Search Form
Now choose a category »
 

Dan Lungren's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Project Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.
Dan Lungren refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2012 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Issue Positions

In response to the increasing unwillingness of candidates to answer issue questions, Project Vote Smart has researched Presidential and Congressional candidates' public records to determine candidates' likely responses on certain key issues. These issue positions, from the year 2012, are provided below as a courtesy to voters.

Pro-life Inferred Answer Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. H Amdt 509. 111th Congress. Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 11/07/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 3. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding of Abortion. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 05/04/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Statement on the Administration's Executive Order Allowing Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Overseas. 12 January 2009. "Today I was disappointed to read the Administration's executive order to allow the use of American taxpayer money to fund abortions overseas. I do not believe government should use money from hard working Americans to subsidize abortion services in the United States or in foreign countries. At a time when our country is faced with serious economic problems and difficult choices at home, the timing of this shift in our nation's policy could not be worse and sends the wrong message to the rest of the world concerning the respect for innocent human life." (votesmart.org)
  • National Organization for Women. 04/18/2012. "On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the National Organization for Women attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2008, the National Organization for Women gave Dan Lungren a rating of 19 percent." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Pleased with Supreme Court's Decision on Abortion Procedure. 18 April 2007. "'Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion is an important step forward in protecting unborn children. Partial birth abortion is a gruesome procedure performed against the most defenseless of human beings. I agree with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y, who said this form of abortion, 'is infanticide, and one would be too many.' I am pleased that the Court upheld this ban, affirming that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life,' Lungren said." (votesmart.org)
  • National Right to Life Committee. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. H Amdt 95. 112th Congress. Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds For Planned Parenthood. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 02/18/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. H AMDT 209. 109th Congress. Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 05/25/2005. (votesmart.org)
  • Family Research Council. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Family Research Council 93 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 6099. 110th Congress. Abortion Pain Bill. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 12/06/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. The Only Bipartisanship We Have Seen Is In Opposition To This Health Care Bill. 30 March 2010. "Last August my constituents and Americans across the nation rose up and voiced their objections with the Majority's attempt to completely overturn our health care system. The message was simple, 'Stop what you are doing and start over.' Tonight, Congress has ignored the will of the people and passed a health care bill that adds almost a trillion dollars onto the back of our struggling economy, imposes new taxes on the American people and weakens almost 30 years of precedent by allowing federal funds to be used to fund abortions." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Protection of Innocent Life. 18 May 2009. "However, Madam Speaker, I must register my concern about the President's address yesterday, and it is because the President has, through his actions and his statements, made very clear his position on a fundamental issue to this Nation, to the question of ethics and morality and public policy. And it is an issue that has generated much controversy, but goes to the essence of the Catholic Church's teaching on the value of life. The church teaches that there are a number of moral principles upon which there can be serious discussion and disagreement: areas such as a just war; areas about social welfare policy; areas in which the Commandments of our Lord must guide us, but the manner in which those are applied can differ. Those moral judgments are called prudential judgments where we are called upon to use our prudence to come to the conclusions as to our proper actions, both individually and as a society. But there are a few, and very few, principles upon which there is not prudential judgment but upon which there is specific moral guidance, and protection of innocent life is among them. The question of whether one is ever able to take the innocent life of another intentionally lies at the root of not only Catholic doctrine, but lies at the root of the Judeo-Christian tradition which has given voice to the Constitution where it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with life being the first of those three." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 748. 109th Congress. Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 04/27/2005. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. S 403. 110th Congress. Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 09/26/2006. (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Afghanistan: Do you support United States' combat operations in Afghanistan? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Cody Kitaura. Elk Grove Citizen Online: Q&A with Dan Lungren. 13 August 2009. "What we want to do is we want to succeed there. I think it's extremely important we not fail in Afghanistan if for no other reason than we went into Afghanistan specifically in retaliation for what happened in 9/11. For us to fail to win there would be to tell those radical Jihadists around the world and those who would be similarly invited to attack us to just wait us out for a number of years, and we'll exhaust and go home and be open to be attacked again." (egcitizen.com)
  • Dan Lungren. KQED Radio Audio: Congressional Race, District 3. "Afghanistan is the more difficult political case, but I happen to think it is as important, if not more important, than what occurred in Iraq. Precisely because that was the country that sustained and supported those who were involved in the 9/11 terrible, criminal and wartime act against the United States. We have to show the staying power to ensure that there is a stable government in Afghanistan. That we do not leave before the job is done. [14:44]. (www.kqed.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Defeat 2.0. 10 May 2007. "It has been 94 days since the President requested Emergency Funding for our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of bringing a bill to the floor that would quickly provide our troops much needed funds, Democrats have repackaged a bill that hinders our war efforts. The Commander in Chief vetoed the Democrat's first plan for defeat due to provisions that would have subjected our military commanders in the field to micromanagement by the United States Congress. Moreover, it contained billions of dollars in funding for programs which had absolutely nothing to do with the war effort and included an arbitrary withdrawal date of American troops." (votesmart.org)
  • Peace Action. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Peace Action West. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of Peace Action West 13 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. H Con Res 28. 112th Congress. Removing Troops from Afghanistan. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 03/17/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Afghanistan War Powers Resolution. 10 March 2010. "Similarly today, this resolution sets an arbitrary deadline for troops to leave Afghanistan, and it is a terribly misguided reading of the facts we face today. Our troops are succeeding. No one questions that. Our allies are helping us. Why then would we handicap them today with such a terrible message from our Congress? The message is, despite what you are doing on the ground, despite your successes, we are going to pull you out with an arbitrary date. What could be more demoralizing? What could be more wrong? Madam Speaker, this resolution, unfortunately, is the wrong question. It sends the wrong message. It is being sent at precisely the wrong time. I hope that we have a strong vote against this resolution so that our troops will have an unquestioned message of support from us that we recognize what they are doing, that we follow what they are doing, that we support what they are doing, and that we rejoice in their victorious work today and in the days ahead." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Statement on House Vote to Prevent Devastating Defense Cuts and Reduce the Deficit. 11 May 2012. "Congress took action today to ensure our fighting men and women and hardworking Americans don't pay the price for Washington's failure to budget responsibly. The President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agree that sequestration would devastate our military. Sequestration- automatic across the board budget cuts - was intended to be a motivator, something both parties wished to avoid, as members of last year's "super committee" worked on producing $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions. [¦] "With our military still deployed in Afghanistan, the nation facing potential threats from Iran, North Korea, and a rising China, drastic reductions to our military are irresponsible. The responsibility of Congress is to provide for the common defense and reductions of this magnitude will put the national security of America at risk." (www.votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 4939. 110th Congress. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 06/13/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. H Amdt 13. 112th Congress. Reducing Navy and Air Force Aircraft Procurement. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 02/15/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 2642. 110th Congress. Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 06/19/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 5631. 110th Congress. Department Defense Appropriations Act, FY 2007. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 09/26/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 1363. 112th Congress. 2011 Department of Defense Budget and Additional Continuing Appropriations. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 04/07/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 3222. 110th Congress. Department of Defense Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2008. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 08/05/2007. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 4986. 110th Congress. Defense Authorizations Bill. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 01/16/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 5631. 110th Congress. Defense Department FY2007 Appropriations Bill. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 06/20/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Frank Oliveri. CQ WEEKLY “ IN FOCUS: Battling to Retain Sway On Military Spending. 21 April 2012. "Members do feel very strongly about the state of national defense, but they also feel strongly about the state of our fiscal policy. [¦] Working those two things out in a comprehensive, responsible, prudent way is the challenge. But it is not that we have one group against the other. It really isn't. It is trying to work it out. What is the proper formula within the context of those two imperatives?" (public.cq.com)
  • Dan Lungren. My Mother Lode - Lungren Changes Opinion On Boehner. 7 January 2011. 01/07/2011 "During a conference call this morning with reporters, Lungren said that he is open to making cuts to defense spending to help balance the deficit, but only if it doesn't negatively affect national security." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010. 2 April 2009. "The suggested cuts in defense spending in this budget, in the Democratic budget, but in this budget particularly, it doesn't just cut fat. It cuts muscle. It cuts sinew. It cuts bone. It makes us less able to defend the American people. And let's just be very, very clear about that. No one, no respected member of any previous administration in terms of national defense has suggested that you can support this kind of a budget presented here." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Budget. 1 Jan 2011. "It was for this reason that I supported the budget alternative introduced by Congressman Paul Ryan. Under this plan, budget deficits would be half those proposed by the Administration and debt held by the public would be $3.6 trillion less over the 10 year budget period. Both national defense and veterans' health care would be prioritized." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Budget: In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Democrats' Ticking Tax Bomb, Part IV - How the Democrats' Year-End Tax Hike Will Affect Senior Citizens. 31 October 2010. "Washington Democrats will impose a $3.8 trillion tax hike on hard-working Americans, resulting in higher taxes for every American who pays income taxes, as well as on small businesses, the engines of job creation. Unfortunately, Democrats have done nothing to disarm this ticking tax bomb, and even America's senior citizens will be hit by this massive tax increase. Among the most significant 2011 tax increases that will affect seniors: The tax rates on capital gains and dividends will rise significantly, imposing an average tax hit of $1,700 on more than half of all seniors who pay income taxes. The death tax will be reinstated with rates as high as 55%." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Budget. 1 Jan 2011. "It was for this reason that I supported the budget alternative introduced by Congressman Paul Ryan. [¦] On the revenue side, the proposal recognizes the need for lower marginal tax rates for small businesses and reforms the tax system for American families. Individuals would be able to pay their taxes under the existing tax code or move to a highly simplified system that fits on a post card, with a few deductions and two rates of 10 percent and 25 percent. The proposal includes generous standard and personal exemptions such that a family of four earning $39,000 would not pay tax on that amount. In order for Americans to revive their lost savings, this budget alternative would repeal capital gains taxes altogether through 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" “ Transcript. "The president"s commission that was established to look at our overall situation--fiscal situation--recommended that we flatten the tax code by taking out those exemptions, including corporate welfare that"s out there, and bring down the overall rate so that we can compete worldwide. That is not giving it away to the rich, that"s following a bipartisan prescription that was presented [¦] If you would look at the recommendations, it"s not only bringing the rates down, it"s getting rid of many of the exemptions and exceptions that are there that bring those rates down, in effect, for the very rich. It is to try and make us a job-producing economy right now. That"s the way we"re going to work our way out." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Outrage Over Adjournment. 30 September 2010. "[T]he expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, is a matter that will affect every single taxpayer. Those earning California's average household income of $57,000 will have their taxes increased by about $1,000. Those with incomes below $20,000 will also see tax increases, and 50 percent of small business income will be subject to the tax increases imposed on the highest earners. Raising taxes in the middle of an economic downturn is the worst thing we can do, unless we want to imitate Herbert Hoover's actions leading up to the Great Depression [¦] The best, most immediate effort Congress can make to help put the jobless back to work and free American families to spend and save is to prevent their taxes from increasing. Although the Leadership has punted this issue, holding Americans hostage to their timeline rather than doing the work the people need, I am committed to being your voice in the nation's capital [¦]" (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren signed Americans for Tax Reform: The Taxpayer Protection Pledge. 1 January 2012. "I pledge to the taxpayers of the state of California and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates." (www.votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Tax Reform. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Americans for Tax Reform 95 percent in 2007." (votesmart.org)
  • Citizens for Tax Justice. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 0 percent in 2006." (votesmart.org)
  • National Taxpayers Union. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported reasonable tax and spending policies as defined by the National Taxpayers Union 84 percent of the time in 2010." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Economy: Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. HR 1424. 110th Congress. Financial Asset Purchase Authority and Tax Law Amendments. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 10/03/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Says: "Put the Nation First". 29 September 2008. "We should be concerned about this vote today. We witnessed the defeat of a good faith bipartisan effort to protect our citizens from a potentially serious downturn in our economy. This was not an effort to bail out Wall Street. That is not the legitimate concern of government. Rather, Congress has an obligation to do everything within our power to try to contain the implosion in our financial markets from cascading down to the people of the 3rd Congressional District and the rest of the nation. Like many of you, I am angry that we find ourselves in this situation. On September 20, 2008 Treasury Secretary Paulson sent a proposal to Capitol Hill which too closely resembled a bailout of Wall Street. The original proposal was completely lacking in accountability for those in the financial community who created this mess. Congressional oversight of the plan was absent. There were inadequate protections for the American taxpayer. Even though this is not the bill I would have written, at a time when the crisis on Wall Street threatens to spread to Main Street it is not enough to say that we will punt. This is not a responsible option when we are talking about American families and American jobs hanging in the balance. When companies are encountering difficulty obtaining short term loans to make their payrolls, when automobiles and other products are not being sold because financing is not available, and when pension funds and the life savings of Americans are in jeopardy, there is no alternative. We are faced with a potential credit freeze that will impact all of us and cause prolonged pain for the economy and the American people. Congress needed to act." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Stands Firm on Need for More Stimulus, Less Wasteful Spending. 4 February 2009. "I was honored to stand with my colleagues in the House and Senate who believe we need to stimulate our economy as quickly as possible and not create a spending bonanza which fails to address our immediate problems. The latest version of the stimulus bill will help create a new debt bubble threatening to drown the next generation in a sea of red ink. The current price tag for the Senate stimulus bill is upwards of $900 billion: with interest added, it weighs in close to $1.1 trillion. That means an additional bill of $10,800 for the average family of four in my district. I do not intend to hand off such a disaster to my children and grandchildren. Families and businesses in my district are hurting. I supported the Economic Recovery Alternative which would put money in the hands of American families, small business owners and lay the foundation to increase private sector jobs. With millions of our fellow citizens hurting, our sole concern must be how we can effectively get our economy back on the path to recovery." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Subsidiarity. 15 May 2008. We must understand that each of us lose the sense of confiscation which occurs daily in our Tax Code when costs are disbursed, when a few cents here and a few dollars there are ignored, and, thus, all eyes turn to our Nation's Capital as if it were some giant piggy bank or money tree continuously sprouting new currency bills, dropping seeds of instantly created capital and supplying jobs, as if such things were not the exchanges of goods and services we make of citizens but, no, easily dispensed commodities which exist in some filled-to-the-brim barrel labeled `"jobs'' in the center of Capitol or the White House. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Today Was a Missed Opportunity to Help the Economy and the American People Press Releases. 13 February 2009. "Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) joined 176 Republicans and six Democrats in opposition to wasteful government spending by voting against today's $787 billion stimulus bill. The 1,000 page bill was a laundry list of government programs most of which would do little if nothing to stimulate the economy. Congressman Lungren released the following statement: 'Make no mistake; I understand the severity of our economic situation and the pressure weighing on all Americans during these tough times. Today I did not vote against economic recovery, I voted against wasteful government spending. I am disappointed with the passage of this ill advised bill. We need to create jobs, protect struggling American families, and lay the ground work for economic prosperity - this massive spending bill does little to accomplish those goals. Instead of allowing American families and small business owners to keep more of what they earn, Congress has just loaded more debt on their backs. I supported alternative legislation that micro-targeted economic recovery in three areas: one - support families through tax relief; two - provide economic relief for American businesses and entrepreneurs; and three - save future generations from a crushing debt burden. I understand we need to take action to revive our faltering economy. Let us not use this crisis as an excuse to recklessly throw away taxpayer's money only to say we did something. Congress could have served the American people better.'" (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Twin Dangers of Joblessness and Debt. 23 July 2010. "As I've heard from and talked with you and your neighbors, the number one concern voiced has been about jobs. We are all concerned about good, permanent jobs. We understand the agony of those who are unemployed and of those who are encountering difficulty finding jobs. But as much as I've heard about job creation and economic growth, the second concern is the out-of-control spending by this Congress and the debt we have incurred for ourselves, our children, and grandchildren. These are both emergencies: jobs and our debt. But they are not separate issues; rather, they feed into and off of one another. As our debt soars, our long-term economic outlook looks bleaker as the "day of reckoning" approaches. The specter of a future of trillion dollar deficits has led to an uncertainty which is affecting the present anemic job growth." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Sacramento Bee: Capitol Alert: Dan Lundgren measure passes to cut House spending. 2 February 2012. "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." (blogs.sacbee.com)
  • Dan Lungren. District Recap. 19 August 2010. "While the economic diversity, talent and work ethic of this District convince me we will prevail, it's clear what is needed is less government, not more. At Town Halls in Carmichael and Jackson people pointed out to me that -- for the most part -- government stimulus programs, cash-for-clunker gimmicks and other government money infusions have been analogous to junk food. In some respects they fill us up, they are lacking in the nutrition we need to maintain good economic health. What we need can only come from the private sector." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Economy and Job Creation. "This country is facing what most economists consider to be the most serious and the most dangerous economic situation in our lifetimes. Government must create policies that allow small and large businesses to put Californians to work and keep our economic engine moving." (votesmart.org)
  • The Club for Growth. 04/18/2012. "On the votes used to calculate its ratings, The Club for Growth attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2010, The Club for Growth gave Dan Lungren a rating of 83 percent." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 5297. 112th Congress. Small Business Lending Fund and Tax Law Amendments. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 09/23/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Budget. 10 July 2012. "I support additional funding for infrastructure spending to rebuild our nation's highways, bridges, and waterways. In fact, it is my belief that the focus of the Administration and the Congress should be centered on economic recovery. [¦] The primary aim of fiscal and monetary policy at this time should be to provide an environment for sustainable economic growth." (lungren.house.gov)
  • Americans for Prosperity. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 95 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Economy: Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" “ Transcript. 15 April 2011. "And the idea to have one of the highest rates of corporate taxes in the world is not the way to create jobs here. We"re trying to have a job growth program along with a fiscal program that has some responsibility to it. We"re tired of frankly not telling the truth to the American people." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Statement on May Unemployment Numbers. 1 June 2012. "I have called on the President to join us in adopting new policies which will return us to economic health. In short we need new policies to create new jobs. There are 29 pro-growth jobs bills currently lingering in the Senate with no hope of consideration. Those jobs bills passed the House with my enthusiastic support and are a good faith effort to help stimulate economic growth, restore certainty, and incentivize businesses to hire new employees." (www.votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Calaveras Enterprise - Congressman Addresses Large Crowd At An Angels Camp Town Hall Meeting. 17 February 2010. "Most jobs are created in the private sector in small- to medium-sized businesses. So how do we get small- and medium-sized business going? It seems to me tax cuts are the way we have done it in the past; tax cuts are the way we ought to do it now." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Democrats' Ticking Tax Bomb, Part IV - How the Democrats' Year-End Tax Hike Will Affect Senior Citizens. 31 October 2010. "Washington Democrats will impose a $3.8 trillion tax hike on hard-working Americans, resulting in higher taxes for every American who pays income taxes, as well as on small businesses, the engines of job creation. Unfortunately, Democrats have done nothing to disarm this ticking tax bomb." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. District Recap. 19 August 2010. "I want to push to retain the tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, and even add additional cuts. Suspending the payroll taxes for six months to a year is the kind of direct-to-business message that will stimulate real growth for the employers I have met. Reduced tax burdens will allow them to hire, expand and get the meddling misguided government out of their way." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. The Essence of the Greatness of America Lies in its People, Not in its Government. 24 February 2009. "[M]any of the American people do believe the argument that raising taxes in the midst of a recession doesn't make sense and that tax cuts, properly articulated, properly enforced, create a stimulus to the private sector, particularly the small- and medium-sized businesses where the jobs are really created, not the government sector." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Today Was a Missed Opportunity to Help the Economy and the American People Press Releases. 13 February 2009. "I supported alternative legislation that micro-targeted economic recovery in three areas: one - support families through tax relief; two - provide economic relief for American businesses and entrepreneurs; and three - save future generations from a crushing debt burden. I understand we need to take action to revive our faltering economy. Let us not use this crisis as an excuse to recklessly throw away taxpayer's money only to say we did something. Congress could have served the American people better.'" (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Education: Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Education. "The first and most important role of government in providing an education is to guarantee a safe environment for our students. We must also ensure that our schools are held accountable and to the highest standard and that we are giving local districts local control." (votesmart.org)
  • Dana M Nichols. Recordnet: Candidates for 3rd District go head to head. 23 October 2008. "On the No Child Left Behind act, Lungren praised the "national standards" the act created but then spent much of his response time discussing how he worked to get federal school funding for rural counties such as Calaveras that have small tax bases because of federal decisions to limit activities such as timber production on federal land." (www.recordnet.com)
Yes Inferred Answer Energy: Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Unveils Landmark Energy Bill. 24 July 2008. "˜Today, House Republicans are taking an 'all of the above' energy strategy and putting it into a single bill: H.R. 6656, the American Energy Act. The American Energy Act is a comprehensive approach that will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies. In addition to lowering gas prices, this landmark measure moves America in a direction that is less dependent on foreign oil,' Lungren said. The bill would open offshore regions, sections of the ANWR and oil shale deposits to environmentally safe drilling; trim red tape that impedes the construction of new refineries." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. The People Take Back the House. 1 August 2008. "The Majority leadership, most notably Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, have blocked a host of bills dealing with skyrocketing gas prices from even coming to a vote. Republicans have been pressing for an "all of the above" strategy, including drilling in ANWR and offshore, exploring shale oil possibilities, providing incentives for wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources, and increasing the use of nuclear power. But while Democrats have been busy blocking energy bills from the floor, Americans continue to suffer through America's energy crisis." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. The Economy and Energy. 15 June 2009. "There seems to be some sort of question as to whether or not we ought to exercise our responsibilities to utilize those energy sources that are most abundant in these United States [¦] we have abundant sources of petroleum offshore: offshore my State of California, offshore some of our other States in this Union. And yet we have a policy which basically says we ought not to utilize American technology, which has been utilized around the world, to safely extract petroleum. If you look at my State in California, you go to Santa Barbara, you will see historically there have been leaks from the bottom of the ocean there because of the pressure, because of the petroleum that lies under the ocean floor. We can actually take some of that pressure off by drilling and producing there." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. H Amdt 773. 112th Congress. Ending Moratorium on Deepwater Drilling Rigs that Meet Certain Safety Standards. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 07/30/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. The Economy and Energy. 15 June 2009. "I would say someone would have to be a hermit somewhere, stuck in a cave, not to understand that we have a terrible economic problem in California, a terrible problem with our budget, terrible deficits. And one of the ways that we could achieve some sort of stability with our budget in California, our State budget, would be to allow offshore drilling and take those royalties that would come to the State as a result of having that offshore drilling, bringing those moneys into the State Treasury." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. 11 May 2011. "We watched the President of the United States, supported by the Members on the other side of the aisle, journey to Brazil and laud their efforts to use American technology to explore and drill and maximize their recovery of their resources. He lauded them for it. He thanked them for it. He applauded them for it. Then he turned around and said, And we want to be your biggest customer. In other words, he promised that we would pay a foreign entity for a resource that we need. I'm absolutely convinced that my friends on the other side of the aisle will oppose any notion that we can have any offshore drilling unless we make Brazil the 51st State. That's how absurd it is." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. 11 May 2011. Referring to offshore drilling: "We also hear from the other side, well, it won't have any impact because it takes 5 to 10 years to develop it. I heard that on this floor 32 years ago. I heard that on this floor 27 years ago. I heard that on this floor 22 years ago. I heard that on this floor 5 years ago, and it is correct. My friends on the other side are correct. It will make no difference so long as they make sure we don't drill now, we don't drill 35 years from now, we don't drill 10 years from now. We are harming ourselves. It's time to stop the harm." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 1230. 112th Congress. Offshore Leasing Act. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 05/05/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 3534. 112th Congress. Offshore Drilling Regulations and Other Energy Law Amendments. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 07/30/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Environment America. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of Environment America 7 percent in 2009." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Environment: Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Energy and Environment. "Concern for our environment, coupled with rising fuel costs and continued unrest in oil-producing nations served as the impetus for introducing the New Options Petroleum Energy Conservation Act, or NOPEC (H.R. 1794). NOPEC would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by providing incentives for greater fuel efficiency in addition to alternate energy sources. One of the more innovative elements of the bill is the creation of a $1 billion prize to the first automobile manufacturer incorporated in the United States to successfully manufacture a midsize sedan that operates on gasoline and can travel 100 miles per gallon. This legislation would also provide funding for the development of zero emission clean energy technology. It is prudent for us to take action to minimize CO2 emissions. Therefore I have also supported reasonable steps to produce alternative sources of energy such as nuclear, solar, and geothermal power." (lungren.house.gov)
  • League of Conservation Voters. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Environment America. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of Environment America 7 percent in 2009." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 2454. 111th Congress. Energy and Environmental Law Amendments ("Cap and Trade"). Dan Lungren voted Nay on 06/26/2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 910. 112th Congress. Energy Tax Prevention Act. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 04/07/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. We Are Losing Our Freedom In The United States. 11 December 2009. There has been very little talk about freedom when we talked about the cap-and-trade bill, and yet we know it is going to impose tremendous taxes and a regulatory regime on virtually everything we do. When you turn on your light switch at home, when you turn on your computer, when you pick up your telephone, when you walk out the door, when you get in your car, when you drive your car, when you go anywhere, the costs are going to be enormous. One of the dirty little secrets around here is that they hope we won't notice because they will be hidden costs. You are not going to be presented with the cost every time you turn on your light switch, but it will be embedded in the cost that you pay on a monthly basis. It is not going to affect you each time you turn on the car because they are not going to put a bill in front of you every time you drive your car, but every time you get gasoline, you will. Any time you use anything that is energy related, you are going to pay a penalty, essentially, for using that, and that determination will be made by the Federal Government. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Elk Grove Townhall Questions. 2 April 2009. "The discourse now appears to be shifting to the more generalized terminology of "climate change." It is my view that sound science rather than ideological bias should direct our consideration of this issue. Furthermore, we must not look at any public policy question in isolation. At a time when the global economy is collapsing great care must be taken to ensure that any action taken with respect to climate change must not worsen poverty in the developing world. In fact, over the longer term, economic growth is necessary if nations are to make adaptations to the effects associated with climate change. Accordingly, it is my view that any response to the prospect of changes in our climate should focus on the development of new technologies rather than actions which would undermine global economic growth." [¦] "A so-called cap and trade system would establish a regulatory regime of hidden energy taxes which would be passed on to every American. Anyone who drives a car, turns on a light switch, or buys any product produced with energy will see their family budgets squeezed by the cap and trade proposal. Obviously, costs will also be passed on to renters. At a time when our economy is in a serious recession and unemployment is currently 10.8 percent in the Sacramento region, this is not the time to be planning new schemes which will burden future economic recovery. Cap and trade is a jobs killer. It will result in the loss of jobs to countries without such regulatory structures and have a devastating effect on the export of American made products. Our focus should be on growing the economy rather than growing government." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. We Are Losing Our Freedom In The United States. 11 December 2009. "[T]he EPA administrator made an endangerment finding on CO2 and other greenhouse gases as being pollutants. Now, you and I could sit down or others could sit down and argue about how we would define pollutants, but there is no one who can rationally argue, in my judgment, that the Clean Air Act, there was any anticipation by those who voted on it in the House or the Senate that this would include such a determination by the EPA administrator, and that as a result, the EPA administrator would be in the position of regulating our lives to the extent that he or she will have in the future. When you realize what this regulatory regime is going to be, they are telling us that if your Congress--that is, your legislators, and I am talking about generally if constituents would be told this--that your elected officials as legislators make the decision not to eventually pass cap-and-trade and give that authority to the Federal Government, it will not matter because the EPA has, by administrative decision, taken that out of the hands of the Congress and now will decide it themselves." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. We Are Losing Our Freedom In The United States. 11 December 2009. "We also hear that Members of this body, including the Speaker, are desirous of attending the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. It used to be called ``global warming.'' It is now called ``climate change.'' Many people have questions about global warming. You can't say there is not climate change, because that is one thing we can all agree on. Climate does change. That certainly doesn't help us understand what the nature of the climate change is and the cyclical nature of the climate change and the natural part of the climate change versus the man-made part. In fact, we have been told by some, including the former Vice President, that we have no right to question it. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, what you were taught when you were in school, but I was taught that science is the continuing activity of questioning, that science is attempting to pursue certain truths in the natural world, and the only way you can determine those is by constantly putting up your proposition to peer review, if you will, and questioning and that skepticism is a good thing; not cynicism, but skepticism. And yet we have been told that we are not allowed to question it, that all of the questions have been answered and that, therefore, we should genuflect to this current notion of the scientific determination and, in essence, take the normal sense of politics in the best sense, that is, I mean, individuals through their power at the ballot box, to be able to make determinations as to how they wish to be ruled in this, a self-governing Nation." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Guns: Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. H AMDT 1156. 110th Congress. Trigger Lock Amendment. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 06/28/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • National Rifle Association. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. National Rifle Association endorsed Dan Lungren in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Gun Owners of America. 04/18/2012. "In 2010 Gun Owners of America gave Dan Lungren a grade of 73." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. S 397. 109th Congress. Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 10/20/2005. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 6842. 110th Congress. Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 09/17/2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Second Amendment Issues. "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' As the Bill of Rights was specifically created to protect individual rights, it is my view that the right to bear arms is itself an individual right. I think it is clear that the founding fathers intended the Second Amendment to allow citizens to keep and bear arms for personal security and defense, which is why I have supported Second Amendment rights throughout my career as an elected official. Most recently, in the 109th Congress I supported a key piece of legislation, H.R. 5013, which affirms citizens' individual rights to keep a firearm by prohibiting the confiscation of firearms after natural disasters or emergencies. As Professors Lawrence Tribe and Akil Amar have written, when we diminish the importance of one constitutional provision it is a threat to other constitutional rights." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Second Amendment Upheld by High Court. 26 June 2008. "Today's ruling by the Supreme Court to uphold the right to own handguns for Washington D.C. residents is significant for all law abiding Americans. This decision affirms that the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right granted to individuals and not merely members of the militia. February of this year, I joined Sen. John McCain and others in signing an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court supporting today's decision. The decision of our nation's highest court reaffirms the principle that the right to keep and bear arms is as much individual liberty worthy of protection as the freedom of speech, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and other elements of our Bill of Rights. To have denied this first principle of constitutional jurisprudence would have potentially jeopardized other constitutional protections as well. The decision of the Court is thus a victory for all Americans and the security of their rights." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010. 27 July 2010. "Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010 because the bill does recognize that an individual's Second Amendment right to lawful self-defense is not suspended during periods of financial hardship. The Second Amendment confirms the right of every American to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Neither Federal nor any State legislature is permitted to enact a law infringing on this most basic right. [¦] The bill we're considering today, recognizing that constitutional rights do not halt in the face of financial difficulty, creates a new Federal exemption that places a personal firearm beyond the reach of creditors and allows the debtor to avoid liens on the firearm if they would otherwise prohibit him from taking the new exemption." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Health Care: Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Health Care Fix #2. 18 January 2011. "The debate on repealing the health care law began with discussion of the impact the law will have on the federal budget. We heard many times last year that the health care law would save the federal government money. But analysis by the House Budget Committee and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows otherwise. Those claiming the law saves money fail to account for the $115 billion needed to implement the law, double-count $521 billion from Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare cuts, exclude a costly Medicare physician payment reimbursement rates, and measure 10 years of revenues to offset six years of new spending. Including these costs reveals the true cost of the law: over $700 billion in red ink over the next decade [¦] Therefore, the health care law fails to save the federal government money. At the same time, it fails to save the American family money. Many families saw their premiums rise this past month despite promises that the health care law would contain costs. The Administration and 111th Congress may have been satisfied with the above scenario, but I'm not and from what I've heard, the American people aren't either. The House should find a way to expand coverage without compromising quality of care or bankrupting our country. A good first start would be repealing the $700 billion in spending in the health care law." (votesmart.org)
  • American Public Health Association. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 2. 112th Congress. Repealing the Health Care Bill. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 01/19/2011. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Votes to Restore Doctor Patient Relationship. 19 January 2011. "Last year the American people and small business spoke and I listened. The bill that was pushed through Congress last year includes a number of provisions that are of concern to the American people. Not only does it require every American to purchase health insurance, but it dictates the type of policy they must buy and where they must buy it. Moreover, the health care law hinders the creation of jobs when constituents in my district still face unemployment rates that exceed 12%. The law does not address rising health care costs and it places the massive federal bureaucracy between patients and their doctors. Personal health care decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors, not by bureaucrats or politicians in Washington. We all agree that health care can and should be improved, but last year's bill was not well thought out. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. My Mother Lode - Lungren Changes Opinion On Boehner. 7 January 2011. "Lungren adds that he fully supports Boehner's current efforts to repeal President Obama's Health Care reform legislation." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Health Care Fix #1. 18 January 2011. "Today the House is beginning consideration of H.R. 2 -- legislation that would repeal the health care law enacted last spring. It would also instruct four Committees to report legislation to the House that will replace the health care law. One of these four committees tasked with offering legislation to replace the law is the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. In the last Congress [¦] Our Committee should continue to evaluate areas where we can improve the health care landscape. Some things that will fall under our Committee's purview will be reforming medical malpractice litigation, buying insurance across state lines, and reviewing the constitutionality of certain provisions of the health care law, such as the individual mandate to purchase government-approved health insurance." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Health Care Fix #4. 20 January 2011. "Yesterday, the House passed legislation that would repeal the health care law by a bipartisan vote of 245-189. The repeal's future in the Senate in uncertain but we know if it reaches the President, he will veto it. Therefore, the House will take the next steps necessary to deconstruct the most harmful parts of the law while we also replace the law with more effective, less burdensome reforms." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Health Care. 12 March 2010. Referring to the individual mandate within the Affordable Care Act: "It is sometimes easily called an individual mandate, but no one really talks too much about that [¦] Here is my concern. There are those who say these bills are justified under the expansive reading of the commerce clause, and it is true in the past the Supreme Court has found a rather expansive view of the commerce clause. But if one suggests that one's own health and the decision on how one provides for one's own health is, in fact, a part of interstate commerce, which then grants the authority to the Federal Government to act, then the question I would ask is: What is left that is not covered by Federal authority? What part of your life is not covered by the Federal authority?" (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. MSNBC "Hardball With Chris Matthews" “ Transcript. 3 January 2011. Referring to the individual mandate within the Affordable Care Act: "You know something you got to realize? The U.S. Constitution is an inconvenient truth, and the inconvenient truth is that an individual mandate does not fall within the realm of what the federal government is allowed, if you believe there are any limitations on the federal government." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011. 3 March 2011. "By the way, if it is truly an affordable care act, why has Secretary Sebelius granted over 700 waivers to companies and unions? Because it's not affordable. Why has virtually every member of my constituency who has health insurance had an increase in their premiums as a direct result of the `'Affordable Care Act''?" (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Welcome Home to the People`s House. 7 Jan 2011. "Legislation must cite the power under the Constitution authorizing the enactment of the bill. This rule is needed because previous legislation has failed to pass constitutional muster. For instance, the constitutionality of portions of the health care law passed last year has been disputed and the individual mandate to purchase insurance has recently been struck down by a federal court. Citing the constitutional authority for law-making will be an aid in keeping Members -- and their legislation -- honest and as the Founding Fathers intended." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. HR 4437. 109th Congress. Border Security Bill. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 12/16/2005. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Immigration. "I have co-authored with my colleagues Nathan Deal and Brian Bilbray is the Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R. 1868). The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.' The Birthright Citizenship Act states that a person born in the United States shall be considered 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States if born of parents, one of whom is a citizen or national of the U.S.; an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or an alien performing active service in the armed forces. The children of those unlawfully present would not qualify for birthright citizenship. In regard to the question of amnesty, I will oppose any bill brought to the floor of the House that includes an amnesty provision that confers citizenship status. My major concern relates to the fact that there are millions of legal immigrants who wait years in order to obtain permanent residence and citizenship. It violates both fairness and respect for the law to allow those who have entered our country illegally to "cut in the front of the line" through the adoption of an amnesty provision." (lungren.house.gov)
  • US Immigration: The Possibility of Immigration Reform. 11 July 2012. '"Any form of amnesty will only encourage more illegal immigration.' And his colleague Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Ca) has said that any sort of comprehensive immigration reform is '¦not going to pass.'" (www.usimmigration.com)
  • National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of National Latino Congreso/William C. Velásquez Institute 17 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Legal Immigration. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Americans for Legal Immigration endorsed Dan Lungren in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Americans for Legal Immigration. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. Americans for Legal Immigration endorsed Dan Lungren in the 2012 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 5281. 112th Congress. DREAM Act. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 12/08/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Federation for American Immigration Reform. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 100 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Introduces Immigration Legislation. 21 May 2007. "Let me be clear the one thing my proposal would not do is establish a new process for the illegal alien population to become permanent residents and eventually citizens. Neither would it establish derivative immigration rights which would enable those who qualify for the program to bring their family members into the country. Under my proposal, if a 'blue card' holder seeks Legal Permanent Resident Status with derivative immigration rights, they must return to their country of origin and apply like anyone else who seeks such status. Turning to the issue of the temporary worker program, I believe the Senate's version should be 'fine tuned.' Unlike my colleagues in the Senate, my proposal would be limited to the agricultural sector. My bill would establish 10 regions throughout the country in which temporary agricultural workers could be brought into the country through a program administered by the Dept. of Agriculture." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Op-Ed: First Things First: What To Do On The Illegal Immigration Issue. 3 February 2010. "However, at a time when unemployment in parts of my congressional district is above 15 percent, it is simply not a friendly environment for anything that might be reasonably considered amnesty. The problem is that the public has caught onto the fact that once you get past the terminology, the real issue comes down to how we are going to deal with the 10 million-plus people here illegally. And the "path to citizenship" language or its equivalent unfortunately suggests the idea of preferential treatment - that is, cutting into line to obtain the most precious gift - U.S. citizenship. This is simply not a debate that in any way fits with what is going on in the rest of the country outside the Beltway. Trying to explain to a constituent who is out of work or who just received a foreclosure notice that humanitarian magnanimity should be extended to millions of illegal aliens and their relations located elsewhere is all but certain to encounter a hostile reception." (votesmart.org)
  • Trish Turner and Molly Hooper. Senate Takes Time Before Vote on Compromise Immigration Reform Bill [Fox News]. 1 May 2007. "Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., introduced legislation he said was 'an alternative to several of the large holes in the so-called Senate compromise.' [¦] Under his plan temporary workers would get to spend 10 months in the states, 2 months required back in country of origin with incentive to return for those two months. His incentives include requiring 'that FICA and the unemployment tax be withheld from the workers' wages and deposited into a trust fund. The employer contribution to FICA and the unemployment tax would be used for the purpose of administering the program. The employee contribution to FICA would be returned to the employee only upon return to his or her country of origin, and would be collected at the nearest American consulate.' According to his plan, if guest workers fail to be in their country within the period of time that they are required to be " that is, the two months out of the year that they're supposed to be there " they would forfeit the right to the money, would be ineligible for further participation in the program and would be subject to arrest and deportation if they came back to the U.S." (lungren.house.gov)
  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Immigration. 1 July 2011. "A second legislative proposal I have co-authored with my colleagues Nathan Deal and Brian Bilbray is the Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R. 1940). The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." The Birthright Citizenship Act states that a person born in the United States shall be considered 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States if born of parents, one of whom is a citizen or national of the U.S.; an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or an alien performing active service in the armed forces. The children of those unlawfully present would not qualify for birthright citizenship." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Issue Position: Immigration. 1 July 2011. "Recent reports in the press have revealed a different legislative response to the challenge of illegal immigration. This so-called 'Senate compromise' contains a controversial provision which would deem illegal immigrants living in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2007 as eligible for legalization. This proposal is simply too broad. By contrast, my bill would not provide amnesty. Those who have broken our laws should not have a special path to citizenship. Accordingly, the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act would create a new status-a 'blue card' if you will-that would allow those who have been here for more than five continuous years to apply for a program that would enable them to remain in the United States, to work here, and to travel in and outside of the country. Those who have established roots in our communities are in a far different situation than someone who has arrived here as recently as four months ago. Moreover, my bill would not establish derivative immigration rights which would enable those who qualify for the program to bring their family members into the country. "Blue card" holders seeking Legal Permanent Resident Status with derivative immigration rights must return to their country of origin and apply like anyone else who seeks such status. Those who have violated the law must not be allowed to cut in front of the line ahead of those who have sought to obey our immigration laws." (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Introduces the Defense of Marriage Amendment. 17 March 2005. "Congressman Dan Lungren (R-Gold River), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced the Defense of Marriage Amendment. The bill is designed to thwart efforts to undermine the sovereign right of the people of a state to defend the traditional definition of marriage. With this bill, Congressman Lungren is fulfilling a promise he made to the people of California's 3rd Congressional District to introduce a constitutional amendment designed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Says CA Court Decision Overturns Will of the People. 16 May 2008. "Congressman Dan Lungren issued the following statement condemning yesterday's judicial overreach by the California Supreme Court which overturned the will of the people of California who voted in 2000 to define marriage as being between one man and one woman: 'From coast to coast, from Massachusetts to California, courts have taken away the people's right to decide how they should be governed. This decision by the California Supreme Court is an astounding example of judicial fiat from the bench. This is a decision that should concern not only those who hold traditional values regarding marriage, but also anyone who believes in the rule of law and a representative form of government.'" (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Marriage Protection Amendment. 18 July 2006. "Mr. Speaker, the argument on the floor that somehow this is a church issue misses this point entirely. We are talking about the legal implications, and whether or not the Government of the United States can recognize a preferential status for marriage between one man and one woman. Now, is this unprecedented? No, it is not. Read your American history. The State of Utah was not allowed to become a State until they recognized marriage as being only between one man and one woman. That had to do with whether you could have multiple partners. This is a different aspect of that question, but essentially the legal basis is the same. And that is what we are talking about here. Those who wish to change this, as these activist judges do, carry the burden of arguing why we should change an institution which has stood the test of time for thousands of years. There are reasons for this in terms of it being the most stable unit of society upon which our society has found itself in need. That is what we are talking about. It is not discrimination. It is allowing the existence of a definition of the most fundamental unit of society. That is it simply. We are not intruding in the province of churches." (votesmart.org)
  • American Civil Liberties Union. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 14 percent in 2006." (votesmart.org)
  • Traditional Values Coalition. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Traditional Values Coalition 71 percent in 2006" (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 3685. 110th Congress. Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). Dan Lungren voted Nay on 11/07/2007. (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. HR 2965. 112th Congress. Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act. Dan Lungren voted Nay on 12/15/2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Human Rights Campaign. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 0 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. H J Res 88. 110th Congress. Same-Sex Marriage Resolution. Dan Lungren voted Yea on 07/18/2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Family Research Council. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Family Research Council 100 percent in 2006." (votesmart.org)
  • American Family Association. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the American Family Association 88 percent in 2010." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Subsidiarity. 15 May 2008. The concept of subsidiarity ultimately rests upon thing strength of individuals and families, and, in that regard, helps to remind us to protect the units of society which are at its most basic building blocks and bonds. Mere biology attests to the fact that the human race is perpetuated by the holistic union of men and women. Therefore, societies have recognized the indispensable role that families have played in the health of society. Marriage must be strengthened for other levels of society, the schools, the neighborhoods, the communities to flourish ¦ There is a reason that all cultures treat marriage as a matter of public concern, and even recognize it in law and regulate it. The family is the fundamental unit of society. Governments rely on families to produce something that governments need, but on their own they could not possibly produce, upright decent people who make honest law-abiding public spirited citizens. Marriage is the indispensable foundation of the family. Although all marriages and all cultures have their imperfections, children flourish in an environment where they benefit from the love and care of both mother and father and from the committed and exclusive love of their parents for each other. Anyone who believes in limited government should strongly back government support for the family¦ That's why I have advocated a constitutional amendment on the Federal level to enshrine the historic complimentarian definition of marriage. (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer National Security: Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. Lungren Statement On The Death Of Osama Bin Laden. 1 May 2011. "The horrific tragedy of September 11 was the main reason I felt the need to return to public service. In a region of Pakistan, the mastermind of that crime and the leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, Osama Bin Laden has been killed. I am pleased to hear this news. This is a strong reminder that actionable intelligence is the key to success in these types of operations. It is important we keep this in mind as we look at extending elements of the Patriot Act." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Social Security: Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Dan Lungren. KQED Radio Audio: Congressional Race, District 3. 26 October 2010. "I have some ideas specifically about that, giving people options. Allowing them perhaps to take a portion of that which goes into the trust fund now and allowing them to invest it. [¦] But that would have to be based on the fact that nothing would change for anybody 55 or older." [17:25]. (www.kqed.org)
  • Alliance for Retired Americans. 04/18/2012. "Dan Lungren supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 40 percent in 2008." (votesmart.org)
  • Dan Lungren. Elk Grove Townhall Questions. 2 May 2009. "The Democrats' budget also fails to address the coming crisis in our entitlement programs. With fewer workers supporting an increased number of seniors, and with the Baby Boom generation already having begun to retire, Medicare and Social Security finances are imperiled. If Democrats continue to fail to reform entitlements, the increased costs to fund these programs would require raising taxes by the current equivalent of $12,072 per household or eliminating every other government program. These programs have promised more than they can deliver. Right now, the Democrat budget increases the unfunded promises in Social Security and Medicare by almost $14 trillion over the next five years. 'Not addressing entitlement reform only saddles our children and grandchildren with crushing future debt. This budget represents an unfortunate missed opportunity by the Democrat majority to deal with an inevitable disaster waiting to happen. Every year we fail to act, the decisions we have to make to save Social Security and Medicare only become harder and the costs higher,' said Rep. Lungren." (votesmart.org)

Key

Candidate Answer

Official Position: Candidate had the Political Courage to address this issue directly.

Inferred Answer

Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue directly, but Project Vote Smart inferred this issue position based on the candidate's public statements, voting record, and evaluations from special interest groups.

Unknown Answer

Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue.

Project Vote Smart's Research: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position.

Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as the candidate has submitted it. Project Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.

Skip to top
Back to top