Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I might say that this should not be a surprise bill to anybody. This is actually a part of the authorization bill that we already worked on. It has come about as a result of the fact of complaints from local jurisdictions that they were unable to utilize funds in a way that they thought was most effective. This bill would simply permit recipients of certain FEMA grants to use this funding for training and exercises conducted in conjunction with a national lab or Federal research facility. There's no additional cost. The CBO report shows there's no additional cost. In other words, the bill expands the allowable use of FEMA grants and ensures that emergency managers, first responders, and local governments can use these grant dollars to leverage the expertise of our national labs and research facilities. We have had plenty of hearings on the viability of our national labs and research facilities and the fact that we need to leverage more, in these tough budget times, their expertise to help us come up with solutions and prepare, among others, first responders to the challenges that we face in these times. With fewer grant dollars available, it's important that State and local governments be able to use them for the greatest public benefit. As we all know, State and local governments everywhere are also operating under severe budget limitations, and increasing the allowable use of FEMA grants helps these cash-strapped governments to address their emergency needs. Using our existing national assets for training and research is another way to efficiently leverage the scientific expertise available at these facilities. I just want to correct the record. This is not just cosponsored by two other Members, both of whom are Republicans. It is cosponsored by Representative Stark from California and Representative Lujan from New Mexico. In addition, on the Republican side, Mr. Turner from New York, Mr. Long from Missouri, Mr. Marino from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bilirakis from Florida, and Mr. King from New York. We have heard not only from entities in the State of California, but I believe also in New York and New Jersey about concerns that they were unable to use their grants in the most efficient way, and absent a clarification of statutory language, FEMA was not going to allow them to participate in this way. Now, some would ask what examples might we have of how these funds might be used. I will just use my home State of California. The Naval Postgraduate School, which is a Federal entity in Monterey, provides unique training to State and local officials through its Center for Homeland Defense and Security. The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is a government-owned, contract-operated facility managed through a contract between the Laboratory Board of Governors and DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration. These national labs can provide a myriad of research and technical support to programs that support State and local emergency responders, things such as risk analysis and security systems evaluation. And just another example, the Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in San Diego has substantial capability and interest in helping emergency responders with communications and nuclear detention. So we are responding in as quick a fashion as we can to complaints that we've heard from local jurisdictions that they were unable to use their FEMA grants in the most effective way in leveraging, as I say, the expertise, the unique expertise of national labs and Federal research facilities. That is the purpose of this legislation. It is a very simple, a one-sentence clarification of the underlying statute. I would hope that we have unanimous support for this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Mr. King had to leave, and I ask unanimous consent that I control the time of Representative King.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill responding to a simple problem. Actually, this bill undoes redtape that ought not to be there. It leverages the best assets of the Federal Government, working with our first responders in our local communities in ways that they asked us to try and deal with the problem. It's not a fancy bill. It is a simple bill. It is straightforward. And, therefore, I ask for a unanimous vote on this from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3173) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to reform the process for the enrollment, activation, issuance, and renewal of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) to require, in total, not more than one in-person visit to a designated enrollment center, as amended.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3173 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to reform the process for issuing the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, known as TWIC, to require not more than one in-person visit to an enrollment center except in cases with extenuating circumstances. The need for more than one trip to an enrollment center is not mandated by statute or regulation, but currently by DHS policy. Given that other very important security documents are mailed to people, including the U.S. passport, there is no doubt that the Federal Government can develop secure procedures for delivering TWIC documents to workers. DHS has the statutory authority and regulatory flexibility to develop an alternative process for TWIC enrollment to ease the burden on transportation workers. The Secretary of Homeland Security should reform the TWIC process before the end of 2012 when the first TWICs issued in 2007 will need to be renewed and allow applicants to complete the process in only one in-person visit. I would like to thank Congressman Steve Scalise for the commonsense bill and urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the author of the bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, nearly 2 million transportation workers have applied for and received a TWIC. The goal of this bill is to limit the red tape involved in the TWIC process so we can focus on the work of this Nation while being as secure as possible. The Secretary needs to reform the Transportation Workers Identification Credential enrollment and renewable process so that our workers are not burdened with increased and unnecessary bureaucracy. As with the previously considered bill, this is an attempt by those of us in the Congress to try and get rid of some unnecessary red tape. It in no way undercuts the security of our Nation. As a matter of fact, it improves it because it gets rid of a burden on people that is totally without merit. So I ask my colleagues to support its passage, and 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 yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. As chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees many of the agencies affected by these appropriations, I am pleased we are continuing to uphold our pledge to reduce government spending, while providing the necessary security and support for each Member to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. Since taking control of the House, we've worked diligently to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and streamline and improve operations by using technology, thereby saving taxpayers millions. We've also worked to reduce spending on the production and printing of unnecessary publications, including an amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Harper, to reduce the number of copies of the U.S. Code printed for the House. With the support of the Appropriations Committee, we will further improve House technology through an advancement of programs utilized by the Law Revision Counsel and the Office of the Legislative Counsel that modernize and improve their capabilities. Utilizing new technologies, we will continue to increase the accuracy and accessibility of legislative proposals and changes to the U.S. Code. As the people's House, it is imperative we continue to use technological innovations to foster transparency and provide our constituents with timely and accurate information. I'd like to thank the appropriators for their support in providing the resources necessary to enhance and streamline House operations and reduce overall expenses. And later, when we have an amendment on the floor that once again tries to make us go backward in our effort to get rid of waste produced in this House, I will stand and oppose that. We have had a successful program of converting waste to energy, one of the most innovative programs in the entire country. We've convinced the other side of the Capitol, the Senate, to join us. We have thousands of tons of waste now not going into landfills but being converted to clean energy, one of the best examples of a technology that the EPA says is one of the cleanest in the country. We ought to be thankful for that. We ought not to go backwards. We ought to understand. And in doing that, we have also given best or better customer service to those who utilize the various restaurants on the campus here in the Capitol. Those are things that we ought to be proud of and not be shy about the successes that we have had. So I'll still be here on the floor to talk about one of those amendments, as we did just a year ago.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The gentleman is correct, we did pass a resolution over to the other body. It is customary that either body determine what their printing needs are, but we do have to normally have a resolution for it. Under Mr. Harper's direction, with the Joint Committee on Printing, we actually reduced our request by 50 percent to save money, but also to give adequate printing of what we thought was needed. The other body initially decided that they didn't need any more copies. They have now reassessed that and at the last minute have indicated to us that they see the need for doing that and have promised us that they will act on our resolution. So this is a hope that maybe this is one thing that they can agree on sending out of their body this year and over to us. But in the meantime, the gentleman's amendment is appropriate. Let us not lose the Constitution over this.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Last year we had this argument. Last year, it was criticism of the fact that I had approved a contract that got rid of the composting and instead that started a pilot project, I believe, in the gentleman from Virginia's district, where we are taking all of this and we are converting it from waste energy in the gentleman's district--one of the exemplary programs in the country. We're not putting this into a landfill; we are actually converting it. In fact, these products are one of the best means of creating energy from waste. The second thing is, this is a condemnation of an industry that employs about 50,000 Americans around the country that deal with the production of this product. I would say they have come to me and said: Can you at least defend us with the facts, that the FDA has to approve use for sale of these products that come into human contact. If it were carcinogenic, it would not be allowed. The fact of the matter is, we used common sense. We actually took up a recommendation by the Democrats when the Republicans took over. One of the recommendations that was made in writing was that we eliminate the composting program because it cost too much money, it was unsuccessful, and in fact it caused more energy than it was supposed to save. We did that. I thought you were going to thank us for following your suggestion. We even put it in the gentleman's district--proud employees of the gentleman's constituency are reducing this waste to energy, and yet the gentleman comes before us and says the program that you have in my district, doggone it, we just don't want it. Sometimes people around here can't take yes for an answer.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just like to advise all Members that we have full-time employees working under the direction of Members of the Franking Commission and the House administration every single day who review the products of the offices of Members. There is a limitation on the number of references you can make to yourself. There is a limitation on the number of pictures you can have. There is a limitation on how large the pictures can be. There is a limitation on some of the language that there can be. We try not to censor, but we try to make a distinction between that which is partisanly political and that which is a communication to our membership. If someone is trying to suggest that we ought not to be allowed to ask our constituents ``What is your position on a balanced budget amendment?'' I'd like to say that you have that right. If you don't want to ask that question, you don't have to ask that question, but that's for Members to be able to do that. Frankly, I think the idea that somehow we ought to limit our communications to the old-fashioned snail mail is just wrong. What we've attempted to do is to use the principles that have been established by the Franking Commission over the years to the new technology. That is simply what we have done. It is no more or no less. If people want to complain about particular messages that have come out, we can look at that. In fact, we turn down many, many suggested pieces to be sent out by Members of Congress. We have tried to adjust to the new communications, and the gentleman's amendment would not allow us to use a new means of communication.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 128, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Concurrent Resolution 128.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, one of the proudest moments of my experience here in the House is having worked on a bipartisan basis on the extension of the Voting Rights Act in the 1980s. I had been involved in the extension of the Voting Rights Act several Congresses ago. But also, as attorney general of the State of California, I was involved in the preclearance procedures by the Justice Department with several of the jurisdictions in my home State. The Voting Rights Act has stood as one of the great efforts of progress in this country; but as the U.S. Supreme Court said, as it reviewed the preclearance requirements some years ago, There will come a time when this unprecedented power of the Federal Government versus the sovereignty of the States will end. The preclearance requirement contained in the Voting Rights Act is an anomaly, a necessary anomaly over history, but it is an anomaly. And we should understand that the Court viewed it as such. The problem I have with the current status of the Voting Rights Act is that it gives no opportunity for an escape clause by those jurisdictions that have proven, over the decades, that they have, in fact, changed their practices. There is no means by which a jurisdiction can come forward and show that over a decade, they have not, in fact, discriminated but have acted appropriately and, therefore, this tremendous Justice Department authority will be no more there. But this is not the place to deal with it, I would say. A funding resolution is not the place to deal with it. This is an important issue that ought to be addressed; and I would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle would recognize that when you have a jurisdiction that has for 10, 20, 30, 40 years followed the law, perhaps we ought to reward them and provide incentives for other jurisdictions to do the same. Also, historically, there is a reason-- almost a historical accident by which some of the jurisdictions in California are covered. It had to do with a low turnout election in which a large percentage of the people who were considered citizens happened to be military folks who didn't vote in that area in that particular election. And there's been a static analysis which has resulted in those jurisdictions continuing to be covered under that section of the law which allows this unprecedented authority of the Justice Department to preclear. And I would hope that we would have the courage to stand up and look at the changes that have taken place and give credit to the consensus of conscience of civil rights that I think has prevailed in this country and has aided us greatly. But I would just say, this is not the time nor the place for us to, within a short period of time on the floor of the House, try to make a significant change in that. And, therefore, with all due respect to my friend from Georgia who points out some of the problems here, I would have to oppose this amendment. But I would hope that we would have the courage to come to the floor and recognize that changes may be necessary. This is an unprecedented authority that is granted to the Justice Department. No other jurisdictions are required to come before the Justice Department and ask for their permission as to whether they could make a change as simple as changing a date or making any change with respect to any election process in that jurisdiction. So I would hope my friends on the other side who have, I think, appropriately opposed the gentleman's amendment would also recognize that there is a large area in which we should discuss the current status, vis-a-vis the current fact situations that exist with all jurisdictions. Let us hope that as bad as the conduct has been in the past, that we believe in redemption and that we believe that there can be changed hearts, and we believe that we can change practices and that we believe that, in fact, maybe the good will of our fellow citizens will prevail. And when it has done so, let us recognize that, give them credit for it, and in the law provide incentives for other jurisdictions to also change their ways. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we not support this amendment, but at the same time recognize the legitimacy of the shortcomings of the law, as applied currently, and the failure of the Congress to make the changes to give credit to those jurisdictions that have, in fact, acted in good faith. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I take back my time. I will not accept the gentlelady's argument that I was condemning the actions of those people in the Justice Department who are excellent civil servants. I am specifically talking about the Attorney General of the United States who, evidently, made the decision or, if he didn't make the decision, failed to make the proper decision to uphold the laws of the United States duly enacted by this Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to speak, but I have heard this argument made time and time again that it's the prerogative of the executive branch to decide whether it's going to defend a law legally passed by the Congress and signed by the President. That is hyperbole. That is incorrect. There is an obligation, by tradition and by the law, that the Attorney General is duty bound to defend duly constituted laws of the United States so long as he or she can find a constitutional basis for it. It is not the purpose, nor has it been in the past, in Democratic and Republican administrations, for a Justice Department to arrogate to themselves the responsibility of deciding which laws they like and which laws they did not like. You are supposed to be the attorney for the United States and recognized as such. I recall as Attorney General of California I was required at times to defend laws that I had voted against, but I could find a constitutional basis for it. My real problem with this administration is they strained to find any constitutional basis to not defend. That is turning it on its side. The point of fact is when the executive branch does not do what they should do, it requires us to make a decision as to whether we should now pay for outside counsel. That has not been the tradition of the United States. This Justice Department, in my judgment, based on the experience I've had here in this Congress, 18 years, my years as the chief legal officer of the State of California, and 35 or 40 years as a practicing attorney, tells me that this administration has fundamentally failed in its obligation to attempt to faithfully carry out the laws of the United States, not to wake up every morning and decide: I think I can find an unconstitutional basis for a law passed by the Congress. Think of what that would mean. It would mean that you have an administration in every instance deciding what laws they want and what laws they don't want that are on the books, instead of coming here to the Congress and attempting to change what the law is. If we believe that we have an obligation when we hold up our hands to uphold the Constitution, that means we don't just turn over things to the courts and say you decide whether it's constitutional. We are duty bound to pass what we think are constitutional laws. And the administration--of whatever stripe--is obligated to attempt to defend those laws unless they can't find a constitutional basis for it, not to seek every possible unconstitutional basis so they don't have to defend. That's what the problem is here. And so while I understand many of the arguments made here and I understand what my friend from Ohio said--and I agree with much of what he said--let's not just say, well, it's the prerogative of the executive branch to decide if they want to defend laws passed by the United States. That has not been the tradition of this country. It has not been the experience. It has not been the legacy of Democratic and Republican administrations going back to the founding of this Republic.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I think the amendment is quite simple. As written, the bill allows for information to be shared with the private sector and utilities, but there are those that do not fall within that that I think we would all agree should be able to have this relationship. Our amendment would have the simple effect of including those elements such as airport authorities, mass transit authorities, or municipal hospitals, which are neither private sector nor utilities, to be able to participate in this voluntary information-sharing regime. I find it odd to find out that the committee is worried about the definition of ``critical infrastructure.'' That has been defined in the U.S. Code for over a decade. It is in the language in 42 U.S.C. 5195c, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2001, which defines critical infrastructure as: Systems or assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters. That has been the definition that we have supported. That's been the definition that we've worked on. Your committee, our committee, all committees have. I find this a very simple amendment that tries to reach what we are all trying to reach. It does not grant any more authority to the Federal Government. It allows for the sharing of information to vital entities, as the gentleman has suggested, that we would all agree ought to be there. I would hope that pride of authorship is not the problem here. We're trying to do something that we think makes common sense. And if folks have trouble with the definition of critical infrastructure, you would have thought it would have been raised in the last decade.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would hope that we could have support for this bipartisan amendment brought forward by the gentleman who serves on the Intelligence Committee. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee. I'm chairman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity. It seems to me to make imminent sense. I do not understand why there is some opposition to this amendment. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 24, 2012, former Attorney General of the United States Michael Mukasey spoke at an event in Paris about Iran and the Iranian opposition. Judge Mukasey's comments warrant our consideration in light of the events which are currently taking place in Iran and their potential impact on the global community. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to submit them to this Body: Thank you very much. Thank you to the sponsors of this wonderful conference. Thank you David Amess for your clear, penetrating comments on what is going on. You know it seems as though we've come together many times before to talk about the plight of the residents of Ashraf, and now the plight of the residents of both Ashraf and the ironically named Camp Liberty. And we were told on each of those occasions that these broadcasts, that these meetings were broadcast to Ashraf. And we haven't been told it, but I wonder whether perhaps they're being broadcast at Camp Liberty as well. I would suggest to you, I would suggest to you that there's someplace else that they should be broadcast. They should be broadcast to the United States State Department. Of course, based on what's happened in the last couple of weeks, I can't guarantee that the signal would get through. I mean it may very well be that at the State Department, just as in Cuba and North Korea and Iran, they jam broadcasts with which they disagree. I don't know whether that's true at the State Department or not. I sincerely hope so. But I would hope that a broadcast like this would get through, because then they would see. They would see Mrs. [Maryam] Rajavi open this session by extending her sympathy to the Jewish community of Toulouse. They would see and hear her discuss what her religion really means and what it has to do with terrorism, which is nothing. They would get a hint as to what kind of, quote, terrorist organization, unquote, this really is. Of course this wasn't the way it was supposed to be. In 2003 when coalition forces invaded Iraq and encountered the residents of Ashraf, the Ashraf residents peacefully surrendered their weapons, the weapons they had, the only thing they had to defend themselves, and received in return on a piece of paper a guarantee that they would be treated as protected persons under the fourth Geneva Conventions, a guarantee signed on behalf of all coalition forces by a United States general. And they received identity cards that carry the telephone number of the military police, commanded by another United States general who has appeared at these meetings before, General Phillips. As I'm sure you know, because we've told the story several times, the Clinton administration put the MEK on a list of foreign terrorist organizations really to appease the Iranians in the hope that that would invite a dialogue. Some dialogue. Some dialogue, with the regime that only a couple of months ago plotted to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in the United States. Those are the people they wanted to talk to. The FBI went in 2003 and vetted each of the residents of Ashraf to make sure that none of them were a terrorist, and in each case it was certified that none were. The Iraqis, as we know, have been acting increasingly at the behest of the Iranian government, now that the United States has withdrawn. And Nouri al-Maliki himself is behind the pressure that is being brought and the persecution that is being brought against the residents of both Ashraf and Camp Liberty. This is how we get thanks for the sacrifices that were made by American troops and by the United States as a whole in freeing the people of Iraq. The United Nations says transfer to Camp Liberty. We've had 1,200 people transfer to Camp Liberty. And we're told each time, notwithstanding the completely inadequate conditions at Camp Liberty, that this is progress. We're making progress. People are moving out of Ashraf into Camp Liberty and this is progress. You know, I had an uncle once who died of progress. He was--it's true, he was in the hospital. And every day the doctor came and checked on him and said he was showing progress, until one day he was dead. And the family concluded he must have died of progress. Ambassador [Martin] Kobler reminds me of that doctor. Of course, it's even worse than that here because the potentially fatal disease that the residents of Ashraf have really comes from their designation as a foreign terrorist organization. The U.S. designation. And when I say the U.S. designation advisedly because we're the only ones left in the civilized world who apply that designation. And it's time to get rid of it. So, how is this all going to end? Well, I suggest to you ladies and gentlemen that I'm very hopeful about how it's going to end. I'm a lawyer, I deal in evidence. We have evidence. We have statements from anonymous sources that those of us who are here voicing our views are behaving illegally under U.S. law. It's a funny thing about anonymous sources, what are they afraid of? They must be afraid of something. They're afraid to have their names used. Look at the timing. The MEK tells the State Department and the Justice Department, ``You know, you've been dragging your feet long enough with this designation. We're going to go into court.'' They gave them not only advanced notice that they're going to do it, they gave them an advanced copy of the papers they were going to file. And they disclosed the names of the people. Mayor Giuliani, Tom Ridge, others, many others, who would have also filed paper in court as friends of the court, telling them on the basis of our experience and our knowledge--many people on that brief directly involved in national security affairs-- that there is no basis, no reason for that designation. They were told that in advance. And lo and behold a couple days later subpoenas get served on the speaker agencies that send those people out to express their views. I stopped believing in coincidences like that when I stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, and that was a long time ago. But how is it going to come out? Well, look at the behavior. The people who release information to the press are afraid to give their names. The State Department hears that papers are going to be filed on behalf of MEK, that papers are going to be filed by people who have spoken out in behalf of delisting, scurry to the Treasury Department, get them to serve subpoenas. What are they afraid of? The people here aren't afraid. Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Ridge, they're all sitting up there behind placards that have their names on them. We all use our names. The people who are not here, and who have been here before and who will be here again if necessary, Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, they used their names. They don't get up as anonymous informants to speak at these meetings. They get up, they give their names and they express their views. So who's going to prevail? But can these people prevail in the face of the United States government? Let me repeat the words of a famous American industrialist, a man named Henry Kaiser who was once confronted by the U.S. government. And people asked him, ``Do you think that you can prevail against the U.S. government in the view that you've expressed and the course of action that you want to follow?'' And his response was, ``You know what? There's no such thing as the U.S. government. They're just a bunch of people.'' Some of them are smart and dedicated and some of them are stupid and lazy. And we know who's on which side in the current dispute. Ladies and gentlemen, I haven't got any doubt about how this is going to come out. And the way this is going to come out is that eventually right will prevail in my country. And when right prevails in my country it is my sincere hope that it won't be long before right prevails in your country and you restore Iran to the glorious civilization that it was and will be. Thank you very much.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The idea that 15 unelected individuals on the Independent Payment Advisory Board have been empowered by the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ration health care for seniors--and that's for all seniors--is as Orwellian as these titles crafted by the previous Congress to divert attention from what's really being done here. Delegating such authority to a government board to make such decisions with such a dramatic impact on the health care alternatives available to Medicare recipients raises the most serious ethical concerns about respect for the dignity of our seniors. This is the unfortunate consequence of a world view which favors the notion of bureaucratic expertise and efficiency as a solution to the challenges facing our health care system today. The purpose of providing quality health care to our Nation's seniors is simply incompatible with the idea that the delivery of health care services can be achieved through some sort of algorithm contrived by a panel of experts. Rather than empowering seniors to play a more active role in their own health care decisions, the IPAB moves in the opposite direction by empowering an unaccountable government panel to make these decisions. In this regard, the inclusion of legislative language to repeal IPAB could not be better placed than with a medical liability reform bill, for IPAB is itself, per se, malpractice. Now, H.R. 5 contains many important reforms concerning our health care litigation system. These health care reforms are modeled after my own State of California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, better known as MICRA. This important initiative was signed into law over three decades ago by then- and now, again, California Governor Jerry Brown. I practiced under this law for several years. I practiced under the law that preceded MICRA. I did a good deal of medical malpractice defense in the courtroom. I appeared before juries, before judges. I settled cases. I had the opportunity to defend doctors and hospitals. About 90 percent of the cases I did were on the defense side, about 10 percent on the plaintiff's side. I believe I had the first successful medical malpractice suit against an HMO in the State of California. I had an opportunity to view the system close up. And the fact of the matter is, without the MICRA reforms, the California medical system, the health care system would have collapsed. We had doctors leaving the State of California--particularly in specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, neurosurgery, anesthesiology--moving to other States because the premiums that were required to be paid by our doctors had become so exorbitant that they either had to leave the State or no longer be able to practice medicine. Information received by our Judiciary Committee from the National Association of State Insurance Commissioners indicates that since 1976, when it was adopted, California's medical professional liability premiums have risen at less than half the pace of the rest of the country. While I would caution that MICRA must not be perceived as a silver bullet, it was, nonetheless, an important step forward taken by our State and a sound model for reform. This is, once again, evidence that as laboratories of democracy, our States more often than not serve as incubators of reform. At the same time, I do believe that it is important to recognize that the American legal system and our civil justice system, in particular, contains vagaries unique to each of the States which operate within the context of a system of federalism. In this regard, we need to be cautious on the Federal level in making assumptions about the impact of our actions. Even in California, itself, the effort to adopt a Federal medical liability reform statute has raised some questions about possible unintended consequences. Even though one aspect of the impetus behind H.R. 5 is to bring relief to medical practitioners from the trap of defensive medicine, as suggested by the chairman of our committee--and I do believe that is true--physicians are, unfortunately, expressing some concerns over some of the provisions contained in H.R. 5. Specifically, the California Medical Association, while they support getting rid of the board as we previously discussed, have expressed some opposition to the fair-share rule contained in section 4(d) of the HEALTH Act. They have expressed that the fair-share rule in H.R. 5 will preempt California's law and put full recovery by injured patients at risk. They inform us, ``As written, the fair share rule will dramatically increase the potential for physicians to face enforcement proceedings against their personal assets. This would force physicians to purchase increased medical professional liability insurance coverage, which will significantly increase liability premiums in California for physicians.'' Secondly, the California Medical Association has expressed ``serious concerns with granting complete immunity from punitive damages to medical produce and device manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers.'' They state, ``We believe this will force plaintiffs to look only to physicians and other providers to seek relief and will significantly increase physician exposure and liability costs.'' So I'm somewhat on the horns of a dilemma here. I do believe that we absolutely, as the physicians of the California Medical Association believe, ought to rid ourselves of the Independent Payment Advisory Board for fear that its implementation will, in fact, interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, interfere with the availability of medical care, interfere with the availability of physicians to seniors and others. But they have expressed some concerns that we have to give other States the benefit of MICRA. And I understand some of their concerns. I think we may be very well able to address that in further language. Although it is my intention to vote for passage of H.R. 5, my hope is that before it would return to us from the Senate, we would specifically address the concerns raised by the physicians from my State. The necessary repeal of IPAB is an important reform. Some of these others contained in the further section of the health care act warrant support. But I do believe we need to have some changes, and I would look forward to those changes in a conference report or any bill which is returned to the body by the Senate. I would like to say this, that for someone who practiced law for a number of years in the area of medical malpractice, with doctors and hospitals, and saw what a failure to limit noneconomic damages was doing to the availability of health care--not just the cost of health care, but the availability of health care in my home State--I do believe MICRA is a model that ought to be replicated by other States in the Union. I do believe that the facts are in. Over 30 years, we've been able to see that it has improved access to health care, improved the number of physicians, particularly in difficult specialties, and it has brought down the overall cost of premiums and, therefore, the cost of medical care in my State. The idea that somehow medical malpractice premiums have no effect either on the cost of care or the accessibility of care flies in the face of the experience of 30 years in my home State of California.