[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15544-15547]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2120
                          A HOUSE OF CIVILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the

[[Page 15545]]

gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to share some comments 
here in the last few weeks in which I am privileged to be a Member of 
this House. I thought I would read into the Record a letter that I 
penned to my constituents upon the conclusion of my election process. I 
said at the time:

       I'm satisfied that enough votes have been counted to 
     determine that I will not be representing the citizens of the 
     Seventh Congressional District during the 113th Congress. It 
     was a tough campaign, and I accept the outcome. I 
     congratulate Dr. Bera in his victory, and I wish him well as 
     he accepts this new challenge. It is my hope that Dr. Bera 
     approaches Congress, as have I, with a humble heart, respect 
     for the institution, and a desire to perform his duties in 
     the best interest of the people he represents and the 
     country.
       No one can fulfill the obligations of public service alone. 
     The contributions of my wife Bobbi and our family have been 
     inestimable. I could never thank them enough. My staff has 
     worked tirelessly on behalf of others. There are no better 
     public servants anywhere.
       I'm proud of the work that we've accomplished representing 
     Californians both in the California Department of Justice and 
     in the United States Congress. The experience of 18 years 
     serving in the House of Representatives and 8 years as 
     California's Attorney General truly has been an honor and one 
     for which I will be forever grateful.
       During my time in the House, we were able to build 
     coalitions across the aisle to advance legislation that not 
     only benefited the people of the district, but all Americans. 
     I'm proud of the meaningful working we have achieved with 
     Folsom Dam, our levees, U.S. port security, chemical facility 
     security, cybersecurity, criminal justice reform, immigration 
     reform, national security, human trafficking, reining in 
     government spending, and the myriad of other issues that came 
     before the Congress.
       Bobbi and I wish to thank the multitude of volunteers and 
     supporters who were by our side in this effort. Your support 
     is gratifying and humbling, and for that we are immensely 
     grateful.
       God bless you, and God bless this land of ours.

  I read that to suggest the feelings that I have at this time when I 
am approaching the end of my service in this House. One of the thoughts 
that I have as I do that is the question of civility in this House, in 
the Congress, in the political dialogue, and in the country at large.
  If one examines the history of the House of Representatives, one 
understands immediately that we are governed not by Robert's Rules of 
Order, but by, in fact, Jefferson's Manual, the manual authored in the 
first instance by Thomas Jefferson. If you analyze the spirit--and I 
believe the letter--of that manual, you will find that President 
Jefferson believed that vigorous and robust debate was appropriate, but 
he also understood the nature of man. He understood that we sometimes 
did not maintain the type of discourse that would be of honor to us and 
this House. As a result, he envisioned a place for debate, a place for 
legislating, reflecting the views, aspirations, and hopes of the 
American people that would guard against the temptation, the tendency, 
perhaps, to allow the emotions of the day to govern and cause conflict 
on this House, indeed, physical altercations or confrontations.
  One of the manners in which he believed that we could guard against 
that was to have Members of the House address the presiding officer 
rather than directly respond to another Member. Some may think this is 
arcane. Some may think this is outdated. Some may think this is 
difficult to understand. Yet it serves a purpose. It reminds us that 
while we're on the floor, that we are here representing this country. 
We're elected from different districts, but we are here as Members of 
the U.S. House of Representatives. We address one another through the 
Chair as the distinguished gentleman or gentlelady from a particular 
State. We don't call people by their first name. Frankly, if we do call 
them by their last name, it is an adjective describing the particular 
person from the State that they represent.
  There are those who find it difficult to understand why it is wrong 
to traverse the well, why it is inappropriate for someone to walk here 
in the well because this is a large Chamber. It would seem natural that 
you would move from Point A to Point B. Yet the idea is as I am 
addressing this House, I am addressing the presiding officer. For 
someone to traverse the well is in essence an act of rudeness, an act 
of incivility, a lack of respect for those who are speaking and the 
institution. It is as if I were speaking to someone immediately in 
front of me and someone walks between the two of us while we're having 
the conversation. One would immediately understand that to be not in 
keeping with proper conduct. Yet I think sometimes we forget the 
purpose of the rules that we have here.
  I would say I was taught when I was a young attorney that you are to 
be court-ready. If you're a male Member of this House, you are to wear 
a coat and tie. You could vote easily without a coat and tie. You could 
vote easily in shorts here. You could vote easily in a T-shirt here. 
But what would that do? That would in a very real sense demean the 
institution of the House, and it would suggest that perhaps we weren't 
ready to do business.
  I recall several decades ago when a number of school districts 
believed that in an effort to increase the level of comportment in 
school, they would have students wear uniforms. It was unheard of at 
the time, yet they found that when students wore uniforms, in some ways 
the ``gang colors'' didn't come into play. People weren't looking at 
who has the rich clothes versus who has the poor clothes. But more 
importantly, I remember a comment by someone who was in favor of it and 
said this reminds the young people that they are there to do work to 
advance themselves for their future. In other words, it was their 
``work clothes.'' That is a similar sort of thing that we do in this 
institution. Those are just some physical manifestations of the kinds 
of things that lead to the idea of civility in this House.
  The other thing is that we follow the precedents of the House, 
rulings of the House that guard against us bringing uncivil behavior to 
this House, that guard against us from violating the spirit of this 
House. What do I mean by that? One of the rules is you should not do 
anything that brings the House into disrepute. One of the many 
precedents in the House is if you engage in a debate in which you 
question the motivation of your opponent, you question the motivation 
of a Member of the Senate, you question the motivation of the 
President, that is considered out of order, and you can be called to 
account for that.
  How do we do it in this place? Again, some would consider it an 
arcane way. Another Member gets up and asks that the person who has 
spoken those words have his or her words taken down, and the process 
is, of course, the reporter transcribes the words, those words are then 
uttered, they are considered by the presiding officer with the 
assistance of the Parliamentarian. If, in fact, they're offensive 
words, unless one is granted unanimous consent to have those words 
removed from the Record, that person is not allowed to speak for the 
rest of the day.
  Some would say what is that? It's like timeout in a schoolyard. No, 
it really goes to the essence of this place. We are here as 
representatives of the people of the United States from particular 
districts and particular States, but part of our purpose in 
representing our constituents is being able to articulate on their 
behalf, being able to argue on their behalf, being able to speak on 
this floor. Therefore, the penalty of not being able to speak on the 
floor goes not just to the Member, but goes to those he or she 
represents. They are rendered silent for that day. If you really think 
about it, that is, in fact, a particularly pernicious punishment 
because it goes to your ability to represent your constituents.
  It seems to me that those who have been privileged to serve in the 
House, less than 11,000 in the entire history of this body, have an 
obligation to understand that this is beyond each and every one of us. 
It is the institution, the continuing perpetual institution of 
democracy in our country. We should be very proud to be a part of that. 
Civility should be a part of that. Tough, vigorous, robust debate 
should be a

[[Page 15546]]

part of it. Insulting, demeaning language, calling into question the 
motivation of another ought to have no place here.
  And while we are here--someone suggests in a cocoon--that is, the 
Chamber of the House, I would rather consider it to be a venerable 
place. A symbol of the institution with the words of our national motto 
is above the very rostrum: ``In God we trust.'' As we think about that, 
we also should understand that we are part of more than just this 
institution. We are a part of the society in which we play, hopefully, 
a significant role.

                              {time}  2130

  The manner in which Members get to have the opportunity to represent 
their constituents is through a process that we call ``political.'' It 
is through an electoral process, and the electoral process reflects our 
society as well as giving guidance to our society. There, I fear, the 
level of civility has been diminished. Let me give you an example--and 
I'm not suggesting in any way that this made the difference in my 
election, but it is my observation, having been a part of it, that the 
rules of civility have been tossed aside.
  There was an ad run against me and the gentleman from Florida and 
others, but it was made specific to each of us and our individual races 
in which they had a girl who was approximately 5 years old, looking 
into the camera, asking this question, ``Why does Dan Lungren want me 
to die?'' as did a 19-year-old, who indicated that he had suffered some 
paralysis from an accident, as did an approximately 40-year-old woman 
for some disease she had.
  Stunning. Stunning.
  The only thing I could see on the other side of the philosophical 
divide would be someone who was an Army vet, having been paralyzed, 
sitting in a wheelchair, looking at the camera, and saying about a 
Member who had voted against a defense bill, Why do you want me to die? 
Why do you want me to be in a wheelchair?
  In either case, the civility is out the window. The ability to talk 
about an issue that is underlying is lost. In the example I gave, the 
questions would be, was it an appropriate level of funding for defense? 
Were there certain problems with the defense bill? Not, do you want 
this veteran to die?
  In the case that I cited in which I was the subject of that ad, the 
issue was embryonic stem cell research, not the question of what is the 
moral and ethical thing to do in a very difficult circumstance. I 
remember when President of the United States George W. Bush had a 
national address to the country in which he talked about the difficult 
moral and ethical decision about whether you would have lines of stem 
cell research allowed that originated from embryos. It was the question 
of when life begins. Is that an individual? Is it a potential 
individual? Is it an individual who has any rights?
  None of that talked about in the ad.
  There was the question of umbilical cord blood stem cells, of which I 
have been privileged to be a leader with Chris Smith from New Jersey 
and others, and of having a press conference, I remember, with the 
great basketball star Dr. J, because, in fact, we had found that using 
blood cord stem cells had actually already been applied to some people 
with success, including, I believe, to some in this Nation who suffered 
from sickle-cell anemia.
  Forgetting totally about adult stem cells, the ad appeared the very 
week that the Nobel committee announced its prize for medicine to the 
two scientists who had unlocked the key in the ability to take adult 
stem cells and reprogram them back to induced pluripotent cells, 
meaning that they had the capacity to become different types of cells. 
Then, in just the 2 weeks before, I believe it was a German experiment 
in which they successfully cured paralysis in dogs by using cells from 
the dog's nasal passages.
  There can be a legitimate debate about the moral and ethical concerns 
surrounding stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, but to 
have an ad that reduces it to the question of whether a 5-year-old can 
look in the camera and say, ``Why does this Congressman want me to 
die?''--how does that elevate the debate? How does that in any way 
enhance our ability to make very difficult decisions?
  Does that condemn anybody who happens to have traditional values 
consistent with the traditional teachings of the Catholic church and 
other churches to be ridiculed? To be condemned for a lack of concern 
for fellow human beings? And to have the ad run in the last weeks of 
the campaign without any ability to respond to it. I ask you, is that 
civil?
  That ad was produced by the pro-majority PAC, by the way, with 
connections to some Members of the House. They don't have to abide by 
the rules in terms of advertising, but my question is, where does that 
leave us as a Nation when we can't talk about difficult, serious 
issues--issues of morals and issues of ethics and issues of conduct--
without reducing it to that level?
  Look, I'm, as they say, a big boy. I've been involved in politics and 
government a long time. I know campaigns can be tough. But is that an 
excuse for losing any sense of proportionality? Any sense of respect 
for one another? Any sense of civility?
  We hear many in the press decry the level of debate--but yet, not a 
peep about ads such as that. We hear people decry the lack of respect 
for one another--but yet, not a mention made of ads like that, which, I 
think, eliminate civility.
  Some would say the rule of traversing the well while someone is 
speaking is unnecessary. Why would you complain about that? If you 
don't understand the basis of civil conduct in the House, you would say 
that makes no sense at all. If you do understand it, you will 
understand that it is part and parcel of the entire complex of things 
we do that either shows respect or disrespect for the institution we 
serve and for our fellow Members.
  I'm not a Pollyanna. I've seen campaigns since I was a very little 
kid. I think I was 4 or 6 years old when I handed out literature for 
one of my neighbors who was running for Congress for the first time. 
I've been blessed to be involved with this. It has been a great ride to 
be able to represent my fellow constituents here in the House of 
Representatives in two different tours of service and as the California 
attorney general. I want tough and vigorous and robust debate, but I do 
wonder whether the coarseness of the debate, whether the lack of any 
respect for another's thoughts or another as a person makes us a better 
or a lesser Nation.
  There is something called ``appeal to the better angels of human 
nature.'' Maybe once in a while we ought to do that here. Maybe once in 
a while we ought to not only listen to a great speech by Abraham 
Lincoln or a great speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. or a tremendously 
written statement by George Washington, but maybe we ought to listen to 
what they say, and how they say it, and the respect with which they 
held those who may have disagreed with them.
  This is a great institution, representing the greatest country on the 
face of the Earth. So I don't say this as a loser's lament. Maybe it's 
a lover's lament. I love this country. I love the State that I 
represent. I love the people of this country. It is in a real sense an 
unconditional love, but it is not an uncritical love. We have an 
obligation to review, to criticize, to constantly guard against the 
lesser angels of human nature. You can do that with all the vigor in 
the world, and you can do that with all the respect in the world. If, 
in fact, we wish to solve the problems of this Nation, recognizing that 
there has to be some work across the aisle, perhaps the first way in 
which we do it is to think, how can I be civil in the discussion that I 
have even though I think my opponent, my counterpart on the other side 
of the aisle, is dead wrong?

                              {time}  2140

  I always thought Ronald Reagan had the best attitude. I would 
probably sum it up this way. They said that he always saw the glass as 
half full rather than half empty, but I always thought he had what I 
called the openness of a confident and a cheerful conservative.

[[Page 15547]]

He believed that we ought to conserve essential values of this country; 
we ought to avoid the fad of the day. And he believed that we ought to 
be proud in expressing our point of view. But I do believe he also 
thought that he could sit down with just about anybody and attempt to 
persuade them, much like my friend and someone who I considered almost 
a brother, Jack Kemp.
  I used to say about Jack: I'm sure there's somebody out there who 
doesn't like Jack Kemp, but I don't think Jack ever met someone he 
didn't like. And I don't think Jack Kemp, and I don't think Ronald 
Reagan, ever believed they met a man or woman that they couldn't 
persuade to their side.
  And maybe if we kept that in mind, how do we continue to work by 
putting all of our effort into persuading not only our side but 
persuading those who disagree with us to the rightness of our position, 
we might in fact find and they may find that we have far greater 
commonality of interest and approach than we ever thought.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if you know me at all, you know that I don't give 
up easily. You know that I don't back down from a fair fight or any 
fight. And you know that I believe deeply in those principles and 
values that brought me to this place, and I believe deeply that I have 
not lost them. But I do respect those who have a different point of 
view, and I respect their sincerity and I respect their genuineness, 
but I can question their judgment without calling into question their 
motivation.
  And maybe that's the summation of what I'm trying to say here. I have 
had the great privilege of serving this House for almost two decades. 
I've had the great privilege of serving 8 years as California's 
attorney general, so 26 years in public service as an elected official. 
I don't give up on this place. I don't give up on this country. I don't 
give up on its people. We've always had difficult times, and the key to 
solving those difficult times is to recognize their difficulty, 
recognize their presence, and recognize that we have no right to say 
it's not our job. When we are in this place in this time, it is our 
job.
  And I would hope and I would pray that we would approach that, and my 
colleagues would approach that, and those that come after in this new 
Congress, that they would approach it with a sense of civility and a 
sense of love of this country. And if we do that, I have no fear for 
our future.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and with that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________