Daniel E. Lungren

From 1991 until 1999, when I left as attorney general, we had reduced the overall crime rate by 50 percent, the homicide rate by 30 percent.

But if done improperly, it chills political speech and chills political participation.

That is a burden we accept as a result of Supreme Court decisions on either corruption or the appearance of corruption and money.

I try and look at this from the standpoint of an average American who wants to run for office, and the first thing now we know is the tremendous hurdles in terms of the cost of running for office.

Meanwhile, Texas burned. This is unacceptable.

Help should be a phone call away, not a series of requests winding their way through a bureaucratic maze.

Many Texas fire departments had to choose between filling out paperwork to meet FEMA's deadlines and firefighting.

This inadequate funding wasn't even an immediate directive. It took the President 13 days to sign the declaration.

Help should be just a phone call away and not a series of requests winding their way through a bureaucratic maze at a time of enormous emergency.

We have an obligation to be responsible and to stop spending where we are spending 40 cents out of every dollar.

Raising taxes in the midst of a recession is the dumbest idea that even Congress could come up with.

While I may differ on certain elements of their proposal, I am pleased the administration has provided thoughtful inputs to Congress to help us craft an effective National cybersecurity policy.

In order for us to get that support for such a program, we have to admit there is radicalization going on.

The political correctness in this room is astounding.

The height of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

EPA should be the lead agency for chemical security for both drinking water and wastewater systems.

I hope that we can recapture the bipartisan spirit that we had in the 109th, 110th, and most of the 111th Congress on the committee to bring an equally strong chemical security bill to the House floor.

I was disappointed that last year when we finally were able to get the House to approve a comprehensive chemical security bill, you chose not to support it.

So it is important to me not just as the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, but also in my duty to protect my constituents that we do our best to make these chemical facilities as secure as possible.

I know it is politically incorrect to think you would treat Members of Congress any differently...

I think the Congress disagreed with you. Frankly, I am very disappointed because I think you are basically saying you are going to set a standard that is not in the law.

I don't understand the bias against the private sector, frankly, and that is what it appears to me to be.

I urge your immediate action to repeal this onerous legislation.

Since when does money that the government is not receiving contribute to the deficit?

I am glad for their support. I am happy they have taken a position, and my feeling is that if we can have a freestanding bill, H.R. 4, passed, I can't see how it wouldn't be passed in the Senate.