Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would feel compelled to support that type of approach. And, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is criticized at that time for having a cut through his amendment, I would suggest that those of us who want to lose weight should follow that kind of argument. Because we could say, instead of gaining 50 pounds, we only gained 30 pounds, and, therefore, we managed to lose weight.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, 28 years ago I first took to this floor as a newly elected Member of Congress from the State of California. At that time we were spending more than we were taking in. At that time I was one of those who joined others, oftentimes, in voting against appropriation bills because we were not taking seriously enough the direction of the people that we represented to, yes, spend money where necessary, but get our financial house in order. During those first 10 years I served in this House, many times I was on the short end of spending votes. I recall during the 8 years of Ronald Reagan supporting him oftentimes on vetoes. And we managed to bring some of the spending down that was presented to him on occasion, but we still didn't do a good enough job. I left this House for 16 years, and when I returned, I thought maybe we would see another day. Well, I was doubly disappointed because my party, then being in power, was not doing that which I thought was necessary, again, to bring our financial house in order. And as much as I worked hard to ensure that my party would retain the majority status in both Houses, the people spoke otherwise. And I thought maybe this would give us an opportunity to finally get our fiscal house in order, because I had watched as we had dropped the banner of fiscal responsibility. I had watched, during the election, my friends on the other side of the aisle picking it up and suggesting that if they were put in charge, they would do what we had promised to do in the past. And alas, I thought that we had some suggestion that that might be the case as the majority party took over and, in adopting the rules, took the rules that we had on some reform of earmarks and actually built upon them, suggesting to all of us and to the public at large that we would, in fact, be more transparent; that we would, in fact, be more accountable; that we would, in fact, have greater responsibility for all Members individually, and in this body, collectively. And then I look at the very first bill that is presented here for this fiscal year from the Appropriations Committee, and I must register deep disappointment. In the first instance, this is an important bill, the appropriations for Homeland Security. There is probably no other appropriation bill that is more worthy of consideration, except perhaps the DOD, because, fundamentally, we are responsible for providing the security of the people who send us here. And yet, while the people tell us that is what they want us to do, they also suggest that we need to get our fiscal house in order. So how do we balance that? It seems to me we have to be honest with ourselves. If we get rid of all waste, fraud and abuse, we still won't get our fiscal house in order. We have to have the courage to look at important bills such as this bill and say, are we spending wisely? Is every dollar spent here necessary? Do we need to have a 13.6 increase over nonemergency appropriations from the previous fiscal year? And I would suggest that unless we look carefully at bills such as these, which are the most important bills that we have before us, we will never do the people's work appropriately. And I'd just ask, how is it that we say we are going to be more faithful to our commitment to the people, to give them a sense of responsibility, when we are told that we won't know what earmarks there are when we vote on the bill because they won't be there then, but they will somehow be dropped in in the conference report? I don't understand how that increases transparency. Now, I was just a lowly English major, and so I'm burdened by looking at the dictionary. And transparency means that you see better; that you see through things; that it is more obvious to you, not obscured. And for the life of me, I can't understand, if I'm denied the list of appropriations that are going to be put into that bill at the time I'm voting for it, how that fits the simple dictionary definition of transparency. Perhaps I can be aided by the other side to explain this to me, because I cannot understand it.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let's understand some first principles. Human dignity is not reserved for adult human beings. The premise of human rights protections is that they are not contingent on arbitrary criteria such as size or location. Ethical considerations must be weighed in light of the advances being made using adult stem cells, including those derived from cord blood. As has been mentioned, those advances are substantiated by peer review studies confirming improvement in many types of cancers, cerebral palsy, sickle cell anemia, paralyzing injuries, autoimmune diseases, metabolic disorders, neural degenerative diseases and heart damage. This is consistent with the second principle of the Nuremberg Code, the directives for experimental human subject research, which are published at the Web site of NIH. The principle reads simply, ``The experiment should be as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.'' Or as President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission said, ``In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing research.'' Well, we know they are. We talked about, before the House debating the bill earlier this year, the study published in Nature Biotechnology Journal, finding that amniotic fluids contain cells that can be cloned to produce stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. We had today's article referring to the Nature Journal, publishing a study, showing that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed into an embryonic state in mice. Instead of embracing this, we hear from the gentlewoman from Colorado, her words, shockingly, another scientific result reported yesterday. They seem to always come up whenever we're debating the bill. They are because that's what science is doing. Vote this bill down.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we have heard sentiments from the other side of the aisle about the vote that is going to take place today. I would like to throw a few facts on the table. One, the President asked us 110 days ago for this support; 110 days. Nothing has changed with his request, the need for the support of the troops, from then until now, except we have gone through political exercises to try and limit the ability of the President and, more importantly, his commanders in the field, from doing what they think is best. I have heard it said that we need a new policy. We have a new policy. I have heard it said, we need a new military commander. We have a new military commander. I have heard it said, we need new tactics. We have new tactics. The problem is, as the President has presented this, as we put this into effect, all we hear is, no, no, no, and no. That is not a policy; that is a denial. That does not support the troops. Unfortunately, it makes it more difficult for them. Let's remember as we vote to support our troops, we could have done this and should have done this 110 days ago.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, as we sit here and listen to this debate, both on this rule and on the 1-minutes that went before us, one thing is passing strange. I heard my friends on the other side of the aisle complain or lament that the problem with this bill is that it does not hold the President in check. We're dealing with a wartime supplemental. I thought the purpose of that is to hold the enemy in check, not hold the President of the United States in check. I heard another Member of the other side of the aisle say, Republicans now, you understand, you own this war. Are we trying to make a political statement, or are we trying to help our troops? Are we trying to do some political dance, or are we trying to stand behind our troops? I heard from the other side of the aisle, you Republicans are continuing this war. The enemy is continuing this war. Have we lost sight on what it is we're supposed to be talking about here? Have we lost sight on what it is that our troops are thinking about? Is this something where we define somebody other than the enemy on the field as the enemy? We now have heard from the distinguished lady from New York that the surge has failed. She has joined others, including those in the other body from that side of the aisle, who have made the determination, not that this policy will fail, not that it cannot succeed, but they have now declared, as she has said, that the surge has failed. Perhaps she should talk to General Petraeus. Perhaps she should talk to our military leaders in the field. I don't question her sincerity, but I would suggest that perhaps General Petraeus has a better idea about what the circumstances on the ground are. Has he declared victory? No. Has he said he believes that victory is achievable? Yes. Has he told that to our troops time and time again? Yes. Has he quoted the gentlelady from New York to say to our troops, as I send you out on this mission, understand that the surge has already failed? No, he has not. No, he has not. We hear repeated on this floor, we need a change in mission. We need a change in policy. We need a change in leadership. You have a new Secretary of Defense. You have a new military commander. You have a new mission on the field. And yet as it begins to unfold, what do you say? What do we hear said on this floor by those who ask for those things? Not, let's see if it works, the President has listened to us, we have the best of the best, the best warrior leader we have in our country who has come up with this plan, who has put his imprimatur on this plan, who tells us and tells the troops this plan is a plan for victory. But no. What do we hear? ``The surge has failed,'' we hear uttered on this floor. ``The surge has failed.'' If you believe it has failed, then why have we been fooling around with all of these other things? Why don't you just have an up-or-down vote, get us off this funding completely, tell the troops the only thing to do is to take them home? But what have we heard from the other side? They say, we don't have the votes to do that, so we are going to have death by a thousand cuts. That is why it has taken us 110 days plus, because of the strategy to somehow do by indirection what the Constitution won't allow you to do by direction. We have heard it again and again and again from the other side of the aisle. Their dictionary begins with ``F'' and the word ``fail,'' and it ends with the word ``lost.'' You will not find in their lexicon the words ``victory'' and ``win.'' You will find only ``failure'' and ``loss.'' And not that we will fail, but we have heard the pronouncement from the majority on this floor today we have already lost. That is the message they are sending by their vote today, and they have told us what it is with an exclamation point. Troops in the field, we sent you on a mission that is a mission to fail, and it has already failed. What a terrible message to send to our troops. We should reject that notion. We should support our troops. We should support this funding. And we should stop trying to play the ``gotcha'' game here on the floor of this House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill, but oppose the manager's amendment that will be presented basically as the alternative to the bipartisan work product that came out of the committee on a 29-0 vote, I believe. Not a single dissenting vote, Democrat or Republican, was recorded in the committee after we had gone through long debate not only on the base bill as it was presented to us, but numerous amendments presented by both Republicans and Democrats. 9/11 is the seminal moment of this century. It changed the world in which we live. One would hope that it would change the manner in which we work in this House. In many ways, that has occurred with respect to the bipartisan approach that has been utilized in the committee itself. We recall that in the last Congress, we managed to pass the SAFE Ports bill, a bipartisan product, all the way from subcommittee to full committee to the floor to working out the conference with the Senate. Essentially there wasn't too much to work out; they adopted our provisions. And then, on to the President of the United States to sign it. That showed that we can work in a changed world with a changed approach in this House. That is why today is so disappointing. We have a completed product coming out of the committee, a 29-0 vote, with numerous amendments adopted after full consideration by both Democrats and Republicans, and yet a large portion of that will be stripped out with the manager's amendment to be presented by the chairman of this committee. I do not question the motivation of my chairman. In fact, I want to believe in my heart that he would rather not tear his own bill apart. I believe he would like to have the whole thing here. Why? Because we believe it is a better bill that actually goes further to protect America. Some heard on this floor Mr. Reichert from our committee, a distinguished member of our committee, the former sheriff of King County in the State of Washington, concerned about the lack of interoperability that reigns across this land. Mr. King has spoken on the floor about the tragic consequences of a failure of interoperability on 9/11. Others in law enforcement throughout this country talked about it. We approved $1 billion a year ago. In this bill we actually allow greater flexibility so that first responders can utilize this money to make interoperability a fact, and yet that is stricken from this bill if we adopt the manager's amendment. There are any number of other things that are involved here. One of them that seems to me to be extremely important, and we have held hearings on this, is strengthening maritime alien smuggling laws by denying alien smugglers the use of maritime routes and enhancing penalties for alien smuggling; taken out. Also, the 9/11 Commission has made it very, very clear that business as usual is not acceptable, and that means in this Congress, and suggests that we should reorganize ourselves so that we have a prime committee that deals with these matters, not because it is a matter of jurisdictional pride, but because of a greater efficiency, a greater oversight, a greater responsibility, a greater accountability and having us mirror the new arrangement that exists in the executive branch. And so we express a sense of Congress to do this, to carry out that important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission; stripped out by the manager's amendment. There is no real good argument why it should be stripped out except it is. There is a pilot program for mobile biometrics identification of apprehended aliens at sea and authorizing $10 million for the program. We discussed this. There is a need. There is a vulnerability we have with respect to aliens at sea, and yet we strip it out of here. I don't believe there is any good argument that you're going to hear on the floor for adopting the manager's amendment, because they have to point to those things that are stripped out to suggest why they're bad, why they don't enhance our security. I recall when the majority leader came to the floor a year ago, or a little over a year ago and congratulated us on our bipartisan approach for the SAFE Ports bill. I wish he could come to the floor again. If you listened to his words carefully, he said, ``The committee has given us a good bipartisan bill.'' I agree with the majority leader. Let's keep the bipartisan bill. Let's pass it. Let's defeat the manager's amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor reluctantly to oppose this rule. Why? Because it does everything that we ought not to do with respect to the committee process here. Now, if some people outside this Chamber wonder why the committee process is important or if it is important at all, well, if you look at the 9/11 Commission recommendations, one of the important recommendations they made was to have a single point of responsibility, a single point of oversight in this House for the Homeland Security Department. The very reason we created the Homeland Security Department from about 22 other agencies and Departments was for the purpose of consolidating and giving direction to our response to a new threat to this country. In like manner, here in the House of Representatives, the recommendation by the 9/11 Commission was that we have a primary committee to do that. And that is the Committee on Homeland Security. We have endeavored to work on a bipartisan basis. When we were in control 2 years ago, we did that. And now when the Democrats are in control, they are doing that. We had vigorous and open debate. We had a number of amendments adopted on the Republican side so that we pass this bill out of committee unanimously, not a dissenting vote. And we recognized that we were putting aside partisan differences to work for the best interest of this country. So now we come to the floor, and 50 percent of that bill has been ripped out by the manager's amendment. It just happens to be that 50 percent is virtually all the product of Republican amendments that were adopted in committee on a bipartisan basis. And then they make in order about 22 amendments but not amendments that go to putting back into the bill what we put in there on a bipartisan basis. And virtually, not all, but most of the amendments in order are from Members who are not members of this committee. So you say, why is this being done? And we understand we are genuflecting to the jurisdictional disputes argued by already existing committees. So what we have done is, rather than following what the 9/ 11 Commission has said, we have made a worse situation. We not only have the already existing committees that the Homeland Security Department has to report to. They now report to us as well. Now, is this the efficient way? Is this the way you act when you are dealing with a serious problem? This ought to rise above all partisanship and all kinds of nonsense about jurisdiction of committees. I don't know how we can go home to our constituents and say, oh, yes, we got rid of that stuff that was really good that gave us an advantage in this war on terror because we were concerned about another committee that used to have jurisdiction. Last year one of the things we heard was just do the right thing and adopt all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Adopting this rule flies in the face of that. We ought to understand that. We ought to vote down this rule, bring back the bill as it came out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, and then go forward on a bipartisan basis for the best for the American people.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are a serious issue. That's why 45 out of the 50 States have laws against them. That's why we have an already existing Federal law where there is a Federal interest involved. Unfortunately, this bill is not necessary or is not drawn appropriately for any specific Federal problem. Some 20 years ago, I remember supporting the gentleman from Massachusetts against an effort by a Member on my side of the aisle to remove homosexuals from protection under the Hate Crimes Act at the time, that is the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. That went to the definition. I am concerned about the definition in this bill. I mentioned this during the rule. In this rule there is no definition of sexual orientation, which becomes a protected class in the sense of enhanced penalty or a new crime for protection for such a victim. We asked whether we would put the definition that is noted in the statute that goes to the sentencing commission in the bill. In fact, many on the committee said that I had a good idea. Yet, I was denied the opportunity in committee and in the Rules Committee to present that. So, therefore, we have no definition of sexual orientation. I wanted the simple definition that's recognized in the note to the sentencing commission, which limits it to homosexual or heterosexual conduct. So, now we have an undefined term of sexual orientation. Why am I concerned about it? Because I come from the State of California, where, for the past 20 years, we have had a problem dealing with an organization called NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love Association. They march in parades. They asserted the right, under the first amendment, to be able to hold their meetings in the local chapter in a library in my district. That's a sexual orientation. Without limiting the definition, as I asked us to do, we open up the potential for creating a new protected class. I do not understand why the majority refused to allow us a serious amendment to just define what this is and get rid of this problem. We were told, look at the statute. It defines it. We found out it didn't. It said it does it by reference. We went to it. The only reference is to a note to the sentencing commission. It is not defined. If this is not taken care of, this bill, I know it's not the intent, but it becomes essentially a NAMBLA Protection Act, because it allows that sort of conduct or any other sexual orientation to be considered because there is a lack of definition. Why you didn't allow it, I don't know. But you didn't allow it. On that grounds alone, this bill ought not to go forward. This bill needs to be reviewed, it needs to be amended, it needs to be perfected. It doesn't do what it claims it does. It has an expansion beyond all that anybody would support. At least in the committee they told me they didn't support it. They said they would take care of it. They didn't take care of it. I asked for a simple amendment in the Rules Committee. We were denied a simple amendment. I don't know why you are doing this, but it is a failure of this bill and will probably defeat this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Let's understand what this is. This is a closed rule suggesting that this is a perfect bill. This is anything but a perfect bill. People ought to understand that we are denied the opportunity to present a single amendment on this floor, and let me explain to my colleagues the single amendment I wish to bring to the floor. This bill defines hate crimes to include a number of different subjects. One of them is a crime committed against someone where the hate was motivated by hatred for their sexual orientation. ``Sexual orientation'' appears as an undefined term in the bill. I offered a simple amendment to define sexual orientation as it is noted in the U.S. Code, the only specific reference to a definition in the U.S. Code, which is a note that is a footnote in the statute which directs the Sentencing Commission to take into consideration hate motivation when they want to enhance penalties. There is no statutory definition of it, however, with respect to the crime itself. And that note refers to sexual orientation simply as consensual homosexual or heterosexual conduct. Now, why would they not allow us to have that simple amendment, which when we discussed it in committee, I was told that is what they meant the bill to be? The chairman of the committee said to me it sounded like a reasonable amendment because that's exactly what they intended it to be. So why don't we have the opportunity to offer this amendment on the floor? I do not know. And why would I be concerned about a failure for us to define this term? Because if you use the term ``sexual orientation'' and use the definition found in the dictionary of those two words, it means any orientation of sexual conduct. Now, why would I be concerned, being a former attorney general of the State of California and having served in this Congress now for seven terms representing my State? Because I recall some 20 years ago when a debate ensued in my then-existing district in Palos Verdes, California, where the local chapter of NAMBLA, which is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, and the dispute was that they wanted to have their local chapter meetings at the local library. Some of you may have seen their banners in certain parades that take place in San Francisco, where NAMBLA, instead of hiding, proudly proclaims their position of ``sexual orientation.'' They argue, for instance, that we are denying children their right to have sexual expression with adults and that somehow we are hampering their development. I am not making this up, my colleagues. This is a fact. And under a nondefined term of ``sexual orientation,'' that very well may be included. I could give you other examples, but that is a current example. And in order to make sure that that kind of activity is not enshrined in the law and given special protection, I asked for this simple amendment. And when I was in debate in the committee, I was told by the chairman that it made ample sense and we ought to work to do that. So then I go before the distinguished Committee on Rules, make this presentation, have no argument against it, and yet am denied the simple opportunity to offer that. So the question is why? If you don't want to extend this definition, if you don't want to have this free play out there in the legal atmosphere, why do you deny me the opportunity to present this simple amendment? Is there a hidden agenda here? Is there something we don't know? Are we flying under false flags here? What are we doing? This is more, my colleagues, than just a dispute between the majority versus the minority on the Rules Committee. This is more than just hampering the minority. This is a question of simple definition which goes to a crucial question in our society today. So my concern, my colleagues, is not fanciful. It is not made up. It is not something that may happen in the future. This is based on an experience that I have seen for 20-plus years in my home State. And yet when I asked to have this considered, I was told that it made eminent sense, we basically hear a great silence. A great silence. Now, we can have games here in the House of Representatives, majority versus minority, but when it affects the lives of our constituents, when it affects in a very real way a serious social question in our society, it seems to me we ought to rise above this kind of nonsense, and we ought to at least give the Members the opportunity to consider it. Maybe the Members don't agree with me. Maybe the Members think we ought to expand this definition. But at least we ought to have the chance to debate it. Last time I checked, we're not under a time clock here that requires us to leave. We could consider this. So I would ask my colleagues to please vote down this rule. Allow us to bring forward a rule that allows consideration of these and other amendments.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, and people ought to recognize it's a serious issue. There is something called hate crimes. And in the past, the Supreme Court has looked at issues to try and differentiate between mere speech and speech connected with conduct and how you articulate a law in a proper way that does not offend the first amendment, which allows terrible speech. One of the prices of our democracy and one of the prices of this society is to allow terrible speech, not to say you accept it, but to allow it. And so the Supreme Court has carefully reviewed hate crime legislation. When I was attorney general of California, we issued an amicus brief before the Supreme Court to support one version of the hate crime legislation in one State that was similar to ours in California. We declined to do it in another State. And in that one in which we declined to do it, the Supreme Court found that it was afoul of the law. That's why I think it's very, very important how we carefully construct a hate crimes bill. The underlying premise of this bill is that we should extend the already existing Federal hate crimes legislation, which has a Federal nexus, based on the individual victim or victims being involved in a protected Federal activity. This bill goes beyond that and suggests that the constitutional nexus with Federal activity is that hate directed against the particular protected classes here somehow restricts interstate commerce. And I would just suggest that the findings in the bill did not have evidence to back it up. And I think there may very well be a constitutional attack that is successful in the Court on that. That's why we are concerned about the way this is written. Second, there are those who suggest that we will not have the concern become a reality expressed by some on this floor and by some outside this floor that this somehow will chill free speech. The suggestion is we've carefully crafted the legislation so that's not to be the case. I would just direct our attention to another section of the bill which calls for participation by the Federal Government in the investigation and prosecution of crimes at the State level which delineates the definition of hate crimes in the first two paragraphs but, in the third paragraph says, or any other hate crime established by State law. So what we are doing is extending it beyond the carefully constructed definitions that we have in this bill, considering the constitutional questions and extended it far beyond that. That is another legitimate concern about this bill. And so I would just say that I hope we don't get totally involved in the argument that there are no hate crimes and they, therefore, never should be involved in our criminal justice system, versus that they are the worst of all crimes, or they are so essentially different from others that those who are subjected to attacks because of a random attitude by the perpetrator, or for reasons outside the protected class, somehow don't have the sufficiency of interest or the sufficiency of importance to be included. Hate crimes exist in our society. Hate crimes are to be condemned in our society. As I said before, that's why 45 States have done so, most of them successfully in negotiating the shows of constitutional concern that are created by the first amendment. And therefore, one might suggest that we need to review this in far greater detail than we've been allowed thus far.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, we come to this floor as representatives of our constituents, of the American people. And I am astonished to hear some of the comments on this floor. We can disagree in terms of policies. We can disagree in terms of decisions, but to go from that to suggest lies, to suggest deception, to have a distinguished Member on the other side of the aisle say this past weekend that we ought to consider impeachment of the President, this declaration of defeat from the Democrats that is sent to the President's desk today ought to be vetoed by this President. General Petraeus was here last week presenting to us his view of what's happening. And, frankly, I think General Petraeus has a better idea what we need to do than any other erstwhile general sitting here in the halls of Congress. We can only have one Commander in Chief. We had a unanimous decision in the Senate to send General Petraeus there and yet, now you are trying to undercut his mission by this Democratic declaration of defeat. Let us have the President veto it as soon as possible.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of our departed colleague, Juanita Millender-McDonald, with whom I only had the privilege of serving for the last 3 years, but who was an office mate, had the office just down the hall from me my first 2 years back here this time around; and then I had the proud honor of serving on House Administration with her. More than that, she represented a portion of my hometown of Long Beach, and we would often talk about our mutual interests in some of the people and institutions there, particularly my love for Long Beach Memorial Hospital in my hometown. In every conversation I had with her, in every dealing I had with her, she was very gracious, very generous of spirit, always upbeat. I was surprised to hear of her illness and surprised to hear of her passing because in every conversation I had with her, she never gave an indication that she was in pain or suffering or in any way challenged by this illness. She seemed to radiate a fulfillment in being in this House and the work she did. I know she was very proud of the people she represented, her constituents, and I know she was proud of the communities she represented. And I know she was proud of the firsts she represented, both here in the Congress and in the California legislature. This place is a tough place. We battle oftentimes over ideas and we battle over ideology, and yet the human aspect of this place is forgotten by many who look out or look upon us from the outside, but it is always here. And I always enjoyed every encounter I had with Juanita. She was a pleasure to work with. She was someone who took great pride in our State of California, and I think she will be someone who will be sorely missed in this House. It is my pleasure to stand here and say good-bye, Juanita. I enjoyed working with you. You will be missed.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican substitute. There is a clear difference between the two proposals on the table. The Democratic plan, despite the protestations of its proponents, does, in fact, contain the largest tax increase in American history. We have heard time and again their referring to the language that is in their bill which talks about tax cuts. But I would suggest their tax cut promises are written with invisible ink. They talk about how they want to do it, but there is no means by the way they will do it. And they also promise to have a balanced budget and yet, without the tax increases inherent in their proposal, they cannot reach it. We have no tax increases, period. None in this budget. In the Democratic budget, they include a $22 billion increase in nondefense spending above the President's request, on top of the $22 billion of unrequested spending in the supplemental and $6 billion in the omnibus. Our budget includes a freeze on nondefense, nonsecurity spending, while providing additional funds for veterans, for the war on terrorism, for Community Development Block Grants, for NIH, and Science and Technology. In entitlements, they criticize us for attempting to look at entitlements and to bring across savings. We admit we attempt to do that, because we recognize the obligation we have as stewards of the people's money and stewards of the future of our children and grandchildren. So come out here and criticize us for attempting to look at these entitlement programs to begin, just to begin, to get the courage to deal with what we know we have to deal with. Now, our budgets can either be made so flimsy that they will fly away in the wind, or they can actually have some weight to them so that we begin the tough process, and it is a tough process, of dealing with reform of entitlements so that we do the job that is expected of us by our constituents and, more importantly, by our children and our grandchildren. I rise in strong support of this substitute by the Republicans.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I must disappoint you. I have no charts. I was in this body a number of years before and then left and came back; and, frankly, I have never seen such a war of charts as we have on the Budget Committee. They are instructive. But facts really matter. Dandy Don Meredith, the famous philosopher on Monday Night Football, once said, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then every day would be Christmas day.'' And that really describes the Democrats' commitment towards not raising taxes. They say it as a matter of policy, but in terms of actually doing it, they not only wouldn't put it in but they resisted every amendment we brought forward. And they like to talk about, well, let's go back to the last few years; let's see what happened back here and what has happened with the Republicans. I came to this House in 1979, one of the last times the Democrats had control of the White House, control of the House, control of the Senate, and they were talking about budgets then and they were coming forward with their proposals. And what did we have then? We had something called stagflation. We had inflation raging at 13.5 percent, the prime lending rate was 15.3 percent, the unemployment rate was 7.1 percent. Of course, the top marginal rate was 70 percent. They were resisting tax cuts. We came in and said it might make sense, when President Reagan came in, to reduce marginal rates, to reduce the impact of taxes on the American people, not only because it was fair to them but because the real genius of our economy is the production of jobs in the private sector. And I would like to ask them, what do they think would happen if we go back to their same old days, one of the last times we had, for an extended period of time, the Democrats controlling the Senate, the Democrats controlling the House, and what they want to do in 2 years is control the White House as well. If we move in that direction, we may very well get back to the times of Jimmy Carter when you did all those things, and the worst impact was not on tax rates, was not on inflation, it was on jobs. Jobs. Economists were telling us at that time, following your prescription, that we couldn't have a sustainable rate of unemployment below 6.5 percent. We now have it at 4.5 percent, 4.6 percent. That is the greatest social welfare program we have ever had in this country, jobs to American citizens. And I understand how you have greater faith in the Federal Government, have greater faith in government at all levels to create jobs than do we, but the facts speak for themselves. Looking at your particular proposal with the tax increases it has, it would not only affect the wealthy, it would affect in my home State of California 12,839,000 people at an average increase of $3,331. Now, you may not want to admit to it, but your increases in spending, your refusal to do anything about the increases in mandatory discretionary spending that are taking place during the lifetime of this budget that you present, and your claim that somehow you don't raise taxes but you magically come up with a balanced budget, it just doesn't add up. It is like that movie, The Illusionist. It may sound good, it may look good, but, you know, you go behind the curtain, and there is nothing there. Now, if you can explain to us how economics would allow you to raise spending, refuse any cuts, refuse to even bring down the rate of spending, and you don't increase taxes but you have a balanced budget, God bless you. Bring your charts out. We would love to see it.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the ranking member for that and at the outset if I could ask the gentleman from Colorado if he would engage in a colloquy to clarify a section of the bill with me.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At committee, the gentleman and I worked to clarify language in section 120, which he just referred to, regarding background checks on employees. We included language that specified that nothing in this section of the bill was intended to preempt State and local governments from enacting or enforcing requirements regarding criminal background checks. Further, we agreed, and the committee agreed in report language, that this section was not intended to prohibit an employer, including State and local governments, from making any employment decisions otherwise permissible under Federal, State or local law. I would also like to clarify my understanding that this section is intended to impact employers who are complying with the Department of Homeland Security requirements, regulation or guidance, but does not apply to employers who conduct background checks for other reasons. I would ask the gentleman and yield to him whether this is his understanding of the intent of the section.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for working with me on this bill and for clarifying this section. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. This is a bill which we have worked on for some time. We started in the last Congress, holding hearings on this in a bipartisan basis. We attempted to get information from the public and private sector in these areas of our economy. I congratulate the chairman of the full committee and the chairperson of the subcommittee for moving forward with dispatch on this issue. We did work on other sectors of our economy with respect to the issue of security against terrorist threats. We did very good work in the area of port security. We did very good work in the area of chemical facility security. I hope that we will continue to do work in the area of the trucking industry. Where we are talking about the rail system and mass transit systems there is a demonstrated need for us to act, for us to have guidance from the Federal Government to State and local governments in cooperation with State and local governments, and for us to have guidance for the private sector and to work with the private sector in dealing with this threat that threatens all of us, public and private sector combined. At the same time, I would suggest that there are a couple of concerns that I have about what form this bill may take. One of the areas that I tried, by way of presenting a suggested amendment to the Rules Committee to improve this legislation, was in the area of whistleblower. I mentioned this earlier in the debate on the rule, but let me just stress why this is important. We are dealing with an area in which we are requiring and requesting that other entities work with the Federal Government in coming up with security measures. And as a result of that, there will be information that we do not want shared with the outside world, that we certainly do not want shared in a public venue such that those who would do us harm would have an opportunity to be effective in their intent. And that is why I was concerned, and other Members on my side of the aisle were concerned, about the whistleblower provisions here, which, frankly, do not carve out an exception for that area of the law dealing with security-sensitive information. This is of such concern that I understand the administration would recommend a veto of this bill, not on the substance of it, but on the whistleblower provision, and there is no reason for us to run into that difficulty. Secondly, in the area that will be discussed by the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite, we have the concern about allowing this information out, not in a whistleblower setting, but just allowing this information out as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. And remember, prior to 9/11 we used to have all sorts of information about nuclear facilities and other entities dealing with power, such that someone could go on an Internet search and find out exactly what the vulnerabilities of those particular facilities happened to be. We realized after 9/11 that in our effort to get everything out to the public we had probably damaged ourselves in terms of our vulnerability. Here is another area where we are not, in my judgment, giving enough concern about the possible ill effects of our effort to get everything out in the public. And what we have said, and Ms. Brown-Waite's amendment attempted to do, was to try and say, in those areas where we have security-sensitive information, there ought to be an exception from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. We did this on a bipartisan basis in the Maritime Security Bill a couple of Congresses ago. Why we are not doing the same thing here, I do not understand. And if we had had our amendment to bring forward, we could have debated that. And I hope we will take care of that problem on the Senate side or in conference. The last thing I would suggest is I understand there is going to be an amendment presented on the floor about alternative material sources. This deals with toxic inhalation materials. We worked very closely, I worked personally with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in this specific area, and we managed to come up with a bipartisan, balanced approach to that. And I just hope when we have the short time allowed for debate on that amendment, we will debate it in the context of the bipartisan, balanced approach that we developed in our committee and brought forth to this floor. If you are going to present an amendment which basically is going to have the effect, whether intended or otherwise, to remove these materials from rail to our highways, how can we say we are any safer? And, frankly, that is what that amendment will do. So I hope Members will look at this, not as a partisan issue, and not saying, well, it was offered by the majority side or the minority side, therefore I am going to vote for it or defeat it on that basis, but look at the actual words in there and look at what the impact will be. We have made some mistakes in the past in our effort to do things that we have done in the past without the knowledge of the threat of terrorism that came upon us in 9/11. Let us not complete action on this bill as if we were dealing with it on 9/10. This is a bill that ought to be debated, considered, and voted on in the full light of the events that took place on 9/11 and thereafter.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand the intent of the gentleman offering the amendment; but, unfortunately, upon reading it, it is obvious that this is a do-good amendment that either does nothing or does harm. The reason I say that is that the subject the gentleman wishes to cover in this amendment is covered by the base bill already which will be retained if, in fact, we pass the manager's amendment. Section 124 of the bill, pages 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90, take into effect what the gentleman is talking about. This is the Markey amendment which was worked out in committee on a bipartisan basis in some detail to work with the problem that you have, the security- sensitive materials, that encompasses security-sensitive materials, which includes within its universe toxic inhalation hazardous materials. The issue is, what do we do with the fact that we need some of these products as far as our society goes now but that they would also provide an opportunity for terrorists to utilize them for damage to a particular community? So we crafted a very careful amendment that allows for consideration of the needs here on the economic side and the harm done. The way the gentleman has written his amendment, it requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to minimize the need for transportation of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail only, by rail only. We looked at that requirement to have the Secretary come up with rules and regulations that were to take into consideration the total threat, the total need here. So by the gentleman's own amendment, we may be required to minimize the travel on rail, which will maximize the travel on our highways. Now, I do not think the gentleman believes that necessarily makes it safer, or on our barges. This amendment, as drafted so narrowly, would require us to undercut much of what we have done in the base bill as a result of working on a bipartisan basis with Mr. Markey in an area of concern that he has expressed often on the floor and in committee hearing after committee hearing. That is why I say either it does nothing and, therefore, is harmless or if, in fact, it does something, and there is mandatory language in here requiring the Secretary of Transportation, he shall establish such a program, requires him to move in only one direction which may, in fact, make it more dangerous overall. One of the things we learned in our hearings was that you have to consider the entirety of the threat out there, the entirety of the universe of possible options. The gentleman denies the Secretary to do that by requiring that it minimize the transit of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail only, and it undercuts what we have done in a very, very I think informed way, detailed way, talking about storage patterns, talking about rail transportation routes, talking about the analysis of these storage patterns and then requires a compilation of that information and analysis of that information and consideration of that information and then informed judgment, not something like this which says, you know, you have to do it only one way. So, as I say, I understand what the gentleman has said. It sounds good when you first look at it; but if you really look at what it means, it is going to tie the Secretary's hands to move in a particular direction that may or may not allow us to be safer than we are today; and for that reason, I would hope that we would vote this down. If the gentleman would like to work with us on a bipartisan basis, as I did with Mr. Markey before, that would be superior to this. This unfortunately, as I say, is a do-good amendment which either does nothing or does harm to the interests of this bill as presented by our committee on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. No, no. I take my time back. The Markey amendment does not just deal with a study. Read the Markey amendment. It starts with a study. Then it requires the Secretary to come forward with regulations. Then it requires certain action on the part of all the parties involved. It is not just a mere study. Working that hard on it, I frankly do not appreciate you trying to say that it is just a study. That is not true whatsoever.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a good day in some respects, and that is that we have this bill on the floor, H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. It follows up on work that we began in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis. I would say the committee acted on a bipartisan basis all the way through. It is a shame, however, that bipartisanship stops at the edge of the Rules Committee. When we made an attempt to ask for reasonable amendments in this regard from members of the committee of jurisdiction, the Homeland Security Committee, we were rejected. I might just talk about the one amendment that I had asked to be considered dealing with whistleblower protection. The bill has in it now a provision which is extraordinary in its breadth and which is unique in its application of criminal law. People wonder why we would be concerned about this when we all agree we ought to allow whistleblowers, when acting properly, to expose wrongdoing. The problem is we are in an area dealing with security, and this would allow an employee to make an individualized determination, without further review or even perhaps without all the relevant information, to disclose classified information. We ought to be concerned about that. My amendment would have dealt with that. For some reason now in the manager's amendment we are going to exempt these criminal penalties for many Federal employees, but we are going to impose them on State and local employees, criminal penalties and punitive damage awards. So we are going to have a situation in terms of sensitive information that might be revealed by an employee and therefore action taken against that employee, and the government unable to respond to that, because under this whistleblower protection law, there will not be the ability for the government to talk about protecting basically state secrets. What we are talking about here are areas of sensitive information. This goes along with the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment to try and protect sensitive information. Both of those amendments were rejected. I would hope that Members would vote down this rule so we might have a chance to do our job and at the same time protect sensitive information.