Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes what is said on this floor reveals the differences between the two parties or the difference between the two approaches. The gentleman who just spoke before me made an allegation about the breathtaking and overwhelming nature of the President's request for information. Frankly, I thought what was at stake at the time was the breathtaking and overwhelming threat that this Nation faced after 9/11. That's what the President was responding to. That's what the President utilized in his request of American companies that come to the aid of their country. And here we stand saying we cannot reward them except to give them lawsuits. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) says if the companies are innocent, as if there is some question. I sat through all of those briefings. There is, in my judgment, not one iota of evidence that the companies acted inappropriately whatsoever. Not one iota of evidence sitting there after question after question after question; yet, on this floor, we raised the very question of those companies by saying if they are innocent. And what does Mr. Reyes say? If they are innocent, then it will be decided the good old American way: Go to court. Well, I'm a lawyer, but I don't think most Americans think the American way in every instance is to go to court. If you look at the legislation we have before us, it is rewarding the Good Samaritans with a lawsuit. There is a fig leaf here, yes. Now the majority side says, You know, there is a problem that we have to address with respect to telecommunications companies. That's progress, because when we were arguing on the floor with your previous provisions, you didn't even admit that. Now you do it, and now you say we are going to take care of it by the State's secrets doctrine and by going to a secret court proceeding. It is a fig leaf to allow Members to vote for a bill you know is never going to become law. It is not effective. How do I know? Twenty- five attorneys general of the United States say it doesn't work. They say support the provision that's contained in the Senate bill. Democrats and Republicans alike from Texas, from North Carolina, from Oklahoma, from Florida, from Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, Utah, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. No, Mr. Speaker, the President is not wrong. No, Mr. Speaker, he is not doing this to protect himself. He's doing it as these attorneys general of the United States recognize to allow us to go forward in protecting the American people. Don't harm these telecommunications companies with friendly fire.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Believe it or not, I was, as young as I am now.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. As a member of the Judiciary Committee who's read into the program, when Mr. Blunt talked to me about the possibility of this effort, it was in the context of how do we make that careful distinction, and those of us who've been read into the program, to try and inform the membership without violating the confidentiality under which we work. And the suggestion was that a secret session might allow for a freer discussion, while those of us who've been read into the program still protect the classified nature of the program. Now, I don't know if it's going to work. All I'm saying is it's no information that's, from my standpoint, that is unknown to other members of the Judiciary or the Intelligence Committee who've been read into the program, but it's our effort to try and find some vehicles by which we can inform the membership while still preserving the confidential status of that information. It's nothing that we have within our bosom that no one else has. It is information that we're trying to find a vehicle to allow the other membership to be informed. And I hope that helps the gentleman.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I was here for the last three secret sessions we had. They are unusual, but it is within the rules that did deal with subject matter dealing with legislation that we were to talk about. We should be careful, however, while some classified information might be discussed, the information that those of us on the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee received of the program we were read into, we are not able to discuss what we were briefed on specifically. We are, as I understand under the rules, able to draw conclusions and attempt to present that based on what we saw, but the fact that we have a secret session does not allow us to speak to that. Secondly, that which is discussed in the secret session cannot be revealed even if it is of an unclassified nature. It does not prohibit you in the later debate on the floor from discussing the same subject saying the same thing; it is that you cannot refer to it having been in the secret session. And I hope that helps the gentleman.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is it true that that rule was, in fact, a separate title and voted separately by this House by a vote of 430-0?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. If such a privileged resolution is tabled, as was just done by this body, is it true that there is no alternative enforcement mechanism?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it available to other Members of this House who feel aggrieved by the vote last night to bring a privileged resolution similar to that brought by the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that if individual Members brought such motion seriatim that that would not be considered dilatory but, rather, within the authority of each Member of this House as a separate and individual Member of this House?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is the enforcement mechanism referred to previously, exercised by the gentleman from Ohio, also available to other individual Members of this House?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it true that the rule that was the subject of the motion of the gentleman from Ohio with respect to not holding a vote open for the purpose of changing votes was adopted by this Congress at the beginning of this Congress?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Consistent with the rulings of the Chair last night, is it true that the only enforcement mechanism of that rule adopted by this House is a privileged resolution such as offered by the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I've served in this body for 14 years stretched over 30. Twenty-nine years ago, I think it was the first official action I took on this floor, was to bring a resolution to expel a Member. It was not something I wanted to do as a freshman. But we had a true ethics problem at the time. And frankly, I didn't think we were dealing with it in the appropriate way. That was sort of my baptism of fire here. Since I returned to Congress 4 years ago after an absence of 16 years, I have applauded the work of the Ethics Committee because often I and my staff consult with the staff of the Ethics Committee to ensure that we are acting within the rules of this House. And I must say the return that we have received in terms of information, advice and counsel from the Ethics Committee staff has been professional, exceptional and helpful. And so, when I see memos or letters that are addressed to the membership from the Ethics Committee, I pay attention to it. I try and incorporate that information in my decisionmaking. So when I received the letter from Congressman Hastings with the memo enclosed, I thought it was a benefit to me as an individual Member of this House in making my decision. I came to the floor, frankly, not knowing what I was going to do on that ethics package. I sat with the gentleman from Missouri and went over it. We, in fact, went over the memo that was given to us by Doc Hastings, not just because it was given to us by Doc Hastings, but because it was a professional opinion of those on the staff of the Ethics Committee that I have learned to trust. It doesn't mean that I follow blindly their opinion, but it does mean that I am educated by that information. For the life of me, I could not understand any rule adopted by this House or the committee that would deny me, as an individual Member, the benefit of that information when, in the judgment of the ranking member, he thought it might help me and others make a decision. And when you review the rules cited by the gentlewoman in the letter that contained the threat of a complaint to be filed against the gentleman from Washington, I cannot find the basis for a complaint. Now, I have not served on the Ethics Committee, I will admit. I have practiced law for 30-some years. I have been the attorney general of the State of California. I have prosecuted people. I have put people in prison. I have done investigations of other elected officials. I have had to compartmentalize, and understand that when you do a criminal investigation and it doesn't rise to the level of a complaint or an indictment, you cannot, as a matter of honor, as a matter of ethics, use that information in debate, in informing the public, even though you may find that the individual that was under investigation happened to be stupid, happened to be unethical, because you got that information by way of an investigation of a criminal matter. So, while I haven't served on the Ethics Committee, I believe I have over the course of my political and legal career been able to read legislation, read rules, and not only find out what the spirit of the law is, but the letter of the law. And I cannot find in the citation by the gentlelady from Ohio any basis for making a claim against the gentleman from Washington. Now, we can disagree on that. I am not on that committee. She is the Chair. However, the thing that troubles me perhaps the most is that this was made public. A complaint about the gentleman breaching confidentiality about a matter that was not of interest to an individual Member, that is, was not directed at a Member in terms of an investigation, that alleged breach is revealed by a breach of confidentiality that gives the gentleman from Washington very little opportunity to defend himself. And that is part of the crux of the debate last night. Yes, as the Speaker said, we all are subject to criticism, some fair, some unfair. That is part of the business of being in politics. But the fact of the matter is, we here should not enhance that kind of platform for irresponsible allegations against one another. And one of the ways we ensure that we don't do that is the confidentiality with respect to complaints against somebody. So, I would just hope that the people of the gentleman's district in Washington would understand that in the judgment of many, I would say most in this body, virtually universal, there is no basis for a claim of complaint against the gentleman from Washington. He did nothing to reveal anything with respect to an investigation, anything with respect to the business of the Ethics Committee. What he did was give us the benefit of judgment of professionals on that committee pertaining to an upcoming legislative debate. Have we gone so far in this House that we deny ourselves of information that would inform the debate? Is that what we are talking about? Talk about turning the first amendment on its head, saying that the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be the great debating society of this institution, ought to be denied an opportunity to debate when informed. I love this House. I came back to this House. I may die in this House. I love the institution, this House. And I think we who believe this institution is important to the American people believe it is also important to those who have been privileged to serve here. If we do not have respect for ourselves, how can we ask the public to have respect for us? If we do not have respect for ourselves, how can we have respect for this institution? So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in sorrow about the accusations made against my friend from Washington and want to stand here and say I have found him in every way to be an honorable man, and that his actions over this last week were anything but dishonorable, were in fact efforts to inform this House, which is what we all ought to be about when we vote. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago I stood on this floor and didn't quote rock and roll but quoted a country singer called Johnny Paycheck and his famous song ``Take This Job and Shove It.'' It was the lament of the working man imposed upon by many outside forces but predominantly the government's telling him what to do and taking his money. And here I am 25 years later, now a member of the Budget Committee, once again in the minority, and I hear the same thing from my good friends across the aisle: tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend, and pretend you're not doing it. Let's be very clear about this budget. You can talk about everything else, but I would like to talk about one thing: taxes. Taxes. I didn't think you would be able to do it. Mr. Chairman, last year we had the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, which means the largest tax increase in the history of the world, by the way. But they did themselves one better. This is even larger. This tax increase is $683 billion. Now, that's not the total tax. That's the tax increase we're talking about. I really thought last year we would never see that topped, but we almost double it this year. Now, what does this mean? When we were debating in the committee, I said, and I must apologize for this to my constituents in California, that if adopted and implemented, the Democratic budget would impose on my California constituents an increase, average tax hike, of $3,000. Well, I am corrected. I am corrected. It will actually give an increase, average tax hike, to Californians of $3,331. Luckily, my constituents don't live in Connecticut, because there they would get an average tax hike of $4,311. This is the gift that keeps on giving, or I guess we should say keeps on taking. So if you want to know if you can stand on the floor of the House and set a record, if you want to be the Olympic champion on steroids of taxes, vote for this budget. Vote for this budget. Now, I understand if you're an adherent of Big Government, you need big taxes. So if you do believe that we don't have a large enough government, then vote for this budget, because it will increase the size of the Federal Government relative to local government, relative to State government, relative to the average taxpayer, relative to the rest of the world. It will break all records. The largest single tax increase in the history of the world, $683 billion. Remember that number: $683 billion.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. May I continue my response?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the gentleman has raised this point of order rather than allowing a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate-passed FISA legislation. Let me speak specifically to the point of order and why, in fact, this motion to recommit is in order. The underlying purpose of the germaneness rule is that it ``prevents the presentation to the House of propositions that might not reasonably be anticipated and for which it might not be properly prepared.'' I cite to 8 Cannon, section 2993. That is clearly not the case here in that this body has dealt extensively with the subject matter of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And, in fact, we were informed by the majority that we were to be prepared to vote on that this week.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. In its current form I am.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, despite the difference in titles of H.R. 2857 and H.R. 3773 relating to the motion, that is not controlling under Deschler-Brown, chapter 28, section 24. As a matter of fact, it refers to the fundamental purpose of the motion. The fundamental purpose of this motion does relate to H.R. 2857, as required by sections 935 and 936 of the House manual. The report on H.R. 2857 from the gentleman's committee states clearly in its statement of purpose of the bill found on page 57 of that report that the legislation seeks to emphasize, and I quote, ``the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness; and improves program integrity.'' That is from the report on the bill from the gentleman's committee. In other words, the critical issue of homeland security provides the required nexus between the subject matters of H.R. 2857 and the motions as required under sections 935 and 936 of the House manual. Further, I would argue, it is clear that the subject matter requirements of section 935 and 936 of the House manual are satisfied. A specific section of the legislation brought to the floor by the gentleman's committee relating to ``Emergency and Disaster Preparedness'' provides on page 71 of the gentleman's committee report that ``H.R. 2857 supports the role of service in addressing emergency and disaster preparedness.'' These are the words from the gentleman's committee's report. ``In addition, this program may engage Federal, State, and local stakeholders to collaborate to achieve a more effective response to issue public safety, public health, emergencies and disasters.''

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the Speaker's ruling, with all due respect.