Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. No, Mr. Speaker. I am asking, under the rules of the House, are there any parliamentary impediments?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe you misunderstood my parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry was, under the rules of the House, are there any parliamentary impediments to having this bill considered on the next legislative day if it is promptly reported to the committee of jurisdiction?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am very proud of this House and the work that it has done on a bipartisan basis over the last number of years, the intervening years since 9/11. That's why I was somewhat surprised by some of the comments, certainly from the gentleman from Florida, during the debate on the rule suggesting that nothing has been done since that time until we adopt this bill. I support this bill. I think it does give us an improved state over what currently exists. But to suggest that we haven't done anything suggests to the American people that the billions of dollars that they have spent, as authorized by this House, the fact of the inconveniences they go through at airports, all the expenditures we've made with respect to increasing protections in aviation, in our ports, transit, and now what we are already doing with respect to chemical facilities is for naught. And when we make those arguments, we tend to lose the support of the American people because they throw their hands up and say, no matter what you do, it doesn't make anything better. We ought to make it very clear, we are safer today than we were on September 10. We are safer today than we were 2 years ago, 3 years ago, a year ago. Are we safe enough? No. But to denigrate the efforts that have been made by good men and women in this body and the other body, the work that's being done by countless thousands of law enforcement individuals across this country, to denigrate the changes that have been made with respect to the cooperation between the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, and law enforcement communities on all levels, is nonsense. And more than that, it is detrimental to our effort to make this a safer country for the people we represent. This bill is a good bill. It has its warts like anything else, but it's a good bill precisely because it builds on the achievements we have made over the last number of years. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for working on our committee in a bipartisan basis, as the gentleman from New York did during his tenure as Chair. I think we have established a good basis for bipartisanship in this committee, and I think we ought to bring that to this floor. The American people should understand that the further we get away from 9/11 without having an attack on our land, the more difficult it is for us to continue to keep the vigilance up. But the fact that we have succeeded does not mean the threat has diminished. In many ways, it is stronger, not because we have not done anything, but because the enemy is strong. So I would say vote for this bill, take pride in this bill, but also take pride in the progress that has been made up to this point.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Some people may have thought that since I have supported Mr. Flake on a number of amendments, that this was sort of a centrifuge way for me to help defeat the amendment because it might lose support, given the fact that I have supported some of his amendments and not supported others. But, rather, I did request an earmark. It is one of the seven or eight earmarks that have been combined together in this in support of the textile center because the textile center exists in about eight different locations around the country, eight institutions, one of them the University of California at Davis. That part of UC Davis which is part of this is actually not in my district. It's in the gentleman, Mr. Thompson's, district. But I am convinced of the worthiness of this request for a slightly different reason than has been mentioned on the floor to this time. One of the key areas that the textile center funds go to support in the work and research that's done at the UC Davis center is in the area of personal protection, research improving the functional clothing for homeland security and occupational safety. What do we mean by that? Well, there are what are known as biocidal Nomex fabrics, which have been developed for firefighters, for first responders and for military personnel in collaboration with the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory. In collaboration with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, research has enhanced the safety and comfort of firefighters' uniforms by improving and redesigning the fabrics and clothing. Biocidal textiles, and biocidal means that there is something that is in the textile itself, the product itself, which can kill certain kinds of things, substances which would be harmful to those who are wearing them. This is dedicated research for this specific purpose. Biocidal textiles, including protective masks, have been designed and developed for health care and other workers, resulting from interdisciplinary research teams, which include social and physical scientists, public health and environmental researchers. So while there are many reasons to support this amendment from the standpoint of those that are attempting to help an industry that has had difficult times, I rise in support of the very specific research that's being done as part of the textile center operation at the University of California at Davis which goes to protecting those folks who respond as first responders when we have explosions, when we have fires. It is not just being said to come up with some extraordinary reason to support this. This is actual research being done that has produced products that has made it safer for our first responders. One of the things I have requested from anybody who has asked me to put forth an earmark request is show me the Federal nexus. This to me is clearly a Federal nexus. This is research that supports first responders all over the country. It's concentrated research that means it is done on a far better basis than otherwise would be possible. It enhances the final product. And in that way, it seems to me, it is a substantial, reasonable application of Federal funds for a Federal purpose. For that reason, even though I have great respect for the gentleman from Arizona, whom I think has done a great job, and I have referred to him publicly because of his pleasant demeanor as he approaches this difficult task as Don Quixote with couth, I still would have to say with all due respect, I must oppose his amendment.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, since I consider the gentleman from Missouri such a stalwart Member of this House, and a friend, I rise not in anger but in sorrow as I oppose his amendment. I have profound disagreements with the specifics of this particular bill. I came to Congress, returned to Congress after 9/11 precisely because of 9/11, because I thought we needed, as a country, to respond to the threat of Islamofascism in an effective way and that we needed to recognize that our war against Islamofascism was a multi-fronted war. And one of the fronts of that war is Iraq. You can argue whether it's the number one front or not, but it is important. And I think everyone would agree. And what we do there is important. And how we act there is important. And when we withdraw, even though we call it a redeployment, that is important. It is a message that goes beyond Iraq. It goes to all of those who would do us ill in this world. And I can't understand, when we had General Petraeus look us in the eye just a couple of weeks ago and say to Members, I believe in my mission; I've told my men and my women that I believe in the mission; and if I didn't believe in it, I would tell you immediately because I'm not going to sacrifice men and women in vain. And he said, give me the time to do it. And we said, yes, sir, you have the time. And now we say, when he's over there with his men and women, we're not going to give you the time. We're going to second guess. I don't understand how you prosecute a war. One Member got up and said, let's end this war by passing this resolution. You end a war usually in America by winning, by defeating the enemy. We have this bill up now. We're going to have a bill up in another couple of weeks that's going to tell us we have to change the habeas corpus issue, we have to grant habeas corpus to unlawful enemy combatants, for the first time in the history of our Nation, putting us at a position that we never would have had in World War II. It would have crippled us during World War II. And then we're going to hear, close down Guantanamo. Let's look at this bill as just a piece of the approach that the other side is taking.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. As you may recall, this first came up during the Reagan administration when then-Secretary Don Hodel was surprised when a staff member came into his office and said, Mr. Secretary, how would you like to give us another Yosemite Valley? He said, What are you talking about? The staff member said there is a twin to Yosemite Valley sitting under, I forget how many feet of water. He said, Well, that water goes to San Francisco, doesn't it? And he said, Yes, but we think there are alternatives that would allow San Francisco to still get that water, that pristine water, as it has for 80-some years, and yet restore the Hetch Hetchy. The estimates I have seen, it may cost upwards of $2 billion. Now that is a lot of money, but I would ask you: How much would it cost us to build a Yosemite Valley if we could possibly build it? It is priceless, as they say in the commercial.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. That is the whole purpose of having a study for $7 million to estimate the cost and to make sure that the city of San Francisco and the other water districts receive that money.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention an amendment I was going to offer but did not for fear it would not garner the appropriate number of votes, and that was to dam up Yosemite Valley. It is about time that we dam up that valley, let it flood now because Los Angeles and southern California is in dire need of water. We are talking about global warming and we are talking about the need for water for our people. Now that would be a ridiculous amendment; but yet we didn't even get a chance to have $7 million as requested by the administration to look at the possibility of restoring Yosemite Valley's twin, the Hetch Hetchy. Eighty-four years ago the Hetch Hetchy Valley, the smaller twin to Yosemite Valley that is completely contained within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park, the only instance in which we dammed up a river to cover up a valley inside a national park took place. What did John Muir say about it? He said: ``Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.'' This is one of the beautiful natural resources in this country, and the administration said give us $7 million to study whether we could get rid of O'Shaughnessy Dam that has been there for 84 years, restore this valley and show that we can provide that water supply to the city of San Francisco so we can give our children and grandchildren this great natural resource. Now I will admit I am biased. I met my wife in Yosemite on the banks of the Merced River in the beautiful Yosemite Valley. But let me just ask you, we talk about all these things, preserve this museum and preserve this art gallery and so forth. Can you imagine if we can give back to the American people another Yosemite Valley? And yet we cannot even get the committee $7 million to study the possibilities. Why are people afraid of this? We talk about preserving nature and concern for our national parks. This is a desecration of one of the most beautiful natural parks in the history of this Nation, Yosemite Valley. Most people don't know that there is a twin valley just north of it called the Hetch Hetchy because it is underwater. The city of San Francisco pays $50,000 a year to cover up one of the great, beautiful natural wonders of this Nation. And yet we couldn't even get $7 million to study, not to do it, to study if it is feasible. The governor has just completed a study in which he said it was feasible, and said we need the Federal Government, since it is Federal land, to look at it and it will cost about $7 million. And this committee said no, we can't. The Speaker doesn't want it. Senators who happen to be in and around San Francisco don't want it. I don't know what is more environmentally important than saving one of the great wonders of the world that is underwater. John Muir said this is the greatest desecration, the greatest desecration of natural resources in this Nation. John Muir, not usually noted as a Republican, but one of the great conservationists in the history of the United States. And we couldn't even get $7 million. I am very disappointed. I am extremely disappointed. If anybody wants to look at this, go to Yosemite Valley, go to that national park and say you want to look at the Hetch Hetchy which John Muir said is one of the great cathedrals of nature in this country. It is kind of tough to see it because it is underwater. Now I'm not saying stop the water from going to San Francisco, I am saying there are alternatives that would restore this beautiful, fantastic, feature of nature; and yet in this bill, we can't even allow $7 million.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman of the committee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I remember serving with Silvio Conte, and he did love fish, but he also didn't like some of the boondoggle subsidies. You will recall he used to go to the floor with a pig's nose on every year and talk about the subsidy to beekeepers. So he saw some things that weren't supposed to be utilized for Federal funding, and the gentleman understands that. I would just say, if we are worried about endangered species in the Northeast, maybe we could restore at least one Republican in Massachusetts in the name of Silvio Conte.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. The fact that it is on suspension ought not to suggest that it is not an important bill. This bill is another in a number of bills that helps us heal some tremendous wounds in this country that go to the very essence of this country. The Civil War, which caused more bloodshed than any other war that this Nation has been engaged in, is viewed as the tremendous act of expiation with the effort of this Nation to resolve, in its own mind, what it meant by every man and woman being equal. That began the process that was followed through in a remarkable period of time during the last century called the civil rights revolution. But that revolution has not ended. There are still things that need to be done. One of the terrible stains left on this Nation is the lack of justice done for those who suffered at the hands of people who believed this country would never recognize the rights of all; those who thought they could act with impunity to threaten, to terrorize, to murder other human beings merely because of the color of their skin. I call this bill the ``last chance bill,'' the ``now or never bill.'' If we don't do this now, we will never have the chance to do it again, because those individuals who were involved in these crimes may not be around, and the family members of those who were victims of these crimes may not be around. We give ourselves a 10-year period of time in which we make a real effort to try and bring those to justice who should have been brought to justice a long time ago. In the process, we say to all Americans, We understand the injustice that was done. We will make sure it is never repeated again. We will work to make this country a better place now and in the future.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the debate over the last 2 days has been described in many different ways. I would like to describe it as a tribute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). I have referred to him in the press as Don Quixote with couth, referring to the fact that in the past he has stood there as a solitary figure trying to bring sense to this place when we're dealing with earmarks. President Nixon once said looking at certain figures about population that we are all now Malthusian. He was proven wrong. I think I can say without contradiction, after the debate on the floor and resolution of the dispute we've had and the seriousness with which we're about now to undertake the issue of earmarks, we are now all Flakes.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, last night, we were informed over and over again by the other side of the aisle that we were supposed to follow what's become known as the Obey rule, O-b-e-y. Now, out west where I come from, that's pronounced ``obey.'' So I looked up in the dictionary to see what o-b-e-y means, and it's from middle English and old French, and it means to carry out or fulfill the command, order and instruction of, to carry out or comply with the command, or to behave obediently. That's the problem. We have been told that we are supposed to obey, that is, behave obediently at the whim of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and their staff. I was not elected to obey anybody here. I was elected here to represent the people of the Third Congressional District of California. That's what the debate was about last night. That's what the debate will be about today, and that's what the debate will be about for the rest of the appropriations cycle.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who has just spoken has talked about dedication to homeland security by the members of the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee, and perhaps inadvertently suggested that others' concern about that does not rise to the same level. I would suggest if that is what the gentleman meant that he is wrong. I think it is fair to say that all Members in this House were affected, both personally, professionally, and as Americans by the events of 9/11. I would suggest that while some of us may believe the sense of urgency is not maintained at all times with respect to the threat that faces us, there is in fact in much, if not everything we do, the sense of the background of the vicious attack on 9/11. The gentleman talked about the Appropriations Committee and the appropriations subcommittee. I happen to be a member of the authorizing committee, the Homeland Security Committee. I believe we have acted in a bipartisan way. But just to indicate a few differences between what is in this bill and what we have done in the past on a bipartisan basis or coming out of the Homeland Security Committee, the chemical protection regime that we established last year, after much discussion, after much debate and after much balancing is changed in this bill. The border fence, which has been the subject of much debate, much attention, I happen to support it and proudly support it. I do not believe it is the panacea, but it is part of the solution. Many in the American public have wondered whether we meant what we said when we passed the legislation that authorized and appropriated funds for the border fence. They must have many more questions today, because in this bill it makes it more difficult to complete that task. Some would suggest it makes it impossible. Now, I happen to be a lawyer; I plead guilty. But if I wanted to have lawsuits to stop the fence, I would say hallelujah when I looked at this version of the law that is contained in this bill that is presented to us. One of the gentlemen on the other side talked about detention facilities. I introduced the first piece of legislation that stopped the ``catch and release'' program followed by this administration and previous administrations dealing with OTMs, or ``other than Mexicans,'' caught on our southern border. One of the reasons why they were caught and released and told to come back in 60 or 90 days for their court appearance, and 94 percent of them never did, by the way, was because we didn't have sufficient detention facilities. So ICE has said in addition to those we own, we ought to see whether we can use privatized detention facilities. This bill makes it difficult, if not impossible, to do that. So please don't tell us on the floor that some on that side of the aisle are more concerned about homeland security than we are. This bill places restrictions on personnel management policies that have been adopted by the Homeland Security Department, recognizing the uniqueness of their mission. So please don't tell us that those on that side of the aisle are more concerned about homeland security than are we. Perhaps those on the other side of the aisle believe that the only way you show sincerity is by throwing more money at it. There is a difference. That is why the ranking member, the former chairman of this subcommittee, is going to offer an amendment to bring this back down to a level that can get passed. If you want a veto, as you did for 120 days with the question of supporting our troops, you can get it on this as well. The former chairman, the current ranking member of the subcommittee, is going to offer an amendment that will make it more probable than not that this bill will be signed by the President. Yet, in an effort to show that you feel more on this issue by throwing more money at it, you are going to subject us to the same political routine that we just went through with respect to funding our troops. 120 days lost. We have plenty of time to debate this bill and other bills on the floor. All we have to do is make sure we stay here and debate it.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, aren't we supposed to alternate between sides?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This goes across ideological lines. It goes across lines of organizations that in the past may not have worked together. There were some comments on the floor with which I disagree. This is not open season on all the medical records of every American citizen. If you are adjudicated, you will find yourself in this system. And I think most Americans believe that if someone has been adjudicated with a mental defect which is a danger to society, they ought not to have a weapon. There has been an effort to try to reach a reasonable compromise on how we deal with a very difficult situation dealing with veterans, where overreach in the past by the Veterans Administration has caused trouble with respect to those who ought not to be included in the system. But it doesn't automatically allow all these folks to come in. It is not an open door. They have to go through the system. They have to show that they ought not to be disabled from receiving a gun. Whenever you talk about the second amendment, it seems to me it ought to be done with proper deference and proper respect for the Constitution. At the same time, this is not an unconstitutional deprivation of any right. The courts have been very clear that people can be denied the right to guns in these categories. We are not expanding the categories. As a matter of fact, we are creating in this legislation mechanisms to make it work better. I can recall being on the floor in the 1980s when we were dealing with very tough debates on gun laws, and at that time the National Rifle Association's position was that they would support an instant background check system. The technology really wasn't there at that time. It really wasn't there. We are not totally there yet, but we are almost there in terms of instantaneous. This is the kind of background check that we had hoped we could discuss on the floor back in the 1980s. It was sort of a dream, and some people thought it was a ruse at that time to stop legislation. Now it is a reality. It is something that can work, and this legislation makes it work better. May I just reiterate: when I was the chief law enforcement officer of the State of California, we relied on the accuracy of the information contained in our records at the California Department of Justice. Similarly, the only way we could make sure that our laws work effectively and the Federal laws work effectively within our State is that we have proper information on adjudications from other States. And it is unfair to the citizens of my State to have people disabled from using firearms because they have been adjudicated legally with respect to a mental deficiency and yet others come in from other States, take up residence in our State, and because we don't have the records, they are allowed to have such weapons, which we believe to be a danger to society. So that is what this legislation does. The other thing is, remember, there is an ability to challenge being placed on these lists, and that is enhanced in this legislation. There is, yes, funding that encourages the States to participate. But isn't that the way we would like it? We want the States to participate. We want the information to be accurate. We want to have a system that actually is accurate, informative, and instantaneously accessible by proper authorities. So please remember we have not done something which puts Americans' medical records at risk unless you have committed a disqualifying crime or unless you have been adjudicated by a court for having a mental defect which would prove to be a danger to society. I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas, the left- hander (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we've heard from the perspective of those who have, unfortunately, suffered tremendous loss in gun violence. We've heard from those who are champions of the second amendment. We've heard from the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I would like to bring the perspective of someone who was required to enforce the laws concerning guns in the State of California as Attorney General. Background checks in the State of California go through the California Department of Justice. We have, probably before the Federal law was passed, certain requirements or restrictions from those who ought not to have weapons that I think there is absolutely general agreement on. Under current law, you cannot do that if you have illegally entered the country, renounced your citizenship, been committed to a mental institution, or been legally declared mentally defective and a danger to others, if you have received a dishonorable discharge from the military, or illegally used drugs or are addicted to illegal drugs. I think virtually every American can agree that that makes sense. We agreed that that makes sense in California a long time ago. But the background check is only as good as the information in the system. And while States such as mine can do a very good job with respect to their own records, a huge loophole exists if someone who has been declared mentally deficient in another State moves into your State and you don't have those records. If someone who has a disqualifying felony from another State comes into your State, you don't have those records. And so this allows more accurate information to assist all the States in doing the job that their people have agreed ought to be done. There's very little dispute on this. For many years, the National Rifle Association has said they supported accurate background checks, so long as there was an ability for people to challenge them if, in fact, they're improperly in those records. And that is in current legislation, strengthened in this legislation. Some of the States have had difficulty with respect to their funding. This assists in that regard. It seems to me, this is a responsible way of responding to a serious problem. It is one which is not driven by the extremes. It is not driven by emotion. It is driven by conscious effort to try and find a reasonable response to a continuing problem. I support this wholeheartedly. I congratulate those on both sides who have done such a good job of working to make sure that this bill came to the floor, and that it was not in some way sidetracked by extraneous arguments. And so I congratulate the authors. I congratulate the members of the committee leadership, and I urge unanimous support of this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I'm sorry some thought that after we spent 120 days getting to a single bill on spending for our troops, and after we spent Monday voting on important things such as changing the U.S. Code to recommend that people fly their flag on Father's Day, that someone thinks allowing me to speak an extra minute is somehow offensive. I'm sorry that that is the kind of courtesy that is missing on this floor. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would just like to conclude by saying this. If we truly want to get our house in order, Democrats and Republicans alike, we have to understand that it is when we're dealing precisely with those things that are most important that we find the courage to make sure that every dollar is spent wisely so that we can then move on to things such as waste, fraud and abuse. But unless we have the guts to do this, we're never going to get our fiscal house in order. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I support the idea of funding the Department of Homeland Security appropriately, but question whether a 13.6 percent increase over nonemergency appropriations in the previous fiscal year shows either that we have exercised that proper authority with respect to spending, and whether or not we have been discreet enough in our decisions. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would yield, I will be proud to vote for your amendment to have a 7.1 percent increase, which, as I understand, is more than double the rate of inflation over the previous year.