Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, some may wonder why someone from California would be here supporting an amendment that appears to be directed towards assisting the other side of the country. It is because of the success of the program to this point. That is, this is not only for the City of New York, but it is for that entire region, and I believe it has shown how it can be replicated in other parts of the country. Also, the greatest concern I have of an attack by terrorists who wish to do us ill would be a nuclear attack of some sort in one of our major metropolitan areas. The interdiction capabilities of this program could prevent a bomb from entering New York or from leaving the city to head to other parts of the region or Nation. And its lessons, I think, can help other cities around the country where similar initiatives could be implemented. And importantly, and this was used as a point of criticism I believe by the chairman, this amendment would provide $10 million for the procurement of radiation portal monitors, not just in the New York area, but from around the country. It seems to me that because of the success of this program, because of its opportunity for duplication and replication in other parts of the country, this is a worthy amendment. I believe that these initiatives are designed to save lives. They are, in fact, not just regional but national in scope and deserve national support. Radiation detection cannot be taken lightly. We must ensure that the federal commitment to a dedicated funding stream is there. So I would urge support of this amendment in restoring funding to the Securing Our Cities project, a critical national initiative and one of a kind.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, article III, section 1 of the Constitution, in describing lifetime tenure of Federal judges, uses these words: ``The judges shall hold their offices during good behavior.'' That is the starting point of our inquiry here in this impeachment. When you look at article II, section 4, talking about impeachment, it says, ``The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Some people mistakenly believe that you need a criminal conviction as a condition precedent to us acting. That is not true and has never been true. In this particular case we do have a criminal conviction. But the Articles of Impeachment go beyond that to some of the underlying facts, specifically with respect to the sexual assault performed by this judge, Judge Kent. The question before us is whether or not he is fit for office. The answer seems to be obvious. One who would use their office in this way to commit sexual assault is unfit for any office, but particularly that of a Federal judge. Why do I say that? Because they are given lifetime tenure, and in this circumstance he was the sole judicial officer in this courthouse. Interestingly, now he says to us we should have some sympathy for him and extend him some mercy because he had no peers to speak with, anybody he could talk with about the serious problems in his life. The very fact that he was the only judicial officer in that courthouse gave him enormous power, which he repeated to his victims on more than one occasion, saying he was the law, he was the judge. In other words, he had what I refer to as a reign of judicial terror or tyranny over these individuals, utilizing his power as a Federal judge to misuse that power in such a way to put these women in a situation where they thought they had nowhere to turn. Just based on that, he ought to be removed from office. I should say to our colleagues who are watching in their offices right now, a simple review of the report presented by this committee will show sufficient evidence to justify every single article. We will vote on every single article in this House, as we have always done, and it is important for us to do that so that when we go to the Senate, they have the opportunity to review each single article of impeachment. This is extremely important, not just for Judge Kent, not just for his employees, who have suffered unnecessarily, but for the entire judicial system. For us to tarry a single day is to do injustice. This judge is now receiving, as has been said, his salary as a sitting judge while he sits incarcerated in a Federal institution of confinement. What arrogance. And if we do not act, we are letting the word go out that we, the only branch of government that is enabled by the Constitution to act in these circumstances, do not take our constitutional obligation seriously. We cannot resist acting here and we cannot resist asking the Senate to act as expeditiously as possible. This Federal judge has demeaned his office, has demeaned this country, has demeaned his oath of office and the Constitution itself, and we need now to act. We have sufficient evidence presented on this record for all Members to vote in favor of each and every article of impeachment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at what's happened in Detroit and other parts of this country where we've had high unemployment rates, and we have been directed to offer a solution in a short period of time. The gentleman from the Central Valley has a situation that is every bit as dire; in fact, it is worse in terms of the unemployment rates in the communities that he services. We are destroying those communities at the present time and the lifeblood of agriculture in those communities that have stood for well over a hundred years is being irreparably harmed. And the gentleman's amendment--although it may not be the best solution, as he suggested-- is the only thing that he has been given an opportunity to present in this body. And he has waited every year that he has been here to try and solve this problem, and yet there has been a failure for us to solve this problem. And I don't know how we can stand here and say to the gentleman, just wait. Just wait--as he has percentages of unemployment that would shake the rest of this country. When he has people whose livelihoods and whose families' livelihoods are being destroyed on a daily basis, he has heard nothing but silence, silence in this House and from this administration I would hope that we could support his amendment. It may not be the perfect amendment, I agree. But it's the only thing he has been given an opportunity to bring to this floor, and maybe it will be given an awareness of this House and this administration that you can't throw away a part of the Central Valley of California and say, These are disposable people; these are disposable families; these are disposable farms.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of the Homeland Security Appropriation. The following earmark was requested by my office and is listed for funding in this bill: City of Elk Grove--Emergency Operations Center Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: 2010 Homeland Security Appropriation Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency Requesting Agency: City of Elk Grove Agency Address: 8401 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, CA 95758 Amount: $750,000 Description: The Emergency Operations Center will provide the necessary tools to receive, assess, and respond to a critical incident. The communications system must provide for a redundant path to ensure that both situational awareness information and strategic orders can pass into and out of the facility without interruption The proposed EOC will include an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). The ITS will be an important component of the EOC as it will provide a mechanism for controlling local traffic patterns to ensure transportation safety and mobility during an emergency. The system can be used to relieve traffic congestion and through the use of advanced video communications technologies, provide the Elk Grove EOC with a bird's eye view of critical intersections and roadways leading in and out of the City. Wireless video technology will also be deployed at locations determined to be ``sensitive'' for the purposes of Homeland Security. The Emergency Operations Center has a clear federal nexus. As a result of such national events as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, there has been a renewed demand for local entities around the country to focus on local preparedness and accountability during emergency situations. Elk Grove is home to 140,000 residents and a likely destination for evacuees from the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay areas. In addition, the Sacramento region is subject to potential flooding due to an intricate and aged levee system. Elk Grove has multiple freight and passenger rail lines, one of the largest above-ground propane storage facilities, an airport, and two heavily traveled freeways, Interstate 5 and State Route 99. It is essential that the City of Elk Grove has an Emergency Operations Center to coordinate emergency response efforts in the event of a disaster or terrorist attack. Having the ability to work regionally and have interoperability between different agencies is critical in the event of an emergency. With the use of advanced communications technology, Elk Grove will be able to work in concert with the County and City of Sacramento, State of California Office of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to share information and respond rapidly to any event.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, among the most important issues facing us today are the twin issues of the economy and energy. And unfortunately, in this body and across the other Chamber, we often discuss those two issues separately, as if they had no connection with one another; and yet they have a very, very important link with one another. When the economy is down, it has an impact on the energy, and when energy prices go up or when energy prices go down, it has an immediate impact on the economy. The strange thing is that as we look at an energy policy that's going to be presented to us by way of a bill from the majority shortly, there appears to be a lack of appreciation for changes in energy policy and their impact on our economy. There seems to be some sort of question as to whether or not we ought to exercise our responsibilities to utilize those energy sources that are most abundant in these United States. Coal appears to be one of those things that we're going to wrap up, close up, put on the shelf, not allow ourselves to use it. Rather than a real effort for clean coal energy, there appears to be an effort to try and demonize coal and not allow it to be utilized. That makes about as much sense as Saudi Arabia making an announcement tomorrow that they're going to close off all of their production of petroleum. Why do I say it makes about as much sense? Because we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Similarly, with tar sands, shale oil, those sorts of things that we have in abundance in North America, we appear to be saying we ought not to take a look at those. Similarly, we have abundant sources of petroleum offshore: offshore my State of California, offshore some of our other States in this Union. And yet we have a policy which basically says we ought not to utilize American technology, which has been utilized around the world, to safely extract petroleum. If you look at my State in California, you go to Santa Barbara, you will see historically there have been leaks from the bottom of the ocean there because of the pressure, because of the petroleum that lies under the ocean floor. We can actually take some of that pressure off by drilling and producing there. Lastly, I would say someone would have to be a hermit somewhere, stuck in a cave, not to understand that we have a terrible economic problem in California, a terrible problem with our budget, terrible deficits. And one of the ways that we could achieve some sort of stability with our budget in California, our State budget, would be to allow offshore drilling and take those royalties that would come to the State as a result of having that offshore drilling, bringing those moneys into the State Treasury. We would do two things. We would help increase the security of this Nation with respect to energy on the one hand because this would be U.S. energy production; and secondly, we would have royalties going to the State of California in the billions of dollars, helping take off some of the pressure that we have currently as to which services we're going to cut. Classroom size is going up in the State of California. There are the suggestions that a lot of services will be cut, some severely, and yet we continue to turn a blind eye to the possibility of environmentally safe extraction of petroleum products offshore. As one who basically was born just a stone's throw from the ocean, who lived the first half of my life--actually, more than that--the first 42 years as a resident of Long Beach, California, as someone who enjoys the beauty of my home State and the beauty of the coastline, I also understand that American technology, American ingenuity, American creativity that's applied elsewhere in the world can be applied here in the United States to produce energy. Why will we have an energy policy brought forward on this floor that ignores some of the most abundant sources of energy for this Nation makes no sense to me. Surely I support the alternative sources of energy, wind and solar; the traditional ones of hydroelectric, thermal power. But we cannot forget the abundance of natural resources we have in this country.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2487--the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill: County of Alpine & County of Calaveras--Law Enforcement Radio and Data Communications Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: COPS Tech Requesting Agency: County of Calaveras Agency Address: 891 Mountain Ranch Road, San Andreas, CA 95249 Amount: $1,250,000 Description: This project creates an interoperable and tactical communications backbone between the Counties of Alpine and Calaveras. Full build out will also connect Counties as far away as San Francisco across the Sierras to the State of Nevada for secondary phone, data and radio interoperability and connectivity. The project fixes local radio operability and interoperability in the two counties in which the Federal Government is the majority land owner. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the imperative for interoperability in the provision of emergency services and administration of public safety in two counties in which the Federal Government is the majority land owner. Folsom Emergency Operations Center Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: H.R. 2487 Account: OJP-Byrne Requesting Agency: City of Folsom Agency Address: 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630 Amount: $250,000 Description: This project will expand the crucial capabilities of the Folsom EOC to function for both the City of Folsom and as the Alternative County Site. Best practices highlight the importance of having redundant emergency management capacity to ensure a balanced strategy for handling emergencies. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds because it provides a critical capability to both the City of Folsom and California's State Capitol, ensuring emergency operations and first response measures are coordinated with the greatest ability.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, ``You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against you. You have the right to an attorney.'' Those are things that are said when arresting officers make an arrest in the United States. But now we understand that under the Obama administration, we now have something known as the concept of global justice in which we are now giving Miranda warnings to those that we have found on the battlefield whose only connection to the United States is that they wish to kill Americans. Isn't that nonsensical? What are we going to do now? Are we going to train our enlisted men and women in the Armed Forces that when they're on the battlefield, instead of shooting, they should pull out their card with the Miranda warnings to make sure that if the person they're encountering is captured, they have to give them those rights? How about preserving the crime scene? This is nonsense.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank my ranking member. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct for the reasons articulated by the gentleman from California. But let me talk about another subject that is covered in this bill and one that is of extreme importance. It goes to the question of how we handle those who are at Guantanamo at the present time. This issue has erupted around this country because people are beginning to understand the ramifications of closing Guantanamo and bringing people here to the United States whose only connection to the United States is that they were caught on the battlefield with the intention of killing Americans. Now, why is it important whether or not we keep Guantanamo open or whether we bring these people to the United States? We got a little bit of an insight into why it's important by the report by a colleague of ours, Mr. Rogers from Michigan, who, when he was in Afghanistan recently and visited our base there, went to the prison there where we are holding people who we actually captured on the battlefield. He observed the fact that now we have FBI agents Mirandizing, that is, giving Miranda rights statements to those we have found on the battlefield. In other words, Madam Speaker, what we have done is we have transposed the universe in which these people are being detained from one of a combat atmosphere to one of a criminal proceeding in the United States. Now, why is that important? It's important because this is happening for the first time in the history of the United States. We did not do this, obviously, during the Revolutionary War. We did not do it during any war we fought, not the Civil War, not World War I, not World War II. If we had followed this same thinking in World War II, our courts would have been overwhelmed. People forget we have had 2 million POWs that we held during World War II, over 400,000 of them in the United States. Never was it thought that they had all of the rights under the Constitution. But this question has basically been treated by Federal courts in the past with this perspective: the connection you have to the United States is what determines your coverage under the Constitution. That's why someone coming over the border illegally doesn't have the right to all of the constitutional protections because the only connection to the United States is trying to get in illegally. Here we have people sitting at Guantanamo whose only connection to the United States is that we have reason to believe that they wanted to kill Americans anywhere in the world. So now what we're saying is if we take them from Guantanamo and put them in the United States, they have a connection to the United States. They were brought here involuntarily. And the legal arguments that for years have presented a barrier from their obtaining all constitutional rights, that barrier is pulled down. So while this bill has language in it, this conference report, as it's being worked on, has language in it with respect to Guantanamo, I don't think we have focused in on what this means. Yes, there's a concern about the threat they may pose to Americans, and that arises out of the fact that some say, well, they could escape from the prisons and then we're told, oh, we've got these prisons they can't escape from. But it is more than that. It is that they may be released at the direction of Federal judges, and the only reason they would be released is that they somehow now have access to all of our constitutional rights. So the American people need to understand that we may have a President who says, no, we don't want to release them. We have an Attorney General who testified, no, we're going to make sure they're not released based on everything we do.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The Attorney General can testify before our committee, as he did 2 weeks ago, that they're going to take all steps to make sure people aren't released in the United States who are suspected terrorists. They cannot promise that. Once they bring them to the United States and the judgment of the Federal courts is they are now under the protection of all constitutional rights, we are no longer talking about them as illegal enemy combatants, who never before have gotten the protection of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention, in part, says you will have these protections so long as you act under the laws that have been recognized for warfare. One of them is wear a uniform. One of them is don't attack innocent civilians as a particular strategy and tactic. So what we're doing is we're turning it all upside down and we're saying somehow we are protecting our values by doing something we have never done before. We are jeopardizing the national security interests of the United States. We are putting Americans, innocent Americans, at risk by doing this.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I appreciate that. And here's what people have to understand. There is a difference between holding someone to try them for war crimes or any other crime, and then you do have them within a criminal justice system. In the past it's been a military tribunal. Remember what happened when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. We established a military tribunal here in the District of Columbia that actually tried those individuals, and they were executed. That was a military tribunal. For what? Murdering a President of the United States in time of war. Now what we are saying is those rights were not sufficient. If that were to happen today, suddenly we would say we have to do it now within the context of the full panoply of constitutional rights, and we are directing that by voluntarily saying we're going to close down Guantanamo. If anybody has looked at the prisons and jail systems across the United States and compared it with Guantanamo, it is of the highest standard of any of our incarceration units there is. Guantanamo happens to be a place that is not sovereign American territory. That's the important distinction. I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that it was 25 years ago that this Congress worked to facilitate the establishment of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I recall being on the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee when John Walsh and his wife testified before us. It was at a time when they did not know who had murdered their child. It was at a time in this country where we specifically prohibited the use of the FBI in attempting to participate in any activities to try and find missing children. We had a statutory delay for any participation by the FBI. There was a lack of coordination that was not only in existence, but was promoted by law at that time. And I recall, after John Walsh and his wife testified before us, the shrugging of shoulders by some who basically had to tell the Walshes that there was nothing that we could do here on the Federal level. John Walsh and his wife did not take that as an answer. They spoke to many of us here in the Chamber, but actually those of us on the subcommittee and committee at that time, and challenged us to try and find a way to make it possible that we could have a seamless web between the Federal Government, the State government and local government when the question was a missing child. And the strength and persistence of that couple, combined with others who joined them around the country was extraordinary at that time. It seems so commonplace now for us to talk about the 25th anniversary of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It seems so commonplace for us to talk about hundreds of thousands of children being reported missing yearly, and the fact that there was almost a collective shrug of the shoulder at that time saying, it is a terrible tragedy, but there's nothing we can do about it. It seems so commonplace now that when a child is missing, with all of the various laws that have followed after the creation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, that almost instantaneously you have law enforcement across the board communicating with one another and creating a mechanism by which there can be the exchange of information and the encouragement of the exchange of information so that we can find these children. One thing we knew 25 years ago, and it remains the same today, the sooner you know that a child is missing, the better the chances are of being able to find that child. The sooner you have law enforcement involved, along with the communities, the better the chances are that you will have a successful recovery of that child and a successful reuniting of that family. So I hope people understand why we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and that it has been the result of thousands upon thousands of people working for this effort. Had it not been for a single couple, the Walshes, who, out of tragedy, decided to make something positive, had it not been for them coming here to the Congress and insisting that we look at this issue and insisting that there was something that can be done and insisting that just because we used to do it the old way was no reason or no excuse for not trying to do something different, had it not been for them, we would not be celebrating the 25th anniversary, nor would we be celebrating the thousands upon thousands of successful reunitings that have taken place around this country. So this is a wonderful recognition of the center, but I hope it will also be a tremendous recognition of the contributions made by two wonderful Americans, the Walshes.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I happen to be one of those people who happens to have an artificial hip. Every time I go through, I set off the screener. Every time I go through, I get hand-patted down, and even though they do it in a very nice way, frankly, that's far more intrusive than going out to the Reagan National Airport and going through that particular system that we're talking about with those pictures. We have been working for many years since 9/11 to try and come up with devices which will allow us to be able to detect those kinds of things that, if brought on airliners, would be a threat to all passengers. The whole-body imaging technology, which this amendment seeks to stop in terms of its application as a primary means of screening, can detect many things such as small IEDs, plastic explosives, ceramic knives, and other objects that traditional metal detection cannot detect. Let me underscore that: this device that this amendment seeks to take off the table as a primary means of screening can detect small IEDs, plastic explosives, ceramic knives, and other objects that traditional metal detection cannot detect. That ought to be enough for us to understand this. If you look at the privacy questions, let's be clear: the person who actually is there, the employee of TSA who is there when you go through this machine, is not the one who reads the picture. That person, he or she, is in another room--isolated. They never see you. They actually talk to one another by way of radio. So this idea that somebody is sitting in this little room, waiting to see what you look like, frankly, is sort of overblown. All I can say is this: I have been through many, many pat-downs because I happen to have an artificial hip. Going through this at Reagan National Airport was so much quicker and so less intrusive of my privacy than what we go through now. For us to sit here now and to pass an amendment which is going to stop this development and application, frankly, I think, is misguided. With all due respect to the gentleman from Utah, who I know is sincere about that, and to the gentlewoman, who is also sincere, I would ask you to rethink this. From my experience, this is far more protective of my privacy than what I have to go through every time I go to the airport, number one; but more importantly, it protects me and every other passenger to a greater extent than any other procedure we have now. We aren't doing this because we want to do it. We're doing it because we have people around the world who want to kill us, who want to destroy our way of life, and they have utilized commercial airliners for that purpose in the greatest attack in our Nation's history since Pearl Harbor. This is a device which helps us take advantage of our technological know-how to gain an advance on the enemy. I would hope we would not do this by way of this amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the President as he spoke in Egypt today. There are a lot of things to talk about, but in 1 minute you can't talk about most of them. Let me just make one comment. It was interesting that the President made a very pointed statement that the country of Iran deserves to have the opportunity to use nuclear power in a peaceful way. I find it very interesting that the President thought that that was a part of energy that he ought to emphasize overseas. My question is this: When will the President, when will his administration, when will this House understand that energy produced from nuclear power is appropriate not only for Iran and other countries around the world, but for the 50 States in the Union? When will the President understand that nuclear energy is a source that we ought to look at? And as the President gives us his various plans under the climate change rhetoric, why does he not realize the importance of nuclear energy for his own people?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Billie Westernoff, who is retiring after 20 years of dedicated service at the Calaveras County Connection Food Bank. Ms. Westernoff's career at this important community facility has been solely based on her desire to serve the public. Her vibrant personality and remarkable ability to connect with people have brought national recognition to the food bank. Furthermore, her determination to provide comprehensive programs and services related to nutrition, prevention and intervention for families in Calaveras County has strengthened my district and our Nation. Let me also say that in 2007, Ms. Westernoff testified before Congress on the importance of fresh fruits and vegetables as a part of a child's daily diet. As a result of her testimony, the Mother Infant Child Harvest program was piloted in Calaveras County and served as the model for the federal Women Infant Children program nationally. Her dynamic focus and ability to inspire others to assist individuals in need will be her legacy. It is an honor to recognize Billie Westernoff for her immense dedication to improving the quality of life for so many individuals and for her commitment to collaboration and equality. She has served my district and our Nation proudly.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to make a comment on the appearance yesterday at my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, by President Barack Obama. As I said, I am a graduate of the university. My dad is a graduate of the university. My two brothers are graduates of the university. My son is a graduate of the university. I have three nieces who have graduated from the university. It is always an honor when the President of the United States addresses your university, particularly when he gives its commencement address. I have known the former president of the University of Notre Dame, Father Hesburgh, for almost my entire life, having met him when I was about 6 years old, and consider him a friend to this day. His record on civil rights is unparalleled in this country, and he is one of the great leaders of the civil rights movement. Now in his nineties, I am sure it was with genuine joy that we saw tears in his eyes as the President of the United States addressed the University of Notre Dame yesterday. However, Madam Speaker, I must register my concern about the President's address yesterday, and it is because the President has, through his actions and his statements, made very clear his position on a fundamental issue to this Nation, to the question of ethics and morality and public policy. And it is an issue that has generated much controversy, but goes to the essence of the Catholic Church's teaching on the value of life. The church teaches that there are a number of moral principles upon which there can be serious discussion and disagreement: areas such as a just war; areas about social welfare policy; areas in which the Commandments of our Lord must guide us, but the manner in which those are applied can differ. Those moral judgments are called prudential judgments where we are called upon to use our prudence to come to the conclusions as to our proper actions, both individually and as a society. But there are a few, and very few, principles upon which there is not prudential judgment but upon which there is specific moral guidance, and protection of innocent life is among them. The question of whether one is ever able to take the innocent life of another intentionally lies at the root of not only Catholic doctrine, but lies at the root of the Judeo-Christian tradition which has given voice to the Constitution where it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with life being the first of those three. So the question was when the President appeared at the University of Notre Dame, was he engaging in a dialogue in which there was an exchange of ideas of substance, or was it an episode in which there would be moral confusion afterwards in which the question of the taking of innocent life was just a prudential judgment type of issue which was the same as many other issues that we can debate and disagree on about whether we should go to war, how we should conduct war, how much money we should pay for welfare programs, what the level of education is, and so forth. And that's the question that bothers me. I guess the question I could ask would be whether this administration at the University of Notre Dame would have asked Stephen Douglas or Abraham Lincoln to deliver the commencement address following the great debate that took place between those two some 150 years ago. Because one was successful, that is Stephen Douglas, he was elected, he was considered a great man in many different ways, a great statesman; and the other was Abraham Lincoln who had failed in several attempts at election. And the one said that slavery was one of those things upon which you could not essentially disagree when you really looked at the question of whether one man could own another man. And while he was unsuccessful in that, he carried the moral argument of the day, and the suggestion here is: Was there any dialogue and would the suggestion be that all we have to do is reason together and use better words rather than essentially go to the substance of the issue.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hugh ``Smitty'' Smith, an American hero who served our nation through five major campaigns in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany during World War II. Mr. Smith served on the front lines with the 744th Light Tank Battalion of the United States Army. As he advanced on the Axis Powers as the commander of an M24 tank, he was wounded by a German sniper in the face. Determined to fight for the liberation of Europe, he returned to his battalion three weeks later. Epitomizing the strength of the Allied Forces, Smitty staved off starvation and suffered a concussion, only to stay his new post guarding German prisoners until they were relocated. Serving as a de facto battalion commander and even as a medic when his comrades were targets of German snipers, Smitty was known by his men as a ``go to guy.'' Always rising to the occasion during the worst battlefield conditions, Smitty guided, calmed and assisted his men when they needed him most. Mr. Smith's bravery was simply unmatched. One of Mr. Smith's most admirable leadership qualities is his fervor for serving others. As this was evident in his youth, he continues today to lead by example and improve the wellbeing of his community by being a member of the CAPS team, the volunteer citizens patrol unit for the Galt Police Department. This role only solidifies what we know to be true about Smitty, that he is always ready and willing to serve others. The ability to inspire and live a life of complete selflessness is the legacy of a true hero. It is an honor to recognize Hugh ``Smitty'' Smith for his immense dedication to improving the quality of life for so many individuals both here and abroad, and for his unwavering commitment to equality and justice. He has truly served my district and the United States of America proudly.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 448. I have the privilege of representing a part of the University of California at Davis. It is a privilege because U.C. Davis is truly one of the premier institutions of higher learning in our Nation. Since the University first opened its doors to students in 1908 as an agricultural research institution it has played a critical role in the growth of California agriculture as one of our State's major industries and a producer of food for the world. At a time when the delivery of health care services is an issue of such paramount importance to our Nation it should be acknowledged that the Medical Center at U.C. Davis serves as the primary acute-care trauma center for millions of residents in our region. It should also be mentioned that the University is recognized for its work as a top tier research hospital. While the veterinary school at the U.C. Davis is recognized as one of the finest such schools in the Nation, I would be remiss not to point out that its law school has also attained the highest standards of excellence. U.C. Davis is the home of the California Biomass Collaborative, which is a statewide collaborative of government, industry, environmental groups, and educational institutions administered for the state by the University of California, Davis. The Collaborative is sponsored by the California Energy Commission as well as other agency and private industry partners. I worked with the Collaborative in putting together a Biomass Policy Forum last fall to discuss the use of woody biomass as a viable alternate energy source, as well as a means by which to reduce the threat of wildfires. The University has also done tremendous work in the field of sustainable transportation, and is the new hub of collaboration and research on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in California. Such vehicles have zero-tailpipe emissions and could well be the future of clean transportation. In my capacity as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security I am particularly interested in the work conducted by the University through the Western Institute of Food Safety and Security, WIFSS, regarding the need to protect our Nation's feedstock from the threat of bio- terrorism. Furthermore, U.C. Davis is engaged in cutting-edge research regarding flame retardant materials which has both civilian as well as military applications. It is therefore an honor for me to commend the University of California at Davis to you and ask your support for House Resolution 448.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Doctor Claire Pomeroy, who is receiving the distinguished United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Sacramento Humanitarian of the Year Award. Overseeing the UC Davis Health System, Doctor Pomeroy has brought international recognition to cutting-edge discoveries; contributed to the training of doctors and medical investigators; and spearheaded new initiatives to provide comprehensive clinical care for the greater Sacramento community and our nation. Most notably, Doctor Pomeroy has outstandingly served the public through the founding of the Center for Reducing Health Disparities and the establishment of Rural-PRIME, a program specifically designed to prepare physicians to practice in underserved rural communities. The United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Sacramento should also be commended for the work that they do for all people with developmental disabilities. They have improved the quality of life, independence, and productivity for many citizens in my district, and have truly lived up to their motto of providing a ``life without limits for people with disabilities.'' It is an honor to recognize the United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Sacramento for their immense dedication to improving the wellbeing for so many individuals and also Doctor Claire Pomeroy for her commitment to academic excellence, innovation, collaboration, equality and social justice. Both have served my district and our nation proudly.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman, Mr. Smith from New Jersey, who served with Jack Kemp.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, do you see what I say? When you talk about Jack Kemp, you start smiling. At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) who also served with Jack.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield an additional 2 minutes to that, please. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me the balance of time on each side?