Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 99, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, let me just point out a couple of things in response to what has been said on the floor about the bill before us. Had we adopted, had we accepted the Senate bill, we would have had 16 drafting errors not corrected; 16 misstatements in the Senate bill that drafted the wrong provisions of the ethics laws that already existed and would have ensured that what was said on the Senate floor and is being said here would not be enforced in law, number one. Number two, if we had taken the Senate bill, the absolute prohibition about Members participating in IPOs would not be before us. That is an addition that we have in the House bill. That is an additional prohibition. That makes that an illegal act. It has not been in the past. The Senate bill did not even talk about that. Third, with respect to the issue of political intelligence, I respect the Senator from Iowa very much, but I doubt he has ever prosecuted anybody and put them in prison for conflict of interest during their public service. I have.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I understand when you do that, you have to deal with the very careful constitutional questions of people dealing with their right to apply before the government their grievances. That has become known now as lobbying. It is a constitutionally protected activity. And the idea that we have a Congress committed to transparency means that we give out as much information as we possibly can. Those are difficult, conflicting interests that have to be carefully determined if we're going to deal with the question of political intelligence. It does us no good to pass a bill that will be rendered unconstitutional. And it does us no good to not carefully consider this. As a matter of fact, on the Senate floor, it was Senator Lieberman who asked his fellow colleagues to give them time on the Senate side to study the issue so that, precisely, they would not render the bill unconstitutional. I might add that Senator Lieberman also served as Attorney General of his State, and knows whereof he speaks.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would send someone over here, you can make a copy of it right now.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. With that, I would urge that all vote for this strong, strong STOCK Act.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Madam Speaker, at the very outset, I would like to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for attempting to try and deal with a serious issue. I'd like to particularly point to staff who have worked over this last weekend, including four attorneys on my House Administration Committee, who spent a good portion of this last weekend going through the Senate bill and trying to come up with what we believe is a responsible bill, a tough bill that could pass this House, and frankly did not include the errors that we found in the bill on the Senate side. Several months before the STOCK Act debuted in the Senate, questions were raised publicly about the application of existing laws relating to insider trading. Specifically, there were questions as to whether or not the current laws applied to Members of Congress or their staff. As chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I and my staff carefully reviewed current law, and we concluded that the prohibition on insider trading and the criminal penalties associated with it are very much applicable, and not just to Members of Congress and staff of the legislative branch. Let me be clear. Let us disabuse anyone of the notion that somehow they could engage in insider trading between now and the time the bill gets on the President's desk and he signs it. It is already illegal. That is the advice I've given Members when I've been asked. That's the advice I've given to the press when they've asked. It's the advice that's been given by the Ethics Committee to Members of Congress and to staff. No one within the House of Representatives or the Senate or the executive branch or even the judicial branch, regardless of responsibility, title or salary, should be under the false impression that they are somehow exempt under these laws. They are not.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be very happy to respond to that, and I will a little bit later on in my statement. Thank you very much. In addition to the Congress sometimes dedicated to redundancy, there is a question of clarification. The fact that we've had questions asked of us over the last several months as House Administration chairman, as the Ethics chairman has done, gives rise to the question that some have asked, and we have tried to disabuse them of that notion all along. Although we create and uphold the laws of the land, we are not above them. As their elected representatives, we owe our constituents the assurance that the decisions we make here in the people's House are, in fact, for the people and not ourselves. This assurance, Madam Speaker, must be government-wide. America not only needs to know that all of their government officials are subject to insider trading laws, but also need to know and need proof that they are adhering to them, which is exactly what the amended version of the S. 2038 accomplishes. In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Skilling v. United States that set out several specific questions that it said must be answered in criminal statutes on honest services. The Senate bill ignored the Supreme Court's guidance and failed to answer the questions it set out. The amendment does more than eliminate the Senate's defective provisions and numerous drafting errors. Our bill before us also strengthens the previous House and Senate proposals by first clarifying the broad application of insider trading laws, making sure no one questions it. As I say, it is already against the law, and no Member ought to rush out now and attempt to use his insider trading information for insider trading thinking that he or she is not covered. They are already covered. It expands the financial transaction disclosure requirements. We are going to be required now, in terms of actual financial transactions, to report within a 30-day period as opposed to doing it quarterly. We're also going to be required to disclose our mortgages, which are not required right now. So we are expanding the disclosure requirements. We extend the post-employment negotiation restrictions. We expand prohibitions on influencing private hiring decisions. This is an additional point. I would say to my friend from Michigan, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we end the preferential treatment of government officials by prohibiting them from accepting exclusive access to IPOs. That has not been against the law. There's been some suggestion that might have been carried on by some Members. I have no evidence whether it has or it has not; but that is an additional prohibition placed in this, which I believe was not in the Senate bill, is not under current law, but it does make it explicit. Members of Congress cannot participate in accepting exclusive access to IPOs.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Certainly.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to if they don't know that already. But when you read the newspapers, you would think that somehow it is proper and appropriate. I want to make it clear not only to our colleagues but to the American public, it is against the law now, it has been against the law. If anybody has evidence of this, they should report it to the proper authorities because it is against the law. Madam Speaker, the amendment before us, when applied to the underlying bill, creates the clarity and accountability necessary to ensure that government officials--elected, appointed, and otherwise-- adhere to Federal insider trading laws. It prohibits Members, officials, and employees of every branch of government from using nonpublic privileged information for personal gain, and it creates a disclosure mechanism for finding out when they do so. Additionally, the bill denies pensions for Members convicted of crimes. That is an addition to current law. It eliminates bonuses for senior executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is an addition to current law. And it directs the GAO to utilize----

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago, this administration announced a position that amounts to an assault on religious liberty in this country. Their narrow definition of what constitutes religious action, religious belief, and whether or not the Federal Government can cause you to take actions against your own conscience is a serious matter that ought not to be determined by the Friday release of a decision made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is an issue that goes beyond the Catholic Church and Catholic institution. It goes to the essence of the First Amendment protections contained in the Constitution with respect to religious freedom. We had better understand exactly how important this issue is, and we had better understand how it has to be addressed directly and cannot be compromised by saying we're not going to take away your religious liberty for a year. That is not a compromise. That is a form of political extortion.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 496) adjusting the amount provided for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I'm prepared to close out the debate. I have no other speakers. So if the gentleman would finish his time, I would be happy to as well.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 496.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 496. This resolution adjusts the amounts provided for the expenses of the select and standing committees of the House of Representatives in the 112th Congress. Last November, the Committee on House Administration held a full-day hearing at which we heard from our chairs and ranking members. At that hearing, we discussed how each committee absorbed the 5 percent budget reduction implemented at the beginning of the 112th Congress and how, as we continue to reduce government spending, they will manage additional reductions this year. Madam Speaker, I know, as a committee chairman myself, that we face the difficult task of doing more with less. Yet I also know that my constituents, all of our constituents, need us to do more with less and to rein in government spending. Families have been required to tighten their belts, and they constantly ask us to do the very same thing. They do not suggest it is easy, because it has not been easy for them. But they ask of us that which they have asked of themselves. Today's economy has forced our constituents to sacrifice and, as I say, tighten their financial belts to make ends meet at home. Congress should not be and will not be immune. While most committees are taking a 6.4 percent cut in line with the reduced funding levels of the 2012 legislative branch appropriation, certain committees faced with additional oversight responsibilities in 2012 were cut at a smaller percentage in order that they might be able to conduct their work. Particularly daunting will be the Armed Services' charge of managing the automatic sequestration of $600 billion in defense cuts triggered by the Budget Control Act. And I hasten to add that is in addition to, or on top of, the $400 billion cut that is already being enforced by prior decisions by this Congress and the President. In addition to Armed Services, the Ethics Committee, tasked with holding Members and staff to the highest ethical standards, has requested and will receive a reprieve from funding reductions. To help offset these exceptions and match the reduced appropriations, we've identified and reduced authorizations of three committee budgets that we feel are able to absorb a slightly higher reduction in 2012. In addition to our committee, the Committee on House Administration, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Committee on Small Business will receive a slightly higher reduction than the 6.4 percent applied to the remaining House committees. Madam Speaker, as we've demonstrated over the past year, this House is committed to living within its means and leading by example by putting an end to excessive spending. Our committees do vitally important oversight of the executive branch and Federal agencies, and that ought to be underscored if we are, in fact, going to be successful in holding down and controlling spending in the executive branch. We, the legislative branch, are the extension of the people we represent in an oversight capacity, and that is an extremely important responsibility. Our committees, as I say, do vitally important oversight of the executive branch and our Federal agencies; and while these reductions in committee funding will require committees to allocate their resources more judiciously, I am confident, based on the hearing, that they are prudent and manageable. Madam Speaker, these are extraordinary times. We face extraordinary debt, deficits, and unemployment. Trillion-dollar deficits year after year after year would be practically unheard of just a couple of years ago; yet, unfortunately, they have become commonplace. That is unacceptable. We haven't had an unemployment rate at the levels we have seen for such a sustained period of time since the Great Depression. Those are not facts that I like to recite on this floor, but those are the real facts that face our constituents every single day. Unfortunately, my area, over the last several years, we have had a higher unemployment rate than that which has prevailed in this country. California has had an unemployment rate, I believe, that has been the third worst in the entire country. We are not immune from what is being felt by the rest of the country. And when I am home, as I am sure other Members have found in their districts when they are home, we constantly hear the refrain, Where are the jobs? And following that, we hear the refrain, Why don't you get your House in order, referring to the entire Federal Government. Why don't you bring spending under control, because we believe it has a specific and direct and immediate drag on our ability to create jobs in this country. That ought to be, along with national defense, homeland security, our greatest objective. And so this is just a small part of our effort to be responsible. Through the adoption of this resolution and the 5 percent cut during our first session of the 112th Congress, this House is doing its job to step up to the plate and reduce spending and find cost savings wherever possible. We are taking bold steps to demonstrate our commitment to reduced spending and tighter budgets. This is not easy. I don't suggest it is. It is not easy to say that we are going to bring our budgets down and that our employees are not going to have increased salaries along with Members of Congress, but it is at least what we ought to do. Combined, I would say these measures--that is, last year and this year--represent the largest percentage cut to committee budgets since the 104th Congress, when the House then adopted a resolution with an amendment by then-House Administration Committee Member John Boehner to reduce committee funding by 30 percent. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 496 was reported out of the committee in December, and I now look forward to its passage by the House. I support H. Res. 496 and urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Elections on House Administration.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight on the House Administration Committee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a distinguished member of the House Administration Committee and the Rules Committee.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would just say that this is an effort on our part to give an example to the rest of the government. This will be a culmination of about a 10 percent cut overall to the committees of this House. We have had combined cuts in terms of our own MRAs, that is, the amount that each Member has for his budget. And I think as we go forward and having to make some very difficult decisions with respect to future controls of spending on the Federal establishment in its entirety, it will serve us well that we have shown the way, that we can make difficult decisions in this regard, and that this is an appropriate, responsible action to take. With that, I would urge my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 496. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Standards for the Electronic Posting of House and Committee Documents and Data, which were adopted by the Committee on House Administration on December 16, 2011, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the Standards for the Electronic Posting of House and Committee Documents and Data.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 90) authorizing the printing of the 25th edition of the pocket version of the United States Constitution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Concurrent Resolution 90.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, first I would just say to the gentlelady who just spoke that I do not doubt that the President wishes to create jobs. The fact of the matter is he just doesn't know how. The record would suggest that. When I first came to this House, the year was 1979, January. We were in the midst of what history has shown us was a failed Presidency. We had something called the misery index. We had unemployment rising. We had inflation rates around 20 percent. We had, by all gauges, a difficult time, a time that many people looked upon with despair, and many suggested that the issues were so large and the problems so great that no President could possibly deal with it, no Congress, and the American people could not. It was just prior to that time that I met a gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, as we were both freshman Members elected. And we began talking about the fact that our party had not been in the majority for well over a generation, that there seemed to be a lack of a vision for the future, and that there was an acceptance of mediocrity and failure and second-class status for America. Our belief was, at that time, that we could come together with a number of other Members and try and at least give voice to a new idea, a new vision, a more positive vision for America. We worked together with other Members and formed what was called the Conservative Opportunity Society because we thought that that was a positive vision for the future of America, consistent with Republican principles and, more importantly, consistent with and expressive of American principles. We thought it was an antidote to what we saw leading us at that time as the liberal welfare state. I think history has shown that, with the election of Ronald Reagan and the embracing of the Conservative Opportunity Society vision of America, that America could turn around. We are confronted with what I believe to be a failed Presidency at the present time. We are confronted with questions and some great despair in families around America for the failure of an opportunity for jobs. And I would suggest that, at this point in time, it is appropriate for those who have visions, those who are ready to challenge the conventional wisdom, those who believe that America's best days are ahead, not behind, to come to the fore. There are those who look at the faults of Newt Gingrich. I'd like to suggest that he was the one person that I know that had a vision in this House of how this House could be changed, how we, working as an institution, could work with a President to make changes and, ultimately, how this side of the aisle could, for the first time in a generation, actually be the majority. Following his ascendency to Speaker of the House, we actually had balanced budgets. We actually had some bringing down of some of the size of the Federal Government. We actually had some progress around the country. So I would say, for those who look at the faults of others, let's look at their accomplishments. This is a time when it seems to me we ought to be serious about the future of America. We ought to be bold about the future of America. We ought to have some confidence in the greatness of America, the greatness of its people, not necessarily the greatness of its government. We need to have a good governmental structure that allows the greatness of the American people. There are some on the Presidential debate scene today who are willing to challenge us with bold ideas. That has been done in the past and has proven successful. It seems to me we should not shrink from the future; we should embrace the future. We should, in fact, be leaders of the future. I am not one elected to this House to be satisfied that the future of America for my children and my grandchildren is any less than what it was for me as a child growing up. I will not stand here and allow us to act in vain so that the sacrifices of my parents, some call the Greatest Generation, I say one of the greatest generations, will have been in vain. They worked hard. They accepted the challenges of the future with an innate confidence in the goodness of the American people, the capabilities of the American people, and, yes, the common sense of the American people. My hope is that as we go forward in this year, those of us who seek office for both the House, the Senate, and Presidency will accept that mantle of leadership that has been cast upon us from those in the past.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Mr. Brady, our Ranking Member, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Katherine E. McCarron who is leaving the House to take a position with the Federal Trade Commission. Ms. McCarron served in the Office of the General Counsel for nearly 4 years as an Assistant Counsel. We will miss her. Ms. McCarron provided frequent and invaluable legal advice and representation to the Committee on House Administration, as well as to Members, officers and other committees of the House more generally. Our staff came to rely on her expertise and guidance, particularly in connection with their internal oversight activities. Over the years, Ms. McCarron played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House of Representatives. Ms. McCarron served the House with great distinction, and we know she will serve the Federal Trade Commission with that same level of distinction. On behalf of the Committee on House Administration, we thank Ms. McCarron for her devoted service, and extend to her our very best wishes for her continued success.