Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it not correct that Members are supposed to address the Chair?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman's words be taken down once more.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I returned from my district here just a couple of days ago after hearing from my constituents at several town hall meetings. One of the things they made absolutely crystal clear was they wanted us to start over on health care. They weren't arguing for the status quo. They are arguing for a new start. So what do we have on Thursday? The President inviting Members from both Houses, both Democrat and Republican, for what? For what? A session in which it appears that the ground rules are going to be we are going to start with the House and the Senate bills. I don't know. I am proud to be in this House, in part because of my love of the Constitution. I look at the Constitution, and it says we have three different branches of government and we are responsible for legislation. I don't see where there is a monarchy, where you are supposed to go and have an audience with the monarch surrounded by his court jesters.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I, as many of my colleagues, have just returned from my district. During that time, I had two town hall meetings and numerous individual meetings with members of my constituency; and one thing was abundantly clear. On the subject of health care, overwhelmingly they told me to bring this message back to Washington, D.C.: Stop what you're doing, scrap the House bill, scrap the Senate bill and start over. Interestingly enough, national polls show that's the national sentiment. By about 61 or 62 to 28, at least, the American people are telling us, Back off, scrap what you've done, start over again. They're not asking for the status quo but they're asking for incremental approaches, and many of the things that Republicans have talked about are what the people are asking for. Yet today, I was very disappointed to see the President has decided to ignore the American people. His message to the American people at least coming out from the White House today is: Forget what you say. You're not smart enough to figure this out. We know better. We're going to forge ahead. Madam Speaker, let's listen to the American people.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the great work The Resource Connection has done on behalf of the community of Calaveras County. Having toured The Resource Connection Food Bank and witnessed the good work of Jeannie Hayward and her staff, it does not surprise me to learn that the generosity of the people of Calaveras County was recognized in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ``2009 Rural Development Progress Report.'' The residents of Calaveras County and the staff at The Resource Connection need to be congratulated as a community that consistently grows to meet and feed an ever-increasing need--no matter what. There was a time when the big hearts of this community were larger than the facility that housed it and the food bank literally had to turn away food or leave it outside at night. Now, thanks to a $1.36 million Community Facilities loan from USDA Rural Development--for which I wrote a letter of support--the food bank can operate out of a new, 5,500-square-foot building with offices and meeting space. It's been open just over a year and it was a blessing over the 2009 Holiday Season when the need was so great. Ms. Hayward is especially proud of the Santa's Express Committee, which served over 800 families at Thanksgiving and 1,300 families at Christmas. This was made possible because of the success of the Santa's Express Food Drive, which netted 28,000 pounds of food. In addition, the Food Bank was able to provide clothing and toys for the children of these families. Fraternal groups such as the Rotary, Lions, VFW, and others were team partners in this effort. I am pleased to recognize and congratulate The Resource Connection and the people of Calaveras County on their accomplishment in being recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it's kind of interesting that my friends from the other side keep beating up on Democrats. I think Bill Gates is a Democrat and I think the other gentleman that you mentioned is as well. But let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. It is amazing on this floor how we have convoluted the thought process. You see, we have a PAYGO system on the Democratic side that says you have to pay for tax cuts. What is that assumption? That is, every time you have a tax cut, that's a tax expenditure. That's the other language they used to use. In other words, the premise is that every dollar in your pocket is owned by the government, and only when they, at their sufferance, allow you to keep it is it okay. So if you give a tax cut or you maintain tax rates at present levels, you have an obligation here to somehow say, Thank you. Thank you Federal Government. Thank you members of the leadership on the Democratic side. You've allowed me to keep my money if I can show how you pay for it. It used to be the other way around, government only spends what it takes in; not saying that you, the average American, have an obligation to pay for whatever they want to do, and if you don't, you have to somehow pay for it. It is your money in the first instance.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. It returns the authority of managing our place to the Members of Congress. We are the legislative branch. The Capitol is our House. It is not the purview or within the province of the President of the United States. It seems strange, to say the least, that we have a process by which we do not direct who it is we establish as the person who is really the official caretaker of the Capitol. The Architect suggests that you sit in a room designing architectural designs for the purpose of new additions and new buildings, and the Architect would be responsible for that under his direction. But he really takes care of this place. He is the top appointed official to make sure that the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the entire Capitol complex runs. And somehow, we have set up a situation in which there is input by the House, input by the Senate, and the tiebreaker is the President of the United States essentially, and that really doesn't make sense. We don't choose who the chief usher of the White House is--and when I say ``chief usher,'' people don't realize that's the person who runs the White House complex. And so it just makes very, very good sense. And I congratulate the gentlelady for bringing this to our attention, the gentleman, Mr. Wamp, and the other cosponsors. So I rise in support of this bill, which will, as we say, establish a bicameral process by which we appoint the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect has carried the responsibility of preserving and enhancing the Capitol complex since construction on the U.S. Capitol began in 1793. Following the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, management and administration of that center was placed under the purview of the Architect--further cementing the Architect's role in support of the legislature and its operations. So accordingly, it is, as I say, the appropriate process by which the Architect is appointed by a bipartisan, bicameral process free of decisionmaking responsibility by the executive branch. The appointment process will be better aligned with the mission of the Office by emphasizing the relationship between the Architect and the ongoing legislative operations of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And urging support of that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope we have a unanimous vote in favor of H.R. 2843, and then I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see the wisdom of this and join us in reasserting the proper role of the legislative branch. And hopefully we can convince the President to give up this responsibility that I am sure does not weigh heavily on him at the present time. This makes good sense. It ought to be accepted on a unanimous vote.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor First Northern Bank as it marked its 100th year in business yesterday, February 1, 2010. First Northern Bank was established in 1910, and has remained faithful to its roots as an institution formed to address specific personalized needs. First Northern continues to serve such needs with a strong commitment to superior personal service, and commitment to support and reinvest in each of the communities the Bank serves. The Bank continues to maintain its commitment as a full service community bank serving the business, professional, personal, and real estate requirements of the people in Solano, Sacramento, Yolo, and Placer Counties--with a reach into neighboring El Dorado County. Back in 1910, a group of local Dixon businesspeople believed they weren't getting the kind of banking services they needed, so in the do- it-yourself tradition of an independent farming community, they voted on January 20th to open their own bank--an ``enterprise with all local capital and no outside investment or affiliations.'' Following a trip to San Francisco to purchase a safe and other supplies, their new bank opened for business a few days later on February 1, 1910, in a former ice cream parlor. After one month in business, the Bank had 93 accounts with deposits totaling more than $75,000. Today, deposits have grown to more than $650 million. Even though 100 years have passed, descendants of the Bank's founders are still shareholders and customers. Over the years, First Northern Bank has contributed millions of dollars to the communities it serves, in the form of direct financial support and in-kind services. I am pleased to recognize and congratulate First Northern Bank at this milestone, and anticipate many more successful years to come.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the administration made a tragic mistake when it decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates in a civilian courtroom in New York City. We now find that they realize there's been a mistake, but we don't know where they're going to go next. I'll give them a clue: If you didn't have Guantanamo Bay, you'd have to build it. That's the place he should remain. That's the place he should be tried. We should resume the military tribunals where he and his confederates had already indicated they wanted to plead guilty. We should forget this nonsense about bringing them to civilian courts in the United States. If it's too dangerous for New York, if it doesn't make sense for New York, it doesn't make sense for anywhere in the sovereign territory of the United States. Guantanamo is the perfect place for them to remain. Do not close Guantanamo. Keep them there. Try them there. Give them their meeting with justice there as well. Mr. Speaker, they're not attacking us because of Guantanamo Bay. They're attacking us because of the Statue of Liberty.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It is said that their previous decision in Austin allows ``censorship that is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations.'' Earlier this week the people of Massachusetts reminded us that here the people prevail, that the Constitution starts with the words, ``We, the people.'' That despite what the pundits say, despite what special interests say, the people prevail. Today the Supreme Court said the people can speak. It is a great day.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the idea of transparency in this and in all things. I think that some observers may not appreciate the issues that are before us when we are dealing with Indian rights, whether it is settlement or something else, because of the unique situation of Native Americans in the United States and how the relationship that we have with the Indian Nations is as a result directly of the Constitution of the United States. Often it is good for us to remind ourselves of the first principles involved when we are dealing with these issues. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also mention that today, in a blow for freedom, in a tremendous action of a return to first principles under the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court finally got it right. The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, finally focused on the first amendment and talked about the essence of the first amendment being political speech. We have been distracted so often in other decisions by the Court that they have lost in many times their focus on the fact that the first amendment is in essence a protection of our political speech. And today they overruled a previous case where they had wandered from that. They said to us that Congress cannot in fact make choices between preferred speakers and nonpreferred speakers, preferred organizations and nonpreferred organizations. And here is one of the kernels of truth contained in today's majority opinion. ``Political speech is so ingrained in this country's culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws.'' That oftentimes in this body we, in the effort to try and cleanse the political system from the possibility of people who might take undue advantage of it, render political speech to the sidelines. And the Court has said the people are smarter than that. They can get around that, and therefore we ought to attempt to allow the full flowering of political speech. The Court also said this. ``Rapid changes to technology--and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression--counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.'' This is a great day, Mr. Speaker. This is a great day. The Court said, ``Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the first amendment, and there is no support for the view that the amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' political speech.''

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues that are before this Congress, very, very serious issues. But on Christmas Day, we were reminded of one that we do not always think about, and that is the fact that we are still the subject of those who would use terror to take away our liberty. I would hope that, as the President has found it appropriate to use the word ``war'' and talk about the war with al Qaeda, that we would understand that it is more than words, it is actions; that we need to treat those who would attempt to kill us in this way as what they are, unlawful enemy combatants, not common criminals. We should not turn them over to our criminal justice system. We should allow them to be interrogated by the military. Madam Speaker, those who say that they are attacking us because of Guantanamo do not understand history, both long-term and short-term. They are not attacking us because of Guantanamo. They are attacking us because of the Statue of Liberty.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for the time and I thank him for bringing this bill to the floor. And I thank the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle for their support of this bill. Madam Speaker, I rise as one who was part of the bipartisan coalition who established in this Chamber the Martin Luther King holiday some two and a half decades ago. That was a glorious day here, and it was a day in which we acted for the right reasons. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born January 15, 1929. Perhaps it is fitting that Dr. King was born in that year, for while the great Crash of 1929 would shake the economic and financial fundamentals of our country and our society, Dr. King's life and work would just as dramatically shake this Nation into reconfirming our commitments to our moral and constitutional foundations. Madam Speaker, in honor of Dr. King, we do not have the time to recount the entire complex history of civil rights in this country, but Dr. King knew and appreciated the shoulders upon which he stood. Slavery was our founding fault, and segregation our enduring national stain. Dr. King knew these truths in his soul, and knew many we could discuss today that fought their struggles for civil rights and laid the groundwork for Dr. King's life work. The gentleman from Georgia is one of those people. We have individuals like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, the African Americans who so nobly, heroically, and tragically served in Congress after the Civil War, Booker T. Washington, the early founders of the NAACP, Emmett Till, Medgar Evers, the tirelessly persistent, transportation-less souls in Montgomery, the brave individuals in Birmingham, Alabama and Philadelphia, Mississippi, those who tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and many, many more. We think of those 180,000 African Americans who served and fought for this country during the Civil War, those who fought bravely against the suffering, the unspeakable lynchings, the violence, the de facto and de jure segregation and the enforced callousness and ruthlessness of being second-class citizens in a Nation founded upon liberty. Many could have been bitter. Those who succeeded were not bitter, but they called us to our better spirits. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on these precedents, rightly admonishing us to look to their example, and we should all take pride in their and his commitment to equality and to civil rights. Madam Speaker, Dr. King's letter from a Birmingham jail is one of the finest articulations of the moral prerequisites of the rule of law and its fundamental necessity to our legal, political, and societal foundations ever written. When I talk to school children, oftentimes I tell them to take a look at that letter. When you realize that letter was written without any access to books at the time, that he wrote under very difficult circumstances in a sparse jail cell, you appreciate even more the wisdom and the grace of the language that Dr. King used. His articulation of natural rights guided by natural law, of just and unjust laws, and of the objective and nonarbitrary basis for the rule of law, just government, and moral order is, in my judgment, without comparison. So as we call, in this resolution, people of this Nation, particularly young people, to dedicate a portion of that day to service to their country, let us remember the vision of Dr. King as he understood the true basis for laws in this country. When asked by some of the other ministers in Birmingham why he would interfere, he basically answered that it was his obligation to stand up against injustice. He said that he was a man of the law, but we were called to follow just laws, not unjust laws. He answered the question as to the difference between the two. And he, in my judgment, made a very, very specific reference to natural law in which he said that there are those laws which violate the laws of God, that we know them to be unjust, and therefore we must work against them. I also remember in that letter he said to these ministers, who were similarly Christian ministers, when they accused him of being an outside agitator, and I can only paraphrase his words, but he said words to this effect: He said, What was Christ but an outside agitator for love? What was Christ but someone who attempted to seek justice? And are not we called upon to do the same thing? So as we, in this resolution, call upon young people and others of this country to commit some time in the service of others, let them understand that Dr. King's appeal went deeper than just serving another; it was serving another for the right reason, it was for fighting for justice, not only in your community, but anywhere that you saw injustice. There are few heroes in any lifetime that you have; but certainly, for those of us old enough to have been alive during Dr. King's lifetime, even though we may not have marched with him, we were honored to be part of a generation that saw his life and his commitment and his call to justice and truth and, fundamentally, to a full application of the Constitution of the United States and the foundations upon which this country is based. I thank you for the time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Arthur Price for his 28 years of service. Art Price was born in Escondido, California, October 13, 1951 to Arthur and Betty Price. He graduated from Ramona High School in 1969, then Grossmont Jr. College and California State University, Sacramento--earning a B.A. in Criminal Justice. Art met Kathryn Price and was married on August 18, 1974. He graduated from P.O.S.T. in 1980 and was hired as a District Attorney Investigator for the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office. On June 15, 1981, he was hired as the Chief Investigator for the Amador County District Attorney's Office, and has faithfully served five District Attorney Administrations as Chief Investigator since then. Art played a key role in assisting the District Attorney in receiving the Auto Insurance Fraud, Workers' Compensation Fraud, and Elder Abuse grant programs, and Art's influence was critical in forging an alliance between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Social Services to combat welfare fraud in our community. In 2002, Art was recognized by his peers as the Amador County Peace Officer of the Year. At the time of his retirement, Art was the longest serving District Attorney Chief Investigator in the State of California, recognized statewide as a leader in law enforcement. Art has also been active in the state law enforcement community through his work with the California District Attorney Investigator's Association, serving as president in 1999-2000. Art's greatest legacy is his service to the community, having served as soccer coach, President of the Mother Lode Youth Soccer League, fundraiser for the Amador Polar Bears swim team and the Amador High School Volleyball team, Project Leader for the Sierra Eagles 4-H, Food Chairman for Sober Grad, member of the Jackson Lions and other positions for worthy causes. Art is a devoted family man and father to five children--Arthur, Janice, Cheryl, Victoria, and John--and grandfather to four--Arthur, Kaitlyn, Timothy, and David. I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Art Price for his dedication towards the District Attorney's Office, local law enforcement, and the citizens of Amador County.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, tomorrow in my district--in Folsom, California--Numonyx will establish its North American headquarters. Numonyx is a leading semiconductor technology firm that specializes in memory products. Approximately 450 members of the Numonyx global workforce will be located in nearly 100,000 square feet of building space on its new campus. The campus will house product research and development, business management, testing labs, validation labs, sales, marketing, and more. Folsom was chosen as the new home for Numonyx due to its business- friendly environment, highly skilled and educated workforce as well as being a family-oriented community. Numonyx will play an important role in the ongoing growth of the workforce, economy and technical skill within the greater Sacramento region. Beyond the obvious business, employment, and economic benefits, Numonyx's impact reaches the community at large with ``Numonyx in Your Neighborhood'' campaigns. These campaigns assist in meeting the needs of individuals and charitable organizations within the Sacramento region. I am pleased that this leading-edge and high impact company has chosen California's 3rd district as its home.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 905, which recognizes the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Louis Brandeis from the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no doubt he was a brilliant man, and he believed the law was best served as a vehicle to correct injustices, rather than a gateway to make money. Justice Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1856, the son of Jewish immigrants from Prague, now in the Czech Republic. He excelled in the public schools of his hometown and later studied in Germany. He grew up in a refined and engaged household in which history, politics, and culture were discussed regularly at the dinner table. I might add that one of his early influences was his uncle, Lewis Dembitz, who I'm proud to note attended the Republican Party Convention in 1860 that nominated Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. He enrolled in Harvard Law School at age 19, studied so hard that his eyesight failed. Rather than quit school, he paid fellow students to read his textbooks out loud so he could memorize their content. He graduated with the highest grade point average in the history of Harvard Law School at that time. He was best known for his work as a lawyer and justice, and while he eventually earned good money practicing law, he devoted most of his professional life to public causes. He argued cases and wrote treatises on privacy, labor relations and antitrust matters, and he assisted the Wilson administration in crafting the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission. He served on the Supreme Court for 23 years and issued seminal opinions on many of the subjects that consumed him as a lawyer. And yes, he did believe in States being the laboratories of democracy. I enjoyed the gentleman's comments of reference to my home State of California and, I might say, rather than choose the subject he chose as an example of California being one of those laboratories, I would suggest Proposition 13, or perhaps three strikes and you're out, as guiding lights to the rest of the Nation as to how we ought to organize ourselves. Unfortunately, my home State has forgotten some of those messages in the recent past. Mr. Speaker, Justice Brandeis was not without his critics, but this is not the time nor the place to air old grievances. Rather, we're here to honor a man, and so I would use somebody else as a reference point, William O. Douglas, who described Justice Brandeis as being ``dangerous because he was incorruptible.'' I urge the Members to support H. Res. 905. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is interesting that we have heard of Justice Brandeis' commitment to the First Amendment. One can only wonder what he would think of the current state of interpretation of the First Amendment where, unfortunately, it appears that we give greater protection to nude dancing than we do to political speech. One would hope that the Supreme Court, as we anticipate its decision in the most recent challenge to aspects of McCain-Feingold, might listen to some of the interpretations and wisdom of Louis Brandeis with respect to the essence of the First Amendment. One would hope that we would, once again, regain the notion that protection of political speech is at the forefront of the First Amendment, not an afterthought to the First Amendment, and that when we have gone so far as to have someone representing the Solicitor General of the United States, responding to a question in the Supreme Court, saying in response to the question, So, the law would give you the right to ban books if they said what is contained in the script of the movie that the FEC believes it has the right to stop during the period of time before an election, the response from the representative of the executive branch was, yes. If we have come so far that banning books is seen as something allowed under the First Amendment because of the pursuit of purity in political campaigns, then we have lost sight of the First Amendment as understood and expressed by Louis Brandeis. And so I would hope that as we look forward to the end of this year that we could look forward to a Supreme Court that comes to its senses and understands the essence of the First Amendment. Once again, I would urge my colleagues to unanimously support this recognition on the 70th anniversary of the retirement from the Supreme Court of Louis Brandeis. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, some days ago, when we were discussing and debating and voting on the health care bill, I got a call in my office from one of my constituents. After we had spoken for some time, he said, I have a confession to make. He said, I voted for President Obama because I thought that he would bring us together and that there was hope. But then he said these words, But I did not vote for this madness. What did he mean? I guess maybe he was talking about a health care bill that's going to cost more money, going to raise taxes, and not going to take care of all Americans. I guess he was talking about a cap-and-trade bill that will put a burden on every single American. I guess he was talking about a proposal that comes to us that says, oh, we have a huge deficit and we're going to work our way out by spending more. And I suppose he may have been here to hear one of my colleagues just a moment ago who said, When Democrats meet behind closed doors, they come out for transparency. It seems absurd, perhaps because it is.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4194, the Law Student Clinic Participation Act of 2009, makes a simple yet important change to Federal law so as to increase law students' access to clinics and other law school programs. Nearly 44,000 law students nationwide will graduate this year from more than 200 law schools across this country. During their time in school, each of these students will study property, criminal, constitutional, and contract law, just to name a few. And these classes not only instruct the students on the relevant case law or statutes but also attempt to teach them how to think like a lawyer; that is, to analyze cases from a lawyer's perspective. As important as that is, equally important are the clinical programs offered by virtually every law school in the country that teach students how to practice law. Clinical programs include prosecution and defense, appellate advocacy, including death penalty appeals projects, juvenile justice, and even tax assistance clinics. Yet, a little-known provision in Federal criminal law--Federal criminal law; that is, it makes is a crime--prevents certain law students from participating in these clinics. In other words, they would be subject to criminal penalties if they participated in these clinics. That is because section 205 of title 18 prescribes criminal penalties for government employees who provide outside legal assistance in a case against the United States or adverse to a substantial U.S. interest. Therefore, law school students, or even staff, who are also employed by the Federal Government, full time or part time, may be barred from participating in these valuable clinical programs. The impact of this provision is perhaps no greater than right here in our Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, which is the home to over half a dozen law schools. It comes as no surprise that many of these schools' students are also Federal Government employees. Some of the schools have night programs, so the students work full time during the day and take classes at night. Many times they do work for the Federal Government or the D.C. Government, but because of their employment, they are, therefore, disqualified from participating in these extremely beneficial programs. This was most certainly not Congress' intent when it enacted section 205. H.R. 4194, remedies this problem by extending an existing exemption within the statute to include Federal employee law students. The bill, therefore, appropriately allows students and staff to participate in clinics, including those that are adverse to the Federal or D.C. Governments; however--and this is important--the bill continues to prohibit any actual conflict of interest involving specific parties. Therefore, if the student or staff member is involved in a matter which would be a direct conflict of interest, they are not covered by this waiver. It would seem that this is a commonsense solution to provide those students employed by the government the same opportunities as other students. I might say, Mr. Speaker, when this came to my attention, I thought that perhaps we could have a relatively simple, straightforward waiver or exemption to take care of this problem, which was unanticipated by the Congress when it passed the relevant law, and, therefore, I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. And if the gentleman from Tennessee has no other speakers, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I believe it's not only on wheelchairs. As someone who recently, well, 2 years ago, had a new hip replacement, I understand that I was lucky I had it then because under this bill, a hip replacement, like a wheelchair, would be considered a piece of medical equipment and there would be a tax placed on that. So for the privilege of being injured in some way and then receiving medical attention requiring a piece of medical equipment, you get the indignity of having a tax placed on you. Now I don't know what kind of a tax you call that. It's not a comfort tax. It's not a sin tax. Do you remember when we used to call these taxes on cigarettes and alcohol ``sin tax'' because they were supposedly aimed at vices that people had? But it makes very little sense. And here is the other thing. I had the tele-town hall the other night, and one of the people on the line said, well, why don't you just have a government program and why not just do it through the Medicaid system; expand it for other people to have it in the Medicaid system. And I said to her, well, how would we pay for it? Well, we just pay for it through taxes. And so I was reminded of that great quote by the French economist, Frederic Bastiat, who said many years ago that the state is that great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Now what he was saying is when we create in our argumentation the idea of ``state'' without understanding what we're talking about, it is easy to say, well, the state can take care of it, or we'll just tax for it; where the suggestion is that somehow that comes from somewhere else. And if you got it down to the real individual level and say, at what point do I have a right to say to you that I can reach into your pocket and take money from your pocket to pay for something I want done? Now I think we would all agree that there are those who can't help themselves, that we want to create some sort of safety net. But if the idea that we are going to have larger and larger percentages of the population have their needs or wants taken care of by the government because it doesn't cost them anything, at some point in time, we are going to reach that point of which Margaret Thatcher spoke, when she said, the problem with socialism is pretty soon you run out of other people's money. And it's even more than that, because if you corrupt our system such that people forget to, well, people no longer understand how you generate wealth, rather than just redistribute wealth, you essentially create less wealth, you essentially put limitations that otherwise would not exist on creating new wealth that then can be utilized for individuals and their lives and, yes, to support government. I think that is what we have to continue to remind ourselves, not necessarily remind our constituents, but remind ourselves because we are here making these decisions, that just as Ronald Reagan said, freedom is never free, meaning that we always have to have a commitment towards freedom on a military sense and people that would sacrifice, freedom is not automatically free in our own country. We have to fight for it all the time, and we have to remind ourselves sometimes that maybe we have to ask more of ourselves individually, in our own families, in our churches and in our voluntary associations to do more. And we ask more of ourselves and less of government, and then determine exactly those areas where we help people who truly can't help themselves and make sure that we have a true undergirding of our society to help those people. But don't basically damage the capacity of the American people to use their genius, use their creativity and use their dedication to try and utilize the talents God gave them.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. How well did that work?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It sounds as if they were talking about freedom or liberty with responsibility.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And I think we need to talk about both ends of it. If we are going to be a free people, we have to be a responsible people. If we are going to be a people who cherish freedom, we have to be a people who cherish responsibility. And we must ask of ourselves, each and every one of us, to be responsible in our actions, to understand there is something of the common good that requires something of all of us, but that if we, in fact, mistake that notion or misinterpret that notion such that we think that no longer are individuals free, and that only important questions can be decided by the Federal Government, and in the Federal context only by the Supreme Court, what we are doing is not only becoming dependent on others, in this case government, but we are undercutting the tremendous, as I say, vitality that this country has always had. And so we're not only cheating ourselves, but we're cheating everybody else, as well. I think that every once in a while it is good for us to have a conversation on this floor about, some would say, huge concepts of freedom. I would say essential concepts of freedom, foundational concepts such as freedom, freedom which is spelled out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And so, I would just hope that as we continue in the last days of this congressional year, and as we look forward to the next congressional year, that we not forget about freedom and that, in fact, as we try and meet the challenges of the present and the future, that freedom be our lodestar. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.