Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Once again, I want to thank both the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member, and the chairman of our committee for the fine work they did in producing the bipartisan base bill, but I rise in opposition to the ranking member's substitute amendment. This 221-page substitute amendment offered in the nature of a substitute to the 40-some page base bill that we have is obviously more extensive than what was presented on the floor, and the explanation has been presented on both sides as to why this is the case. However, I would like to refer specifically to the comments of the gentleman from Maryland about the additional cost involved in the substitute, nearly $7 billion. The American people have told us they do want us to do what is necessary for homeland security, but they have also said they want us to spend our money wisely. Press reports, as well as our own examination, has shown that there is in the pipeline in homeland security approximately $7 billion that is unspent. The answer is not to come in here and, therefore, increase the base bill by $7 billion, which is $7 billion over the President's budget, $7 billion over the House-passed badge budget, which, therefore, somehow tries to make a statement that more money spent is obviously going to make us safer. We need to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security is setting the priorities that are necessary, is spending the money in the appropriate ways and answers the question why money is stuck in the pipeline. I would suggest the way to do that is not to give them an additional $7 billion somehow as some sort of attraction for them to tell us how they have not spent that $7 billion, that extra $7 billion that is out there. Let me just say that the provisions in this substitute constitute sweeping changes, sweeping comprehensive changes in the responsibility, mission and funding for the Department over and above what our bipartisan committee presented in the base bill. Such changes cannot be made, I would suggest, in this type of setting without full debate, certainly more than 40 minutes, and consideration of a possible alternatives and consequences. There are important questions here. How do we provide security in the area of the chemical industry? The chemical security portion of this amendment requires broad and sweeping regulation of the chemical industry by the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe that is appropriate, maybe it is not. I do not think we have the basis to make a judgment on this. I would also suggest it is counterproductive to improving our chemical infrastructure security. It places unnecessary burdens on potentially thousands of sites that may or may not be the sites at risk that we should be focusing on. Again, it is a question of priority. It ignores the concept of examining high risk to effectively target our security resources. One of the things I thought we had done as a bipartisan committee was come to the conclusion that we really have to be very careful and demand that we set proper priorities, that we cannot go out and try and protect everything; we have to protect those things that are most vulnerable, those things that have the greatest threat, those things that have the worst consequences. I would suggest that this substitute does not do that. I thank the gentleman for the time that he extended to me.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to place into the Record the words of Dexter Lehtinen, a reconnaissance platoon leader who was seriously wounded in the Vietnam War. After serving our country in Vietnam, Mr. Lehtinen graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School and went on to serve as a Florida State Senator and a United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. On May 8, the world celebrated the 60th anniversary of V-E Day marking the end of the war in Europe. With ceremonies commemorating the Allies victory over tyranny, the day served as a reminder of the sacrifices made to this country by what many call our greatest generation. In contrast to the fitting tribute paid to the World War II generation, Jane Fonda recently published a book ``My Life So Far.'' There, she expresses regret not for her visits to North Vietnam, her broadcasts on Radio Hanoi nor her cavalier description of our tortured POW's as ``hypocrites and liars,'' but only for being photographed in a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun site. Let us not forget how damaging her actions were to the POW's and combat troops in the field. I firmly believe in the First Amendment rights all American's cherish, but traveling to enemy soil to criticize our soldiers and airmen during the war is a reprehensible act not easily forgotten nor pardoned. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Lehtinen's article and never forget the sacrifices made by all veterans of this great nation. [From the National Review, April 29, 2005] Jane Fonda in Wonderland non-apology not accepted (By Dexter Lehtinen) You may have heard that Jane Fonda apologized to Vietnam veterans in her current book. That's incorrect. She expressed ``regret'' for one photograph, but remains proud of her Radio Hanoi broadcasts, her efforts to achieve a Communist victory, and her attacks on American servicemen as war criminals. She never uses the word ``apology.'' Fonda's latest foray into her past--with her pseudo-apology for having been photographed while sitting on a Communist North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun, along with her continued vigorous defense of all other aspects of her trip to North Vietnam and her support for the North Vietnamese and Cambodian Communist wars--reminds us that apologies can be very tricky things. An unqualified apology offered with sincere regret for the full scope of the wrong by someone who recognizes the harm inflicted on others can help in reconciliation. But a ``pseudo-apology,'' offered with limitations by someone who still defends the bulk of the wrong, only serves to aggravate the injury. Everyone knows the negative effects of the common pseudo- apology, the refrain of which goes, ``I'm sorry if I offended you.'' Pseudo-apologies attempt to subtly shift the blame to the injured party, who apparently misunderstood the good intentions of the offender. So it is with Jane Fonda's book. In My Life So Far, ``Hanoi Jane'' expresses ``regret'' for one thing--being photographed with an anti-aircraft gun. ``I do not regret that I went. My only regret about the trip was that I was photographed in a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun site.'' Fonda amplifies: ``That two minute lapse of sanity will haunt me until I die.'' She is ``innocent of what the photo implies,'' but ``the photo exists, delivering its message, regardless of what I was really doing or feeling.'' She makes it abundantly clear, without apology or regret, that what she was ``really doing'' was aiding the Communist enemy (who ``touch our hearts''), and that what she was ``really feeling'' was that U.S. aviators were war criminals. The photograph is not Fonda's primary transgression. Of course, the photo itself became the everlasting graphic proof of her outrageous behavior. So in a way Fonda is right--in practice, it is the photograph that reminds generations of who Jane Fonda really is. In her ``regret,'' limited to the photograph alone, Vietnam veterans see Fonda's endeavoring to ameliorate the harm to herself with virtually no regard to the harm she caused to others. Hanoi Jane's wrongs go far beyond the photograph. First, of course, are the facts that she joined the enemy gun crew at all and made two visits to North Vietnam. Second, Fonda's self-initiated broadcasts on Radio Hanoi accused Americans of being war criminals. It was these broadcasts from the enemy's capital (not the gun photo) that gave her the lasting handle ``Hanoi Jane'' in emulation of ``Tokyo Rose,'' an American who broadcast Japanese propaganda in World War II. In her self-proclaimed FTA (``F*** the Army'') rallies, she claimed that personal atrocities ``were a way of life for many of our military''. Third, Fonda exploited American POWs for Communist gain, asserting that the POWs were being treated humanely following a Communist-controlled visit. In fact, the remarkable POWs who showed any resistance to the Fonda visit were beaten severely and she betrayed the POWs by falsely claiming that they expressed ``disgust'' and ``shame'' over what they had done. When the returning POWs reported their torture, showing their broken bodies as proof, Fonda called them ``hypocrites and liars.'' She claims in her book that she was ``framed.'' Fourth, Fonda ignored the non-Communist Vietnamese and Cambodians who resisted the Vietnamese Communists and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge, showing no concern for their fate. Fonda continued to support the Communists against indigenous non-Communists even after American withdrawal. She was not ``anti-war''; she was ``pro-war''--for a Communist victory. She was not even ``anti-atrocity'' per se, remaining silent on Communist executions of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians (such as the 3,000 slaughtered with their hands tied in Hue in 1968, or the final tragedy following Communist victories in 1975). Fonda's hopes for a Communist victory in South Vietnam and Cambodia were fulfilled. But her hopes for fame as an instrument of Communist achievements have been dashed on the rocks of reality--the truth about Communist malevolence and disregard for human dignity; the truth about the commitment by most American soldiers to honorable behavior; the truth about the torture and murder of American POWs. Now her efforts to promote commercial gain through a limited pseudo- apology, which is simultaneously withdrawn by a less visible (yet explicit) defense of her transgressions, will fail on the same rocks of reality. Jane Fonda has always lived in a kind of Wonderland--where American POWs are liars and Communist tyrants are honorable men. Now she says that ``the U.S. loss represented our nation's chance for redemption'' and that the Communist victory ``symbolizes hope for the planet.'' Her latest foray into the Vietnam War only shows that, unlike Alice, Jane Fonda has yet to emerge from Wonderland.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for the work they have done in bringing to the floor the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, H.R. 1544, and I rise in support of that bill. Yesterday, we had a reminder, if we even needed a reminder, of the events of 9/11 and the aftermath. Yesterday, as we were proceeding out of this Chamber, we were urged by those who were in uniform to move faster, to move to a place of greater safety. And that is an apt analogy for the bill we bring to this floor today, because we truly are attempting to do a better job in terms of the funding on the Federal level for first responders. There is no doubt that this Chamber, acting with the other Chamber and the executive branch, attempted as best we could at that time to come up with a comprehensive approach to get funding to first responders in view of the threat as we saw it after 9/11. But in the intervening 3-plus years, we have seen that that which we have done is not perfect, that there are improvements to be made. Certainly first and foremost among these is to establish a basis for the kinds of funding that will go out to the first responders. This bill is a true effort to attempt to establish a rational risk assessment, that is, a rational means of determining what the greatest threat is to this country in the aftermath of 9/11, and then proceed to have the funding follow that. This is extremely important, because in some ways it goes against the grain of those of us who serve in this body who want to make sure that every single one of our districts gets the best amount of money that it possibly can. In this particular situation, we are acting as national legislators, making a determination as to what the national threat is and then responding to that national threat in the most effective way possible. That is why I salute the chairman and ranking member. I tell my other colleagues here that this was a unanimous decision by the members of this committee. Hopefully, we will receive a unanimous decision here on the floor of the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of Janice Rogers Brown. In the discussion over the filibuster, much has been lost with respect to the individuals who have been nominated, that is, who they are as real people. Janice Rogers Brown is an outstanding member of the California Supreme Court. As attorney general of the State of California, I had the opportunity to review her record and on two occasions to vote to put her on the appellate court and then on the California Supreme Court. She has worked in various different areas in the legal field. One of the outstanding periods of her work was as legal affairs secretary to Governor Pete Wilson, who on many occasions commented on the outstanding job she did for him, the tremendous legal mind she had, and the ability for her to listen to all sides and then come to a considered opinion. Mr. Speaker, in the effort to resolve the problem in the other body, I hope that Janice Rogers Brown will not be left behind. She is an outstanding candidate, someone who would do well to serve on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, and someone who has had an outstanding record as a member of the California Supreme Court.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the nomination to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals of Janice Rogers Brown. Janice Rogers Brown is a member of the California Supreme Court, a former member of perhaps our most distinguished district court of appeals that meets in Sacramento, a former distinguished top legal advisor to then Governor Pete Wilson, formerly a distinguished deputy attorney general in the office of the California attorney general's office, one who has come from humble beginnings. An Alabama sharecropper's daughter who attended segregated schools while she was growing up, graduated from UCLA, has practiced law in the private sector, but has spent most of her time in the public sector, either as the attorney representing the State, as a legal advisor to the Governor of the State, or as one who has served well as a member of the judicial branch in the State of California. Her nomination is one of those that has been held up in the other body. Hers is one that has been suggested as the price of the President receiving consideration of his other nominations, that is, the suggestion is made that hers is one of the nominations that should be withdrawn because she is, ``out of the mainstream.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have available, I would like to speak to that point. In the State of California, we have a requirement that when one is nominated by the Governor of the State to either the appellate court or the California Supreme Court, they must undergo a rigorous review, which is concluded by a confirmation hearing and vote by a confirmation panel made up of three members: the chief justice of the California Supreme Court; the attorney general of the State of California; and in the specific instance of someone being nominated to the appellate bench, the chief presiding officer of that appellate bench. And for one who is being nominated to the California Supreme Court, that third person would be the senior-most serving presiding officer of any of the appellate benches in the State of California. On two occasions I had the opportunity, as the attorney general of California, to be a member of that panel and had the opportunity to review her consideration, her nomination. And in both of those nomination processes, she received a unanimous vote of the 3-member panel. When we considered her past legal work, when we considered her past judicial work, when we considered her qualifications, her education, her character, her philosophy, that is, whether or not she was committed to doing the job that judges are supposed to do, that is, interpreting the law as opposed to making the law, being constrained by the Constitution of the United States, by the Constitution of the State of California and by the statutes of the State of California, and where they apply, the statutes of the United States. In that instance, she received a 100 percent vote from us in both cases. It is interesting that in the State of California, once one receives such an appointment, one has to go before the people of the State of California in a vote. And in that vote, when she was considered, after she had rendered opinions, after she had had her opinions published, when she was considered by the people of the State of California, she received, I believe it is, more than a 75 percent vote of the people. Some say, well, that happens all of the time. Well, in my memory, we have had at least three members of the California Supreme Court basically voted down by the people. So there is a real contest; there is a real review by the people of the State of California. Approximately 75 percent of the people of the State of California, when given the chance, upheld her continued activity on the court, that is, the Supreme Court of California. Now she has been nominated to serve the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals by the President. To this day, there has been reluctance, if not refusal, on the part of the other body to have her considered before the whole body. There has been the suggestion that rather than being submitted to the entire body and a vote up or down where a majority would prevail, she is being subjected to a 60-vote rule, a 60-percent rule. One searches in vain in the Constitution to find any reference to that. I would suggest, as a matter of fact, it is questionable whether the Constitution would allow that kind of constraint on the prerogative of the President, as to whether or not advice and consent means that. But be that as it may, it is interesting that the two representatives from the State of California who will have a vote in that body have chosen not to support her. And while they have been elected and reelected by the people of the State of California, that very same electorate has voiced their opinion in an official vote by giving her a mandate of 75 percent. That hardly suggests that she is out of the mainstream, unless one suggests that California is out of the mainstream. She has been criticized for upholding Proposition 209, a proposition that was put to the vote of the people of the State of California to determine whether or not we in California believe that racial quotas and set-asides were, in fact, appropriate under the law. The people of the State of California decided that they were inappropriate by a large margin, and she interpreted that in accordance with the people of the State of California, and for that she is criticized and considered to be out of the mainstream. My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that she ought to have the opportunity to have her voice heard, her case heard by the entire body in the other body, and that it is my belief, given that opportunity, the people of California will be well served by a reaffirmation of the fact that she is well within the mainstream of judicial decision-makers in the United States.

Mr. LUNGREN of California

Mr. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for recognizing me, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for having this time, and I thank the other Members of this body for entering into this discussion here this evening. In my former life as the attorney general of the State of California, I was privileged to be on the confirmation panels for those members of the bench who were nominated to appellate positions or the Supreme Court of the State of California. In that regard, it was a three-person panel of confirmation requiring a majority vote, a two-thirds vote because there were three of us on that panel. During that time, I had the opportunity to investigate, review, speak with and have public hearings and then vote on more than a score, I believe, of nominees of the Governor of the State of California during the 8 years I served as the attorney general. During that time, we were required to look at their record to see whether or not they were qualified to serve in their positions, but never did we misunderstand the responsibility we had, which was not to nominate them in the first place but, rather, review their nomination after it was made by the Governor of the State of California. While that is not an absolute analogy, it certainly is an apt analogy to the responsibility that the United States Senate has under the Constitution of the United States to give advice and consent to the President of the United States upon his nomination of individuals to serve in the various courts in the Federal system. Tonight I would like to at least address briefly the process that has developed in the Senate and the impact it has had on the nomination of a particular individual from my home State of California. Her name is Janice Rogers Brown. She is and has served for a significant period of time as a member of the California Supreme Court. Prior to that, she was on the Third District Court of Appeals for the State of California. She has been nominated by the President of the United States to serve on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. The gravamen of my observation is that the failure of the Senate to allow her nomination to come to the floor thus far denies her, but more importantly the American people, an opportunity to review her qualifications, to review her personal history and to make a determination as to whether she is a worthy individual to serve on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. As a matter of fact, it is my observation that in the absence of the opportunity to be voted up or voted down, to be subjected to a debate on the floor of the United States Senate in the context of such a consideration, that in fact the Janice Rogers Brown that I know in the State of California, not only because of my personal experience with her but because of my prior service in making a determination as to whether or not she was worthy to serve on the California appeals court and the California Supreme Court, that that person that I know is not the person that I hear discussed, the person that I hear characterized, or the person that I see presented in the press and in other places. Her personal story is nothing short of inspirational. Janice Rogers Brown comes from a family of Alabama sharecroppers. She was born and grew up at a time in which there was still official discrimination in that State. She was one of those people who suffered as the result of official and unofficial discrimination in that State. Yet she rose from those humble beginnings to receive her law degree from UCLA in 1977. She served as a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice from 1979 to 1987. When I was elected the attorney general of the State of California and took office in January of 1991, I asked a number of people who had previously served in the attorney general's office for recommendations of people who should serve at the top level of the Department of Justice in my administration. Her name was always offered by those who had had experience in that office. I did talk with her. I did offer her the opportunity to serve as the head of the civil division in the California Department of Justice. That is an office that has over 1,000 attorneys in it, 5,000 employees, I believe one of the finest law offices in the country. It probably presents itself in argument before the U.S. Supreme Court more than any other office outside of the U.S. Department of Justice, and I very much believed that she would be someone who would bring tremendous esteem to our office. Unfortunately, Pete Wilson, the former United States Senator, then Governor of the State of California, was successful in talking her into accepting his offer to be the legal affairs secretary to him in his administration. During that period of time that she served as legal affairs secretary, I was the attorney general of California and worked with her on many knotty legal issues. I found her to always be professional, to always be measured in her tones, to always look to the law first, and to give the best advice that she possibly could. Later, the Governor nominated her to serve as justice on the Third District Court of Appeals, and we listened to the testimony of those who had worked with her, those who had seen her close at hand in the office of the Governor, in the attorney general's office and in private practice; and there was such a strong recommendation of those who had worked with her that it was easy to vote for her confirmation to the Third District Court of Appeals for the State of California. Several years later, she was the first African American woman to be nominated to serve on the California Supreme Court. During the confirmation hearings that we had, I had the opportunity to review the opinions that she had written while on the appellate court. Interestingly enough, every single member of the appellate court on which she served recommended her confirmation to the California Supreme Court. I recall at the time that the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice Ron George, surprised the public hearing that we had by actually putting on the table every single written opinion that she had done and advising everybody there that he had read every opinion she had written at that point in time, not once but twice, and rendering his opinion that she was well qualified to serve on the California Supreme Court. I can recall of those who opposed her, some said she was not serious enough and one of the things they cited was a particular case. So I went to that case to see their suggestion that she was not serious enough, and I found out that not only is she a legal scholar but she is a well-read individual and someone who understands the culture of America very well, because she had footnoted a routine done by George Burns and Gracie Allen, and that routine that she footnoted was right on point but made the point with humor. I must say that having been involved in the law for 30-some-plus years, having served in this body on the Judiciary Committee for now 11 years, having served as attorney general for 8 years, and been involved in private practice in the other years, it is refreshing to find members of the court who actually believe it is appropriate occasionally to use humor to make a point. It should be noted that Justice Brown was required to go before the people of the State of California for confirmation in a direct vote of the people and that in that she received over 75 percent of the vote of the people of California who had the opportunity to review her performance while serving on the California Supreme Court. I have seen some criticism of some of her opinions. One cited in the other body has to do with a case coming out of the city of San Jose, and it had to do with whether or not the city of San Jose's ordinance with respect to hiring or contracting policies had run afoul of a new section of the California Constitution which was as the result of a direct vote of the people in Proposition 209. Proposition 209 entered the vast area of affirmative action and said in that vast area, we believe it is inappropriate to use racial quotas and set-asides. It did not condemn all affirmative action, but specifically said that the use of race for purposes of contracting or hiring by State government or its political subdivisions was inappropriate when it came by way of quotas or set-asides. That was a vote of the people. In the case brought by some who challenged the ordinance in the city of San Jose, she wrote the majority opinion. Some have now criticized her for that opinion, suggesting, as I have heard, that she is, quote- unquote, out of the mainstream. Well, that decision was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the State of California: 7 to 0. If she is out of the mainstream, the entire Supreme Court of the State of California is, and the people of California are, out of the mainstream as defined by those who would criticize her. The interesting thing is that she is a prolific writer in her capacity as a jurist. In fact, in the year 2001 and the year 2002, she authored more majority opinions than anyone else on the California Supreme Court. As I mentioned before, her opinions reflect well- reasoned analysis, a prosaic quality, as well as humor. In upholding a drug-testing program, she observed, ``That is life. Sometimes beauty is fierce, love is tough, and freedom is painful.'' Some have suggested that such comments are inappropriate. I would suggest that such comments are extremely appropriate because they are couched in the reality of life as well as the reality of the law. I have talked with those people who served with her directly while she served the Governor of the State of California, those who saw her on an everyday basis, those who asked her legal advice, those who asked her positions. Every single one of them will tell you that she is a measured individual, she is a well-thought-out individual, she is one who will give you what the law is; and if you ask her opinion, she will give you that as well. If you look at her opinions, they are the opinions of someone who understands what I believe jurists ought to understand, that their obligation is to interpret the law, not make the law. Their obligation is to attempt to divine what the intent of the legislators was at the time they passed the law, and similarly what the intent of the framers of the Constitution meant at the time they wrote the Constitution. Because, simply put, this is not a game. We have an obligation in a democracy to be fair with the people who are members of that democracy, the citizenry. And if in fact those who are on the bench speak in some sort of Sanskrit, speak in some sort of code such that when they say one thing that is understood in the common utterances one way but they mean in their legalese something else altogether, that somehow that is the way to legislate, I would suggest that is the wrong way to legislate because it does not give the members of our society a fair chance at ordering their lives in accordance with the laws. That is something we have not talked about enough here. When we give full flight of fancy to members of the court under the Federal system, what we are doing is saying that the people should not have the opportunity to fully understand the democracy in which they participate, that the people somehow are incapable of governing themselves and that somehow all the important decisions of life have to be decided on a, quote-unquote, constitutional basis as opposed to constitutional questions being the exception. I would suggest that it is also not possible to pigeonhole Justice Brown into a stereotype or ideological mold. She has surprised some in the law enforcement community with her steadfast defense of individual rights. For example, in a California case called People v. Woods, she authored a lone dissent in a case which upheld a prosecution of two defendants for drug offenses based on evidence seized without a warrant from a residence defendants shared with a woman subject to a probation search condition. In this dissent she observed, ``In appending the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the Framers sought to protect individuals against government excess. High on that pantheon was the fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, which generally forbids such actions except pursuant to warrant issued upon probable cause by a neutral magistrate.'' This hardly sounds like a caricature of the right wing gargoyle which Justice Brown's critics have tried to create. Recently her critics have heaped criticism upon her for reference to the cultural wars in a speech in which she acknowledged the secular assault on religious freedom. First of all, everyone from Pat W. Buchanan to Tammy Bruce has acknowledged that we are in the midst of a titanic cultural struggle. As a matter of fact, if we looked at the recent writings and utterances of James Carville, he has suggested that maybe his party ought to pay more attention to the cultural argument that is taking place, the cultural battle that is taking place. In light of the fact that cases relating to the removal of reference to God and the Pledge of Allegiance, which happened to come out of my district, by the way, and the two Ten Commandment cases currently before the United States Supreme Court, cases in courts around the land involving the question of the continued definition of marriage, Justice Brown would seem to be merely stating the obvious. In fact, cities and counties across Southern California are being coerced by lawsuits and threats of lawsuits to remove minuscule depictions of the cross from city and county seals. Perhaps we ought to pretend that the California missions never existed, and perhaps we will be required soon to change the names of San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento to more secular terms. My point this evening is a simple one. That which we are observing in the Senate is denying the American people an opportunity to review the nominees of the President of the United States. It is my belief that Janice Brown should be so presented to the United States Senate for consideration. She is the American story. From the humblest background, she has risen to the highest court in the most populous State in the Nation. She subscribes to a judicial philosophy considered radical in some circles, that the text of the Constitution actually means something. She holds to a consistent enforcement of individual rights that is not result oriented. In my judgment, these are the qualities of a true jurist and is why she should be confirmed to sit on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and at very least, that her story be told in open debate on the floor of the United States Senate in the context of the consideration of her nomination by the whole body.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here on the floor once again, this time as a member of the Committee on the Budget. After being absent from this floor for 16 years, some things are comforting, such as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) still maintains his skepticism about the anti-missile system. I appreciate that. I appreciate that in terms of his concern about us spending too much money this year in that regard. With respect to the comments made by some on the other side of the aisle that somehow the Republican budget is immoral, and I heard that during the one-minute speeches, and somehow it does not follow a standard of social justice or the social gospel, I tried to look at the numbers to see what we are talking about, and if one looks at any graph that looks at the mandatory spending, we see the difference between the baseline and what we have placed in this budget is almost indistinguishable. So then I looked at some of the other areas that the gentleman has spoken to, and one is the National Institutes of Health. I thought since I have been gone and since the Republicans have taken over the House of Representatives that reflecting the comments about the Republican attitude toward NIH, that somehow we had denuded NIH in the time since Republicans had taken over. So I went back and checked it out, and under Republican Congresses, NIH spending has doubled between 1999 and the year 2003, rising from $13.6 billion in 1999 to $27.2 billion in the year 2003. Again I heard a comment about veterans, that somehow Republicans are not concerned about veterans. I went back and checked the numbers since I was last here. Since 1995, total spending on veterans, that is, 1995 since the Republicans took over, total spending on veterans has increased from $38.2 billion to $67.6 billion. That is a 77 percent increase. I wanted to see how that compared with the previous 10 years, again, most of which I was gone, but during which the Democrats were in control of the House; and I found out that there was a 40 percent increase during the previous 10 years. I would not on this floor suggest that the Democrats were immoral in their approach to the veterans in their previous 10 years even though their increase for veterans was substantially lower than Republicans'. It is not a question of morality, it is not a question of social justice, it is not a question of social gospel, the words that I heard expressed just a moment ago; but, rather, it is a question as to where we are now. After we have had significant, hefty increases in these particular areas during the time that Republicans have been in control, is it a time for us to slow down that increased rate of growth during a time in which we finally are confronting the fiscal responsibility that is visited upon this House as our obligation and our authority? During the time I was gone, I was able to observe this House from a distance, and I realized there is a real disconnect. People back home seem to think that we are spending too much. They are not arguing for increased taxes. I understand the gentleman believes that an increase in taxes on some people is not a general increase in taxes. We can always follow that old slogan, Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree. It is always that game, I will not call it a game, it is always that approach that can be relevant in debates such as this. But the fact of the matter is that the gentleman from Wisconsin has with sincerity presented us an amendment that increases taxes and increases spending. That is the long and short of it. The suggestion is that somehow we have been unfaithful to our charge to be concerned about the education of the people of America and the veterans. That charge is just patently false. The fact of the matter is we now have established priorities overall for our spending. We believe we have done this in a responsible way. We believe we have done this in a way that most Americans would support. We believe we have made sure that we are not going to cut defense. The gentleman has suggested $1 billion less spending in defense. I think most Members would not support that. We can suggest to the appropriators and the authorizing committees where they ought to cut, but we cannot demand that. So the gentleman's desire that they take the $1 billion out of a particular place is not necessarily where it is going to come out of. The only thing we know if we adopt the gentleman's amendment is that we will be spending $1 billion less on national defense at a time when very few Americans would support that. With all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I appreciate his approach. It is a consistent approach that he has used; but it is an approach that, yes, increases spending and increases taxes.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here on the floor speaking on this subject since some may know I left this place for 16 years, and coming back to the floor of the House and having an opportunity to serve on the Budget Committee has given me a perspective that I did not have before. Being away from this place for 16 years gave me a little bit of a bird's eye view of how the rest of the public views what we do here. And I just must say that during the several years that I was embarking on my endeavor to return to this House, I was constantly reminded by the people that I came into contact with in my district as to the spending spree they believe the Congress has gone on and been involved in over the last number of years. The amount of discretionary spending that we have had in terms of its increase is remarkable. I wish they could go back 16 years from when I left this wonderful institution back in 1989 to show what we are talking about. This chart merely goes back to 1994, but it shows us spending $513 billion in 1994, and we are talking about now stretching our way to $900 billion. I was in my office watching some of this debate, and I heard what appeared to me to be crocodile tears expressed by some on the other side about how much we are cutting. And I guess only in this institution is a little restraint in the amount that we are spending in addition to what we have spent in the past considered a cut. Where I come from, cut is not a four letter word. Most American citizens, most of the people in my district believe that if you spent too much, maybe you ought to look on the side of spending restraint. The response we got in committee time and time again from the other side was, why do we not just raise taxes? And I cannot even calculate the increase in taxes they suggested to cover all the programs they want. As part of the requirements under the budget act, the Budget Committee gives an opportunity for any Member in the House to appear for 10 minutes to talk about any particular matter within the province of the Budget Committee. And I was privileged to accept that duty for perhaps the last hour. And I remember those coming up to talk about the Community Development Block Grant program. They even were effective in citing a quotation from the mayor of the town in which I was born, someone whom I know. And in response to that, I said, I think it is a worthy program, but could you please tell me, if we do not cut this, where we should find the money to fund it? And the response I received was, that is not our job; that is somebody else's job. And that is the problem with the Congress, at least as I see it. It is always somebody else's job. But the job of the Budget Committee is to bring us, I think, some fiscal sanity by suggesting with some enforcement mechanisms, numbers within which we will live, which is no different than what we do in our daily lives and our family lives. And all I can say is, having been gone from this place for 16 years, the image that I obtained from people on the outside looking in is, frankly, not that we have been very restraining in terms of our spending. The average person would, I think, stand with their mouth agape at some of the conversation that has been on this floor. We are not really restraining ourselves very badly when you look at the numbers that we have seen here. Only in Washington, D.C. could a restraint on increased spending be considered a cut. That may be very simplistic, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry for being simplistic; but I have been away from this place for a long time, and where I come from, again, cut is not a four letter word. And I would just ask, if people could understand, if other Members could have the chance I had to leave this place for 16 years and come back and see the change, people coming to us asking for spending, no longer requesting it, but coming with the expectation that it is an entitlement in the area of discretionary spending. It is so different than what it was 16 years ago. It is, as we used to say, the difference between night and day. I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman of this committee, for leading our committee and bringing forward a product which will put us on the path towards restraint, the type of restraint that not only is necessary but is expected by the folks back home.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 418. Twenty-six years ago, when I first came to this Chamber, we were speaking about border security. Sixteen years ago, when I left this Chamber, we were speaking about border security; and here we are again. A fundamental aspect of national sovereignty is that a nation is able to control its own borders. The nature of this requirement is of particular importance in the post-9/11 environment in which we must all live. In years past, when those of us on the Subcommittee on Immigration confronted this challenge, there were traffickers and human cargo and narcotics and the increasing problem of criminal gangs who profit from such enterprises. Today, however, we must deal with the additional worry that these channels of illicit commerce may also include those who enter our country to kill innocent Americans and the related concerns of weapons of mass destruction. The Real ID Act, introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), is an important step in meeting this challenge. In conjunction with the additional border patrol positions authorized by this body at the close of the last Congress, H.R. 418 will remove the impediments to completing the fence along the San Diego corridor of our southern border. I want to commend my predecessor in the Third Congressional District in California, Mr. Doug Ose, who worked hard to remove the regulatory obstacles to completion of the fence. In today's post-9/11 environment, it is one component in an integrated U.S. border security system. There is simply no excuse for the failure to complete the remaining 3\1/2\ miles of the security fence. The language offered by our colleague from Wisconsin would allow us to do so. In our system of governance, the United States Government and specifically the Congress have given us what is tantamount to plenary jurisdiction over immigration law. As a former attorney general in my State, I can make the observation that in most areas of the law enforcement, the States and local governments have primary jurisdiction. That is not the case with immigration enforcement. As a former President of the other party put it in a different context, ``The buck stops here.'' Although I am a committed believer in federalism, the nature of the task and the language of Article I, section 8, are clear. While this bill in no way preempts State law with respect to the issuance of driver's licenses, it does entail a modest notion that the immigration laws enacted by this body ought to mean something.