Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), member of the Appropriations Committee and vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Agriculture, International Relations, and Small Business Committees.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young. (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, like many, I was affected by 9/11. As a matter of fact, that is the reason I decided to return to public service and sought an opportunity to serve in this body after a 16-year absence. I have spent a considerable amount of time with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle attempting to fulfill my obligation in that regard. And I am reminded, basically because of my service as attorney general of California, that oftentimes we not only need to mark something that has happened in the past but we need to also talk about the things that we have effectively done to respond to whatever challenges occurred out of that event, because if we do not, we fail to help lead the people, that is, we fail to tell our constituents that those sacrifices that they have made, the programs that they have enacted through us, have had merit. Because if you do not do that, after a while those you seek to represent have no sense that we are actually doing something effective. So it seems to me very much appropriate, not shameful, that the chairman of my committee would construct this resolution that not only cites the tragedy of 9/11 but talks about the efforts we have made in this Congress, with the executive branch, to respond to the challenges that came out of that tragedy. Earlier this year the House overwhelmingly passed the SAFE Port Act on a bipartisan basis, 421-2. This act addresses port security defenses within and beyond U.S. ports. As a matter of fact, as we are now speaking, the United States Senate is dealing with that. We have taken steps to prevent our own facilities from being used against us as weapons of mass destruction and to protect our critical infrastructure. A few months ago our committee passed legislation to guard against terrorist attacks on our chemical facilities on a bipartisan basis. Finally, we have taken steps, as importantly, to respond to the suggestion by the 9/11 Commission to do something about securing our country by preventing terrorists and their weapons from being smuggled across the borders. So that is the reason why, in fact, we have this included in this resolution. So, Mr. Speaker, rather than taking exception to this resolution, I would hope that we would join together on a bipartisan basis to say certainly the journey has not ended, but we have done a lot. And anyone who stands here and says that we are not safer today than we were on 9/ 11 either is tragically uninformed or is intentionally misinforming the American people. Yes, we have more to do. But we should look back on those things that we have joined together to do successfully.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago there were a lot of questions as to who attacked us and why we were attacked. Answers came to that in fairly short order, but the question of why still remained and what those who attacked us had in order for us in the future. In the book, ``Nuclear Terrorism,'' there is a citation to Osama bin Laden's official press spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith making a chilling announcement on the now defunct al Qaeda-associated Web site, and these are his words. ``We have the right,'' he said, ``to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children.'' Let me repeat that. The spokesman for Osama bin Laden said on their Web site, ``We have the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.'' He went on the Web site to explain what justified it, and these are his words. ``America with the collaboration of the Jews is the leader of corruption and the breakdown of values, whether moral, ideological, political, or economic corruption. It disseminates abomination and licentiousness among the people via the cheap media and the vile curricula. America is the reason for all oppression, injustice, licentiousness, or suppression that is the Muslim's lot. It stands behind all the disasters that were caused and are still being caused to the Muslims; it is immersed in the blood of Muslims and cannot hide this.'' Why do I mention this? I mention it because the threat is clear. They have officially said that they would not feel that they have succeeded until they have taken 1,400 assaults similar to those of 9/11, because that is what would be required, 1,400 times the loss of life that we had on 9/11. They do not refer to any cleavage between Democrats and Republicans. They do not say they do this because of what this administration did or that administration did or because of what the Democrats did in the Congress or the Republicans. They did that because they reject everything we stand for. That is why we bring this resolution to the floor. This resolution is brought to the floor in recognition of the threat against us, the challenges it presents and what we have done working together, Republicans and Democrats, men and women who are Americans first to try and respond to that threat for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. We need to remind the American people of the affirmative steps that we have taken: the PATRIOT Act, which changed the way we dealt with the threat of terrorism; other programs that we have supported and the administration has carried out. So this is not a fight over partisanship. This is not a suggestion of one-upsmanship. This is a recognition of the threat that faces us as Americans, and we are committed and united as Americans to respond to that. That is what this resolution stands for. That is what it says. That is why we bring it to the floor, to ask all Members to support it so that we can show that there is unity in this body, not division, so that we can show that we understand the challenges that we face and that we are up to the challenges that face us as a Nation. We can do no less than our parents' generation did in responding to the totalitarianism of their time as we respond to the totalitarianism of our time. Mr. Speaker, this is not an effort to divide. It is an effort to unify. It is an effort to show the American people that we are together in this fight and we shall continue this fight Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and vice chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have heard it said that the President's veto is a political game. There are no political games being played here, except yesterday when the authors of this bill that is before us argued that people should vote against H.R. 5526, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. Why would they do that? A bill that would allow a neutral, that is neutral with respect to ethics, opportunity to develop pluripotent stem cell therapies. And yet we are told here that we are allowing ideology to get in the way of science. What was yesterday's request by those who authored this bill? You know, we have to consider ethics. Science cannot tell us what to do. It tells us what we can do, but it does not tell us what it is ethically appropriate to do. This country leads the world in medical research, but it also leads the world in ethical action. We should not be losers in either side. Support the President's veto.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the argument on the floor that somehow this is a church issue misses this point entirely. We are talking about the legal implications, and whether or not the Government of the United States can recognize a preferential status for marriage between one man and one woman. Now, is this unprecedented? No, it is not. Read your American history. The State of Utah was not allowed to become a State until they recognized marriage as being only between one man and one woman. That had to do with whether you could have multiple partners. This is a different aspect of that question, but essentially the legal basis is the same. And that is what we are talking about here. Those who wish to change this, as these activist judges do, carry the burden of arguing why we should change an institution which has stood the test of time for thousands of years. There are reasons for this in terms of it being the most stable unit of society upon which our society has found itself in need. That is what we are talking about. It is not discrimination. It is allowing the existence of a definition of the most fundamental unit of society. That is it simply. We are not intruding in the province of churches.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to the question of federalism. There is a mistake on this floor when people are talking about this being a violation of federalism. Federalism, properly understood, is a check on the power of the Federal Government by the State government and vice versa. The reason why the federalism issue does not apply here is because marriage and the family is likewise an institution, although a private one, which provides a countervailing source of power vis-a-vis the government, and there are lot of arguments on the floor. It is too bad we do not have a lot more time to talk about it. The simple question, though, is are we going to fundamentally change the definition of marriage, understood in this country since its founding, and allow a preferential status for marriage properly understood? That is what we are really talking about. It is not discrimination. It is the question of whether you allow the traditional form of marriage to be given preferential status. Those that argue against this amendment do not want that to be the case anymore. They are the ones that are overturning history and overturning the way things have been done for several hundred years in this country and thousands of years in this culture.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask is this: Does the gentleman see any problem with society allowing preferential status in some ways to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman? Because that, to me, is what it really comes down to.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, where to begin? We have heard the argument that somehow we shouldn't bring constitutional amendments to the floor; we shouldn't amend the Constitution. It is a very interesting argument when you realize there are two ways to amend the Constitution, one is the formal process that is contained in the Constitution itself, which we are embarking upon today, and the other one is by activist judges. People don't like to hear that. They seem to say judges have the right to amend the Constitution, to give new meaning to the words of the Constitution, to actually give the opposite meaning to the words of the Constitution and we have to accept that forever, because if we do anything opposed to that, we are somehow changing the Constitution, even though we are following the exact requirements of the Constitution itself. The second thing that is said is wait a second, no court has declared marriage to be unconstitutional in the traditional sense, so we should wait until that happens. In other words, if we take an anticipatory action, somehow we are unconstitutional. How have we changed the terms of the debate when we are talking about a traditional definition of marriage that has stood the test of time for thousands of years, has been understood by every single one of our Founding Fathers at the time of the formation of this country, that somehow we are the ones that are upsetting the apple cart; when, in fact, it is those who wish to change this traditional definition in a radical way? They say, well, the Federal Government should not be involved in it. And yet we pointed out historically the Federal Government has been involved in defining marriage, refusing to allow at least the State of Utah to become a State until they accepted that definition of marriage. What we are talking about is changing the fundamental vision of marriage that is in our civil structure, a preferential treatment that is allowed under our laws for marriage, understood traditionally. And they say, well, we passed DOMA so you don't have to worry. Yet, many who are saying that argued on the floor of the House that DOMA was unconstitutional. Professor Lawrence Tribe has said it is unconstitutional. Many of the organizations who are against this particular amendment have argued in court that it is unconstitutional and believe it is only inevitable until they overturn it by way of their particular lawsuits brought against it. So the question here is really, do you believe there is reason to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, allowing it to be the essential unit of our society, not that there aren't other units of society, but the essential unit of our society that has withstood the test of time? That is the simple question before us. We never asked for this debate. This debate began with, yes, activist judges who said, wait a second, times have changed and, therefore, the traditional notion of marriage is out the window. Why? Who said so? Because of what? This is not a question of discrimination as some have argued on the other side, unless they are saying we are discriminating against bigamy and polygamy, because the United States has spoken, as I said before, in saying the traditional definition of marriage is enshrined in our institutions and in our law.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago I stood on this floor in support of this bill. I worked with both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member at that time not only on this bill, but on the Martin Luther King holiday and on the fair housing legislation. I am very proud of that activity. I rise in support of the bill that is on the floor. But I will rise in support of several of the amendments as well. I want to make several comments on this. One is, as a Catholic, I believe in the immaculate conception, but there is only one that I am aware of and that is not this bill. The suggestion that we cannot look at this bill and look at any carefully tailored amendments I think is an erroneous one. I had a simple amendment that I offered before the Rules Committee. I had no objection; in fact, it was considered to be the least objectionable, if objectionable at all, but I was told if we adopted my amendment it would upset a carefully crafted delicate balance. My amendment was simply to allow three counties in California and one township in New Hampshire to bail out, as we used to call the provision, because they had gotten in because of a curious historical moment. That is, in 1972, at the height of the build-up of the Vietnam war we had large numbers of people at military installations; we had three counties in California that had military installations. Those people who were there were counted for purposes of the census, many of them didn't vote there because they voted in their home states or their home districts, and those counties have been caught in this preclearance ever since. It just seems a matter of fairness to allow them out, and yet there was no opportunity to provide that. And the reason I bring that up is this: If you look at the Supreme Court decisions, the Federal Court decisions on this, they have said this law is constitutional only so long as it is congruent, that is, related to the State-sponsored discrimination for which there is historical record. And that it is proportionate to the damage done, both of those things, and my fear is that if we don't craft legislation that recognizes that, we don't give evidence of the fact that we crafted it, the Supreme Court could say that perhaps we haven't done the job, and then this extraordinary remedy in section 5 is no longer valid. Why is it extraordinary? Because it is an extraordinary imposition on a jurisdiction to say that they have to have any decision they make precleared by those at the Justice Department. But the Court has said, as long as you have those two things, congruency and proportionality, they will allow it. That is why I have some question about extending it for a full 25 years. Back in 1982, I think there was ample reason for us to extend it for 25 years. You would still have a sense of a temporary nature. But to do it now, I think does call into question whether we are following what the courts have told us. So all I would say is, I hope Members, while supporting the underlying legislation, will look at each amendment and see whether it helps undergird the constitutionality of this worthy bill that has done great things. But let's make sure we continue to carefully tailor it to the circumstances before us.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment in order to enhance and support the constitutional framework upon which this law before us is predicated. The reason I say that is that, you know, 25 years ago, as I mentioned, I was working with the distinguished ranking member of the full committee on extending this law for 25 years. At that time, there seemed to be evidence supporting that. But I have been gone for 16 years in this House. I come back and find there are very few Members here who were here when I was here before. As a matter of fact, sometimes I talk to Members and I feel like I am sort of the museum piece being pulled out for people to observe. The only point I make is 25 years is a long time. And if you look at the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Professor Hasen from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, he points out that this kind of amendment may very well be the kind of amendment that saves this law under consideration by a future Supreme Court with respect to its constitutionally. Why? Because he said, beginning in 1965, Congress imposed the strong preclearance remedy on those jurisdictions with what the Supreme Court called a pervasive, flagrant, and unremitting history of discrimination in voting on the basis of race. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the court upheld section 5 of the act as a permissible exercise of congressional power. But what has changed since 1965, as Professor Hasen says, both the law and the facts. And he suggests that we may be creating an infirm law by extending it for 25 years because the Court has said you have to have a connection with the historic discrimination, and it has to be proportionate to that. And it has to pass those two tests. And the very argument that we extend it for 25 years, I think, argues against the defense of this in court. And rather than saying that the gentleman from Texas's amendment is an amendment that weakens this law, I believe it strengthens it. I suggest again, we have three counties in California that are under preclearance coverage only because in 1972 they had military installations, and so the people there were counted in the census, even though they voted in their home States. One of those counties has 49.6 percent participation. Those counties have not been able to get out from under it. Now we are going to say, for another 25 years, because of the presence of military in your sparsely populated counties during the height of the Vietnam War, you are not going to be able to get out. I find that difficult to justify if you are appearing before the Supreme Court saying that we have carefully tailored this bill. So I would just ask my colleagues, look at this amendment. It is not a gutting amendment. It is an intelligent amendment that really goes to supporting the constitutional framework of this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Folsom South Canal Cost Deferral bill, to prevent California water customers from having to shoulder the costs of unused capacity in the Folsom South Canal, a Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau, water conveyance. The Folsom South Canal was authorized by Congress in 1965 to include five water conveyance segments or ``reaches.'' The canal was intended to deliver water from the Auburn Dam and related facilities to municipal and industrial water and irrigation users in the Sacramento area and on south to irrigated agriculture in the planned East Side Division. The first two reaches--a total of 26 miles of the canal were built to the Sacramento-San Joaquin County line. They were designed and constructed to accommodate enough water to meet anticipated demand in Sacramento and in the East Side Division. However, the East Side Division was never authorized and, thus, has not been developed. As a result, the remaining three reaches have been reclassified by the Bureau as ``Construction in Abeyance.'' Because the canal project, as originally designed, was not fully developed, Central Valley Project, CVP, water customers that today take delivery of water from the completed reaches are now shouldering the entire capital cost of the canal, plus interest. This does not seem fair, since they had no control over the design or construction of the project and bear no responsibility for the fact that the East Side Division did not materialize. My bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to defer that portion of the capital costs and interest that corresponds to the unused capacity of the canal. This will prevent current municipal and industrial and irrigation water customers from having to pay costs associated with an oversized canal. In the next few years, the question of the Auburn Dam may be revisited and other water users may seek allocations of CVP water. My bill does not permanently settle the issue of the excess capital costs--it merely defers those costs until other decisions about the future of the CVP are made. The bill also authorizes the Secretary, during the deferral period, to periodically review and adjust, as appropriate, the amount of the unused capacity of the canal and the amount of reimbursable capital and interest of the canal.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let us be clear what we are talking about here. We are not talking about, generally speaking, about the question of the privacy of medical records. We are asking whether NSLs are an appropriate means with which to obtain information from health insurance companies as they are utilized or a similar process, that is administrative subpoenas that are not obtained by a court, are utilized to look at health care fraud. One of the things that we got out of the 9/11 Commission was the fact that we had failed to not only connect dots but failed to adapt our criminal justice investigative procedures in the face of this new threat, which is terrorism. Some people would say, well, why would health records be relevant to such a case? Well, in the instance of anthrax, for instance, it would be relevant if someone had sought medical attention that would, in fact, basically inoculate them if they came into contact with anthrax. It would be of some assistance if a group of people involved, that we had suspicion were involved with a terrorist group, were inoculated for smallpox. I mean, these are those sorts of things that help us connect the dots.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let us be clear what this would do. The Nadler amendment would prohibit the FBI from using these NSLs to obtain any financial records or health records from health insurance companies even if those records are indisputably relevant to an international terrorism or espionage investigation. Indeed, the FBI would be prohibited from using the NSL to obtain financial records of a known terrorist from a health insurance company, no matter how much evidence the FBI possessed of the target's involvement with terrorism. It would not just prevent the FBI from obtaining medical records. Currently, the FBI can obtain health insurance records through the use of administrative subpoenas without the approval of a judge to investigate not terrorism but health care fraud offenses. So if the FBI is allowed to use administrative subpoenas to obtain these records to investigate health care fraud by dirty doctors, then it should be allowed to use these NSLs, which are similar to administrative subpoenas, to obtain these same records in international terrorism investigations which may involve dirty bombs. This is basically the same amendment Mr. Nadler offered to last year's appropriation bill that was defeated on this floor. The only thing that has changed since that time is not the language of his amendment but in fact the enactment of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act which contains several new protections to prevent abuse of this authority. However, even without the new protections, there is no evidence of the abuse of these letters. Nonetheless, in March of this year, the President signed the bill; and it adds these protections which were not present last year when we debated this same amendment: Clarification that recipients may disclose that they have received an NSL to an attorney or others necessary to comply with the NSL. Secondly, explicit language that a recipient may challenge an NSL in court. Third, explicit language that a recipient of an NSL may challenge the prohibition on publicly disclosing that he or she has received an NSL. Next, for the first time, language requiring public reporting on the use of NSL authorities. Next, requirement for additional classified reporting to Congress on the use of NSL authorities so we can exercise oversight in a more effective way. And, finally, requirement that the Inspector General conduct two audits of the Justice Department's use of NSLs. Last year, we debated this same amendment, same issue, similar appropriation bill. The only difference is we have added protections since that time by the reenactment of the PATRIOT Act and the signature of the President. So if you voted against it last year, if you thought we should defeat it last year, you have more than sufficient reason to defeat it this year.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman will recall, the Judiciary Committee has been very aggressive in oversight of Justice Department actions with respect to the PATRIOT Act. Several of the changes made in the law that I referred to before give us a greater handle on that because it requires more reporting to the Congress on what has been done with respect to NSLs in this regard. So as I said, the biggest difference between our consideration of the gentleman's amendment last year and this year is there are more protections built in to the use of NSLs by the Justice Department than there were before. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Yes.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

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

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Can we talk about---- MR. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am taking back my time. Let us debate the merits. Let us not hide behind----

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. This doesn't cover all expenditures of the President under all circumstances. This is limited to the funds that are contained in this bill, as you know, because it is an appropriation bill. But could I mention one thing, because there has been some question about this. The FISA court of review issued an opinion in 2002 which stated: all the other courts that have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.