget. If they were from Hollywood, they would be up here saying, ``We don't need no stinkin' budget.'' If they were involved in, oh, Presidential politics a few years ago, they would say, ``Where's the beef? Where's the budget?'' Fiscal responsibility starts with knowing where you are and where you are going. Every family in America adopts a budget, but I guess we are too big to fail. We are too big to create budgets because we can just print money after money after money. The fundamental proposition is, as stated by the chairman of the Budget Committee a couple years ago, if you can't budget, you can't govern. They've told us they can't budget. They're proving to us they can't govern. The problem is this is not a game; this is not a Hollywood movie; this is real life, and real people are hurting. Let's get down to the business of helping people by being responsible here, and let's start with a budget. Everybody understands that, perhaps, except the Democratic leadership.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we are setting new records here in this Congress and in this government. We are now approaching, if we haven't already leaped over it, the $14 trillion mark for the national debt. Fourteen trillion dollars. It doesn't just kind of trip off your tongue. It's a huge number. It's a number that is difficult to contemplate. And yet we sit here, working very diligently on suspension calendar bills, doing virtually nothing about the national debt except adding to it day after day after day. If you were to have a household income, and you were trying to determine what to do with your debt, it seems to me the first thing you would do is you would adopt a budget. You would adopt a budget to try and figure out your income, your expenses, how much debt you could have. But we have been informed by the majority that we're not even going to start with that this year. We are going to forget about even coming up with a budget, I guess because we're so embarrassed about the numbers that would be in there. Let's at least do what families do: adopt a budget and then keep it.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Fire Chief Steven Foster for his 20 years of service to the Cosumnes Community Services District as he now retires. The Cosumnes CSD serves an estimated 169,000 south Sacramento County residents in a 157-square mile area. Its award-winning parks and recreation services--including the operation of 83 CSD parks--operate exclusively within the Elk Grove community. It provides fire protection and emergency medical services for the cities of Elk Grove and Galt and unincorporated areas of south Sacramento County. Foster, in addition to his duties as Cosumnes Fire Chief, has been an officer in the California Fire Chiefs Association and has been serving as chair of its legislative committee this year. Over the years, Chief Foster became the Fire Marshal and ushered in new fire codes. Rising to the rank of Deputy Fire Chief, he was responsible for the Department budget and guided the purchase of numerous properties for future fire stations, managed the construction of Fire Station 72 in Franklin Reserve, and renovated and expanded Station 74 in Laguna. Foster is a past President of the Sacramento County Fire Marshals and Fire Chiefs Associations. He also has been active in the Elk Grove Rotary Club. Steven Foster is on the executive board for the Sacramento Area Fire Chaplaincy. He is a member of the Elk Grove Rotary Club, and is a past president for both the Sacramento County Fire Chiefs Association and Sacramento County Fire Marshals Association. I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Steven Foster on his retirement for his dedication to our community.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. However, the CBO scores are already linked for the public to view through Thomas.gov as well as a large number of other House, Senate, and other private Web sites. To find out how many, we went and we did a Google search. It reveals over 1,180 Web sites which link to the CBO home page. 1,180 Web sites are already linked to the CBO home page. In addition, the estimates are already publicly available on the CBO Web site, so adding a link there from the Clerk's Web page doesn't make it any more available than it already is. Again, I would just say this: When I was home, not a single person said the way to solve the problem is to put a link on the Clerk's Web site to the CBO estimates that are already available on 1,180 Web sites. What people back home said is, Get a grip on reality. Stop spending too much. Stop taxing too much. Stop putting us into debt--and for God's sake, can't you at least spend time coming up with a budget? I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would yield, frankly, I don't know. That has not been presented to us at all.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1178, directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to ensure that cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office are available to the public. Shouldn't we be spending our time perhaps having the Budget Committee meet and giving us a budget this year? I mean, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, whom I hold in tremendous regard, said a number of years ago when the Republicans were in charge, If you can't set a budget, you can't govern. So instead of us giving meat, we're giving what? I don't know what you would call this? It's not even broth. While I approve of measures that will help the American people know where their money is being spent, that really is the definition of a budget: a budget is the blueprint. In the mid-1970s, we passed the Budget and Impoundment Act for the purpose, purportedly, of making sure that Congress was required to come up with a blueprint that would guide it. Now, it's supposed to be a concurrent resolution, meaning that both Houses pass it. It doesn't go to the President for a signature, so it's an internal document to this institution, that is, the Congress of the United States. And its purpose is to set out markers that will establish the guidelines for spending for the year. That's one of the reasons we have a Rules Committee that would be required to give a waiver on a budget if an appropriations bill came here in violation of the budget. Well, we're not going to have that this year because we're not going to have a budget. Maybe what we're going to do is we're going to deem things. Remember that from the health care bill: we're going to deem it passed. And when the American people heard about that, they said, well, you can't do that. And finally the majority fell off on that one. But I suppose that's what we're going to do when we bring appropriation bills to the floor. They're going to be deemed to meet the budget that doesn't exist. So instead of us giving us meat like that, we're going to bring up this bill. What does it do? What does it do? It requires the Clerk of the House to have on her Web site a link to the CBO analysis. Well, that would be important if they weren't available already, but they're available both through Thomas.gov and the CBO Web site. So I thought maybe it's because the Clerk has some responsibility over the Congressional Budget Office, but that's not the case. If you look at all of the obligations that the Clerk of the House has, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Congressional Budget Office. So what are we doing here? We're bringing a bill to the floor which pretends, it seems to me, to do something about the budget; and it's nothing more than a distraction. The fact of the matter is we do not have a budget this year; we will not have a budget this year. The majority has said they don't want to bring a budget forward. Now, certain news reports have suggested the reason why we will not have a budget is that it will be too embarrassing for us to bring a budget to the floor, particularly before an election. Now, I don't know whether that's true or not, but that has been cited in the public press. We've been hearing a lot lately from our friends on the other side about the importance of disclosure. Section 301 of their highly touted DISCLOSE Act requires reporting organizations to post a link from their home page to the page where its financial disclosure information is available; yet in this bill there is no requirement for a CBO link for the House's home page or for the Members' home page or from the committee's home page or for Members who voted for the spending that will impact the budget, but just from the Clerk's. I really don't understand what this is really going to do. It is telling, while the majority attempts to pass measures like this, we're doing nothing to actually take less of the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people. I was home for the last 10 days in my district, or at least preceding yesterday, and I didn't hear a single person beg me to put a link on the Clerk's Web site for this information. They demanded that we do something about the budget. And when I told them at home we're doing nothing about the budget because the majority has decided we're not even going to bring a budget up-- this will be the first time since we passed that law in the seventies that the House has not passed a budget. Now I hear them say, When the Republicans were in charge we didn't have a budget. That is true. Sometimes the Senate and the House weren't able to reconcile it, but we always passed a budget document from the House of Representatives. So we will be making history this year: no budget for the American people. But they can get on a link and they can go to CBO and they can find out what it costs for a particular bill, but they can't tell whether it's in the budget or not because we don't have a budget. We don't even have to have budget waivers this year from the Rules Committee because there's nothing to waive. Where are the points of order against excessive spending? That's what this House is built on, rules that are supposed to protect the taxpayer. We now are exempting ourselves from our own rules. When I go home, people say, Why doesn't Congress work under the same rules that the rest of the world works under? And I have to agree with them. Now, when I go back to my district and I talk to folks, they talk about the budget for their household. I met with a number of small business people, all the way from a small community in my district called Copperopolis, which celebrated its 150th anniversary, to Folsom, where we celebrated the 150th reenactment of the Pony Express-- actually, they may have the Pony Express there, they also have Intel there--down to Citrus Heights in my district, talking to people all the time, and they kept saying, Why are you taxing so much? Why are you spending so much? Why are you busting the budget? Why are you putting all of this heavy debt burden on our kids? And I said, Those are the same questions I'm asking. When I go back, I'll ask them again. So I'm asking right here, Why are we doing it? And instead of us getting serious, we're going to have this: give you a link to the Clerk's office so that somehow you can find the estimate that's already available on two other Web sites. Now, what are we doing? Have we run out of post offices to name? We have rid the world of the scourge of unnamed post offices in this Congress, and now maybe we're going to start going link by link by link by link. I've been in this Congress for a number of years. I didn't realize it took us to pass a resolution to allow the Clerk to do this. Maybe that's something we have to do from now on. Madam Speaker, instead of wasting the time of this House, maybe we should actually lower the cost estimates produced by the CBO. That would be a good thing; we'll actually take an effort to try and lower them. But the first way you do that is adopt a budget where you debate it and we come to the floor and we say this is what we can afford and this is what we can't afford. We're not even doing that. It would be irresponsible for any family in my district to not have a budget. It would be irresponsible for any business in my district to not have a budget. It would be irresponsible for any local government in my district to not have a budget, yet we don't have a budget. So instead of dealing with that, we are here dealing with this bill. I don't question the gentleman's sincerity in offering this bill. I don't suggest he doesn't want more transparency. But, frankly, transparency over a system that doesn't have the essential foundation of a budget is really a wisp in the wind. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman has no more speakers, I will yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, again, the point is that there are 1,180 Web sites already linking to the CBO. If anything would add to the frustration of the American people, it would be in response to their complaint that we are spending too much, taxing too much, putting them in too much debt, and we don't even have a budget, but we're going to give them a link. Maybe Patrick Henry said, ``Give me a link or give me death,'' or something like that. I don't know. All I'm saying is we almost make ourselves silly here. I know that's not the intent of the gentleman, and I wouldn't suggest so, but back home, this would be considered laughable. With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this to the floor. I rise today in support of H. Res. 1381, recognizing the National Museum of American Jewish History, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, as the only museum in the Nation dedicated exclusively to exploring and preserving the American Jewish experience. This resolution simply commends and congratulates the National Museum of American Jewish History for its outstanding work in presenting and preserving the Jewish American experience and in teaching all Americans about the importance of freedom, respect, and diversity. Opening on July 4, 1976, the museum holds the largest collection in the world of Jewish Americana and is currently expanding to a beautiful new facility appropriately located on Independence Mall in Philadelphia near Independence Hall, the National Constitution Center, and the Liberty Bell. There it will continue to showcase how the freedom of America fostered an environment in which Jewish Americans made and continue to make significant contributions to American life. The National Museum of American Jewish History shares its current site with a Jewish congregation established in the 1740s. This was one of the first organized Jewish congregations in the colonies and was later called the Synagogue of the American Revolution. Indeed, Madam Speaker, our founding documents and the principles upon which our Nation was built reflect our Founding Fathers' adherence to Judeo- Christian values and ethics. From the 1 million Jews in the United States in 1900, to the 550,000 Jews who served in the U.S. military during World War II, to the Jewish peoples liberated by American forces, to the approximately 6 million Jewish Americans with us today, Jews, Americans, and Jewish Americans have been intertwined in their support for liberty and have been vital to our self-governing and culturally rich Republic. Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't say that this resolution comes at a time when current events have subjected the American Jewish community and Jews around the world to greater concern than they have been subjected to for some time. The statements of madmen who have positions of authority in some countries should have us recall the madman of World War II who said similar things. The descriptions utilized by those who vent hatred today against those of the Jewish faith and Jewish ethnicity, those words of vitriol and hatred can do nothing but foster uncertainty, fear, confusion, and ultimately can incite violence. We should recall that a good portion of the world, the free world, stood silently some 65 or 70 years ago when those words were uttered by Adolf Hitler, some saying he is nothing but a madman and Germany is such a distinguished, scientifically advanced, culturally progressive society, that certainly these words of a madman will never take real form. Yet, we know they did. Today, unfortunately, we hear the words of a madman in the country of Iran. In my judgment, too many people say it doesn't mean much, they are just the rantings of someone without real power and, from a country that has the tremendous history of the Persian culture, they certainly would not act on those statements made by that man. Well, we ought to pay attention to history. I would advise Members of this Chamber, perhaps, to read George Gilder's excellent work that was published a year and a half ago called ``The Israel Test.'' In there, he talks about the tremendous contribution of Israelis who have come to the United States and become American citizens and also Americans who have gone to Israel and become tremendous citizens of that country, and the continuing relationship between our two countries and our two cultures, which is to the advantage of both, and the fact that over and over again we have to remind ourselves that those in the State of Israel share common values with the United States and that those common values should not be taken for granted. When they have been taken for granted, they have either been lost or they have been destroyed for some period of time. So, as we today salute this museum for its historic value, we should remember that museums are, in many ways, invitations to study history so that we might not repeat the terrible mistakes of history but, rather, be inspired by the tremendous advances of history. So I would like to thank my good friend for offering this resolution. I would urge all my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would just say again that I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I hope there is a unanimous vote for it, and I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman concerning amendment No. 15 introduced by the gentleman from Florida. I would ask the chairman to confirm that the amendment does not envision any shortcuts in the process of checking the background of any Iraqi nationals applying to come to the United States, nor does it ask for a shortcut in any process designed to protect American national security.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, oh when, oh when will the majority party get rid of its legislative policy of ``don't ask, don't tell''? We saw it when we were dealing with the health care bill, where they refused to ask the American people what they wanted and then refused to tell them what was in the bill. Remember? Pass the bill and you will find out what's in it. Now we have a new rendition of ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Don't ask us what our budget is, we don't know what it is, and we won't tell you what's in it. Wait until after the year is over and we add up all the debt and we add up all the deficits and we add up all the taxes and we add up all the spending. Mr. Speaker, it's time for the Democrats to get rid of their legislative policy of ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Let's be truthful with the American people and tell them what we are doing to them.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5330, a bill to extend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act for 10 years. Portions of title II of Public Law 108-237, the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, called ACPERA--now that's not a drug or a disease, it is just the acronym for this law--are set to expire on the 22nd of June. The expiring sections relate to incentives for companies to participate in the Antitrust Division's corporate leniency program. Specifically, the expiring provisions allow a company that's entered into the leniency program to request that it be held liable only for the full compensatory damages in a follow-on civil suit. Normally, as was mentioned by the gentleman from New York, defendants are required to pay treble damages in an antitrust action. This program has proven to be successful in allowing the Antitrust Division to pursue criminal price-fixing cases in recent years. Last year, Congress approved a 1-year extension of ACPERA so that the Judiciary Committee could study the issue further. After months of discussions with the stakeholders, we have made some changes to ACPERA to require defendants to disclose more information to plaintiffs in the follow-on class action suits. These additional cooperation requirements apply only if, one, the defendant has pleaded guilty to a criminal price-fixing conspiracy and, two, seeks the liability limitations that ACPERA provides. Most importantly, the changes in this bill will not affect the Justice Department's ability to prosecute these cases. So for this reason, the Department does not oppose these additional disclosure requirements. This bill provides a 10-year extension of ACPERA. Given the success that the program has had in uncovering criminal price-fixing schemes, a 10-year extension appears to be quite appropriate. It is crucial that we continue to provide the Justice Department with the tools it needs to ensure that it can protect consumers against price-fixing schemes. With that in mind, I am happy to support this legislation. I hope that my colleagues will support this measure and the Senate will take it up in a timely manner so as to ensure that this authority does not expire next month. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5330, a bill to extend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act for 10 years. Portions of title II of Public Law 108-237, the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, called ACPERA--now that's not a drug or a disease, it is just the acronym for this law--are set to expire on the 22nd of June. The expiring sections relate to incentives for companies to participate in the Antitrust Division's corporate leniency program. Specifically, the expiring provisions allow a company that's entered into the leniency program to request that it be held liable only for the full compensatory damages in a follow-on civil suit. Normally, as was mentioned by the gentleman from New York, defendants are required to pay treble damages in an antitrust action. This program has proven to be successful in allowing the Antitrust Division to pursue criminal price-fixing cases in recent years. Last year, Congress approved a 1-year extension of ACPERA so that the Judiciary Committee could study the issue further. After months of discussions with the stakeholders, we have made some changes to ACPERA to require defendants to disclose more information to plaintiffs in the follow-on class action suits. These additional cooperation requirements apply only if, one, the defendant has pleaded guilty to a criminal price-fixing conspiracy and, two, seeks the liability limitations that ACPERA provides. Most importantly, the changes in this bill will not affect the Justice Department's ability to prosecute these cases. So for this reason, the Department does not oppose these additional disclosure requirements. This bill provides a 10-year extension of ACPERA. Given the success that the program has had in uncovering criminal price-fixing schemes, a 10-year extension appears to be quite appropriate. It is crucial that we continue to provide the Justice Department with the tools it needs to ensure that it can protect consumers against price-fixing schemes. With that in mind, I am happy to support this legislation. I hope that my colleagues will support this measure and the Senate will take it up in a timely manner so as to ensure that this authority does not expire next month. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Salvation Army, and to honor its 125th anniversary in the Sacramento region today on May 19, 2010. The founder and first general of the Salvation Army, William Booth, was born in economic and spiritual poverty, yet he founded a worldwide organization dedicated to their eradication--an organization that now serves the neediest of the needy in 120 countries. In 1865, the Salvation Army began in the East Side of London, and several years later General Booth sent a few of his followers to establish army roots in America. In 1885, Major Alfred Wells arrived in Sacramento with the determination to follow the lead of General Booth by ministering to anyone in need. Back then, there were many families and individuals looking for work, looking for food and looking for hope. Fast forward to the present time--125 years later--and the Salvation Army is still in Sacramento, still reaching out to people who need assistance with jobs, food, and of course, hope. Today, on May 19, 2010, the Salvation Army marks 125 years of service to Sacramento. As they look to the future, they know times may become even more challenging. And yet, they are ready to accept that challenge. Nothing will deter the Salvation Army from continuing its service to the Sacramento community. Over the years as the needs of the Sacramento region have changed, the army's programs in Sacramento have reflected those needs. There have been shelter programs for men, women, and families; rehabilitation programs for those overcoming alcohol or drug problems; programs for emergency and disaster response, and disaster preparedness training; programs providing sports leagues, youth activities, tutoring, and child development centers, and many more. Now, I thank the Salvation Army--on behalf of our community--as it continues its legacy in the Sacramento region.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor E. Charles Connor's elevation to Jurisdictional Bishop within the Church of God in Christ. Bishop Connor is a graduate of the University of San Francisco and has also completed the Hospital Administrator's Course at the U.S. Air Force School of Applied Health Science at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. E. Charles Connor has spent much of his life in public service. Governor George Deukmejian appointed Connor to serve on the Board of Vocational Nurses, Psychiatric Technician Examiners from 1989 to 1992, and was re-appointed by Governor Pete Wilson to serve from 1992 to 1996 where he rose to the level of Vice President of the Board. Connor also serves in the U.S. Air Force Reserve as a Hospital Administrator in the grade of Major, after having served in the U.S. Air Force for 26 years--participating in the Viet Nam War and the Persian Gulf War. Within the church, Bishop Charles Connor has spent 18 years working overseas with various ministries in Korea, Jamaica, Japan, and the Philippines. Connor is the Bishop of the St. Lucia Eastern Caribbean Jurisdiction, and while his main responsibilities are ecclesiastical, Bishop Connor's goal is to respond to the needs of all people; spiritual, natural and emotional. I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Bishop E. Charles Connor for his dedication to the Church of God in Christ, his elevation to Jurisdictional Bishop, and his contributions to our community at large.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the Jewish Heritage Festival and the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region. May is National Jewish American Heritage Month, and an opportunity to celebrate all that Jewish life has brought to this Nation. In conjunction with National Jewish American Heritage Month, the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region will bring to the capitol of California the annual Jewish Heritage Festival on May 2, 2010. The Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region was founded more than 150 years ago, and has grown to more than 25,000 residents in their eight county area. The Heritage Festival is a celebration of Jewish culture in the United States, and an opportunity to increase communication, coordination, and cooperation between the local communities and their Jewish and non-Jewish residents. With so many differences and divergent upbringings, there is much we share as a global community. The Festival will celebrate all that unites people with traditional food, live music and entertainment, dancing troupes, cultural exhibits and displays, family and children activities, and a special teen zone. Global values such as Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) will be highlighted with a variety of booths and activities that participants can learn from. In collaboration with community organizations, the Tikkun Olam area will highlight the importance of social action in the Sacramento region. The area seeks to improve human welfare, deepen civic culture, and develop group life and commitment to others. I am pleased to recognize the Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region for their contribution to our district and their leadership in the Jewish Heritage Festival.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentlewoman would yield, No.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, I stand here proudly in support of this bill. I am somewhat surprised by some of the criticism registered here. I understand how we can have differences of opinion, but to suggest that somehow this undermines the authority of the Congress of the United States or that it is somehow contrary to the Constitution is just beyond the pale as far as I can see. As the gentleman who just spoke before me said, this is an attempt to get an idea of how the people of Puerto Rico feel about this very important issue. They are American citizens. People have raised all sorts of scenarios about what may or may not happen. Go back and look at how other States have been admitted to the Union. Ultimately, the decision is made by this Congress. I remember reading about Utah. When they were a territory, Utah wasn't accepted in the Union until they changed a certain policy on marriage. It was an extraordinary change that was required, but that was what happened. Congress didn't supinely stand here or lay down there and say, Oh, yes. You've said you want to be a State. Therefore, we take no action. This is a way of our getting a measure of the sentiment of the people of Puerto Rico. I don't see why we should be upset about that. I know there are some outside observers who have suggested that somehow this undermines the Constitution and that somehow there is the Tennessee's plot. Examine the history of Tennessee. Examine the history of the response of Congress. It is absolutely historically factual that Congress decides under what terms a new State will be formed, when and if we will accept a new State. So all I am saying is allow this to go forward. Allow us to find out what the sentiment is here. Our good friend Luis Fortuno is not someone who shows little respect for the Constitution. Pass this bill.