Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 8, H. Res. 197, and H. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 8 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 33 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 197 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to comments on the other side can be quite instructive; although I might warn my colleagues on the other side that they ought to be careful about the metaphors they use. One of those on the other side got up to criticize Republicans for trying to stop funding of abortions, which means saving babies, and used the unfortunate expression of ``don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.'' It shows how almost obtuse they are with respect to what we're actually talking about. The distinguished leader on the other side from Maryland quoted Henry Clay. I'd like to quote an outstanding American, his name is Steny Hoyer, who said just a couple of years ago here on this floor that if you can't budget, you can't govern. That's why we're in the problem that we're in today, because when they had control of both sides of Capitol Hill and the Presidency, they, for the first time since the Budget Act was passed, intentionally did not pass a budget because they were embarrassed about the numbers. And what did that lead to? That led to the fact that we didn't pass any of the 13 appropriations bills, which led to the fact that we have to deal with a CR. That's why we're in the mess we are today, because they did not budget. And now they have the effrontery to come out and criticize Paul Ryan, the Republican leader of the Budget Committee's suggestion that we be serious about budgeting around here and that we understand that we're driving our children into the ground and our grandchildren with debt that cannot be paid, and because we have the courage to bring forth a serious adult proposal on the budget, we are accused of trying to put children on the street and to not allow seniors to be able to eat. Come on. The American people are smarter than that. They want this House, this Senate, and this President to be adults. And to come here to this floor and to suggest that we're trying to kill Medicare--we're not trying to kill Medicare; we're trying to save Medicare. Every objective review has said it's going broke within 9 years. But maybe collective amnesia is the way to leadership. I hope not. I hope not, not for me, but for my children and my grandchildren. They deserve better. This country deserves better. We should be required to do better.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Upon which you can make an argument it is constitutional because it does not vary the pay given to either the President or the Congress, which----

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I believe regular order is to not interrupt one at the time that they are making the argument. Maybe it is because it is difficult to hear the words of the White House about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. If anyone wants us to act in vain, it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is, under any view, any view, unconstitutional. It violates the very terms of the Constitution with respect to the President and with respect to Members of Congress. So if you want to exert any influence on Members, if you believe this is the way to do it, you would accept the language that's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the Constitution. I do not find it funny. I find it tragic that on this floor--we just heard the great arguments from the other side of the aisle about observing the Constitution. And then they come to the floor and give us something which the White House says in its email to me is ``patently unconstitutional,'' not may be unconstitutional, not perhaps unconstitutional, not arguably unconstitutional, but ``patently unconstitutional.'' So the gentleman has presented us the kind of, I guess, shell game we talk about where it looks good when it's presented to you but, by sleight of hand, it makes sure that it has no impact whatsoever. The gentleman says, well, it will go right to the President. That is not true. This is not the bill sent over to us. It's the same language, so it does not go right to the President, number one. Number two, unless the President is sending me misinformation via his messenger, the President's position is it's patently unconstitutional. The DOJ's position, his Department of Justice says that it is patently unconstitutional. So I guess the gentleman is arguing to us, send it to the President so that he may commit a patently unconstitutional act. Now, I may have disagreements with the President, but I have no evidence whatsoever that the President is waiting with bated breath over at the White House for us to send something to him so that he can do an unconstitutional act. Perhaps the gentleman believes that is the position he wants to put the President in. And even though I have great disagreement with this President, frankly, I don't think that is an appropriate thing to do. So I would argue to my colleagues, reject this unanimously, because it is really something which doesn't pass the truth in labeling act; and more than that, it violates the Constitution on its very words. It's almost an attempt to directly violate the Constitution. You couldn't have written it better to violate the Constitution, but somehow the gentleman has achieved that high honor.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter: House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, March 31, 2011. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner: I write to formally notify you that the Committee on House Administration hereby waives further committee consideration of H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011, in order that the legislation may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. Sincerely, Daniel E. Lungren, Chairman.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I heard the eloquent plea of our friends from the other side of the aisle. Let me just read to you a message I received from the White House about this bill, with the words that the gentleman has presented on the floor. ``Unfortunately, S.B. 388''--which are the words the gentleman puts in his motion to recommit--``is patently unconstitutional, both as applied to Congress in violation of the 27th Amendment and to the President in violation of the compensation clause of Article II.''

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. No, I will not yield. So if one wants to, by this bill, have some pressure exerted on the House, the Senate, and the President, it would be in the language closer to that that's contained in the underlying bill----

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of her retirement on April 4, 2011, I rise to thank Ms. Marie Colarusso Higgs for over 38 years of outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives. Marie began her career here in 1971, while a student at Potomac Senior High School in Maryland. She first worked as a clerk in the office of The Honorable Frank M. Clark of Pennsylvania. She went on to work for The Honorable Stephen L. Neal of North Carolina, The Honorable Martin Frost of Texas, the Office of the Clerk, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. Marie has worked in every House office building from the basement of the Ford building to the fourth floor of the Capitol. Marie's commitment to public service was best demonstrated following the events of September 11, 2001. During that time, she worked tirelessly to assist in setting up temporary offices for Members displaced by the anthrax evacuation. Marie's enthusiasm, professionalism, and attention to detail have made her an invaluable team member on many special projects. Her generosity and support of others have endeared her to her many colleagues and friends in the House community. More recently, Marie demonstrated her commitment and dedication to serving others when she travelled to Nepal with her daughter, Erica, to participate in a Habitat for Humanity project this past October. While Marie's long-term plans for retirement are not set, her immediate plans include planning her daughter's wedding, pursuing more volunteer opportunities, and visiting America's wineries. On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I personally congratulate Marie on her retirement and thank her for her dedication and outstanding contributions to this institution. I wish Marie the best in all her future endeavors.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the question that has been raised during this discussion, and that is the provision dealing with the pay of Members of Congress and the President of the United States. The Senate has sent over to us a bill which purported to deny pay to the President of the United States and to the Congress on a permanent basis for any time that lapsed during which there was not authorization for appropriations for the conduct of government activities. It is on its face blatantly unconstitutional, violating the section of the Constitution that deals with the Presidential pay and, specifically, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which does not allow us to do that. The intent, as expressed by the author of the bill before us in the statement of the constitutional authority, makes it clear that we recognize the limits of the action that we can take, and instead we would in this way command those payments not to be made during the period of time in which there is inaction by the President and the Congress of the United States, thereby making a very serious and good faith attempt to put that pressure on Members of Congress and the President of the United States, but in a constitutional way. So Members should be aware of the difference between the language contained in this provision before us and that which was sent over here by the Senate, which on its face constitutional scholars have looked at it here on the House side and the Senate side and the White House and have suggested that bill that came over from the Senate would not stand up to constitutional examination. This is an attempt on our side to try to provide that action, if demanded by Members of Congress, in a way that would be rendered constitutional. So at least I wanted to make sure that as we debate this point of order, the rule and the bill, that it is clear what the intention of the author is in this case and why we are attempting to follow constitutional procedures.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor an old friend, Oliver (Ollie) Speraw, who on March 26, 2011 turned 90 years of age. Ollie has lived a life full of notable accomplishments where he became a captain of industry and a humble public servant. Ollie grew up in Long Beach after moving there at a young age with his family from Minnesota. As a young man Ollie worked in a number of different trades and contributed to the early war effort, riveting P- 38s, before finally coming of age to enlist in the Army Air Corps and serve during WW2. After returning home he entered the Real Estate Business, starting Sparrow Reality, and became one of the original pioneers of Century 21 Real Estate. Throughout his life, Ollie has been actively involved in his home town of Long Beach and the surrounding region, participating in multiple organizations such as the Long Beach Jaycees, Oceanside Chamber of Commerce and the Oceanside Rotary. In 1954, he began his first position in civilian public service as a member of the Long Beach Water Board, and served there until 1969. Ollie was inspired by Ronald Reagan, California's Governor at the time, and his message of an efficient, cost-cutting government. He subsequently volunteered for one of the Governor's citizen committees. Out of this inspiration, Ollie became more active in politics, which led him to become a Board Member on the 31st Senate District Republican Central Committee, of which I was also a member at the time. Ollie moved on to win his first election in 1979, where he joined the California State Senate and served there until 1984. While in the Senate he gained a reputation as a protector of the taxpayer who sought to make government leaner, effective and more efficient. Californians who have a little red organ donor sticker on their Drivers Licenses can be reminded daily of just a small piece of his legislative legacy. Ollie served his country with honor in World War II, helped pioneer one of the largest employers in the Real Estate industry and has honorably served the people of California as one of their elected officials. It has been my pleasure to know Ollie Speraw and more importantly, to call him my friend. Please join me in wishing him a happy 90th birthday.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to refer to the so-called health care reform bill as the Affordable Health Care Act. There are a lot of questions 1 year after passage. But one question has been answered. It is not the Affordable Medical Care Act. It is the Unaffordable Medical Care Act. Why do I say that? Well, HHS has decided to give over 1,000 waivers to businesses, to unions, and now even to States because they find they can't afford what is required in the bill. Secondly, I haven't met a single constituent whose health care cost by way of their insurance policies or programs has gone down. They have all gone up as a direct result of the bill passed on this floor and signed by the President. So let's at least have some truth in labeling. It is not the Affordable Health Care Act. It is increasingly becoming the Unaffordable Health Care Act.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Thank you very much. I was actually not going to speak on this rule until I heard the ranking member of the Rules Committee speak, and she made our point so eloquently I wanted to underscore it. I couldn't believe that she suggested that there was somehow a parity between national defense and NPR. She said, if we're going to come here and talk about de-funding NPR, then why shouldn't she get a shot at denying the Defense Department $8 billion or whatever it is. That's the point we're trying to make. We have a huge deficit, $228 billion in 1 month. In fact, it was the shortest month of the year, which just happened to be the total deficit for, I think, the entire year of 2007. You know, I don't know, I heard people on the other side of the aisle criticizing President Bush for deficits. He's a piker compared to what we're seeing right now in the White House. But the point is, how do we do anything here on the floor with respect to trying to bring spending under control if, as the gentlelady from New York suggests, we should treat equally the question of national defense and NPR? That's what the American people are rejecting. They're saying to you, why don't you establish priorities the way we establish priorities. And to come to the floor and suggest that somehow NPR is contained in the Constitution, as is the subject of national defense, I think is, frankly, ludicrous. So I hope the American people are listening. This is a debate on the rule to allow the bill to be brought to the floor. The gentlelady from New York has done a very good job of crystallizing the issue. If you don't believe we ought to set priorities, if you believe NPR is as important to this Nation as national defense, then reject the rule and reject the bill because the gentlelady is correct. If they're of equal weight, this is unfair because we are talking about NPR. We're not talking about somehow gutting national defense. But if you believe that somehow national defense has a slightly higher priority in the Constitution and in our constitutional governmental structure than does NPR, then you would reject the gentlelady's suggestion and say we came here to try and change things. We came here to try and somehow balance our books at some point in time in the future, but the way to do that is to establish priorities. If we, in fact, believe that saving NPR or giving NPR Federal funding is the same as funding our troops, then all is lost, all is lost; but I frankly was surprised to hear the comparison of us debating on money to keep our troops in the war zone versus NPR. That is the best example I have seen on the floor, perhaps the most honest example I've seen on floor, of the difference of the two parties and the difference in, I think, what the American people want us to do and what some in the leadership on the Democratic side want us to do.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am, as many are, going home hopefully this afternoon and will have town halls when I'm home, and maybe I will ask the question at my town halls: Do you believe that funding NPR is of the same importance or moment as funding our troops in the war zone? I believe that I will have an overwhelming response by the people of my district who suggest what we are doing with this rule is to allow us to deal with those kinds of issues, setting priorities that they sent us to Washington to do. So I again thank the gentleman for his time. I thank the gentlelady for explicating the difference between the two parties' approaches on this and understanding the sense of priorities that either exist or don't exist on this floor. For me, I will easily say that even though it may be a tough decision, I would vote to take Federal funding away from NPR in order to try to balance our books in the future and do what is necessary to defend this country and those other things that are contained in the Constitution.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 147 and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 27) providing for the acceptance of a statue of Gerald R. Ford from the people of Michigan for placement in the United States Capitol.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, President Ford was a wonderful person, as everyone has said here. He was a remarkable man. And one of the most remarkable things about him was the humility with which he carried himself through his entire life. An All-American football player, he was criticized for being clumsy by the national press at times, when in fact it was because he had a trick knee as a result of injuries that he suffered. But he never complained about that. I'd like to just mention one little anecdote that I think brings to the attention of people what a genuine person he was. We all know that President Ford took a rather controversial, and I would say courageous, act in granting a pardon to President Nixon because he thought it was best for this country. Now, some time thereafter, my father actually happened to be the physician attending to former President Nixon when he was suffering from his phlebitis attack which led to a near-death occasion while he was at Long Beach Memorial Hospital. President Ford heard about that, and President Ford was en route to California, and he immediately summoned his aides to him on Air Force One and said, I want to go visit Richard Nixon. His staff replied, Mr. President, we would advise against it. You've already received political heat for pardoning Mr. Nixon. And a personal visit like this would draw attention to that, and we would recommend against it. In response, Gerald Ford said, Richard Nixon is my friend; he is in trouble. I want to see him. So his aides then said, well, Mr. President, perhaps he is not well enough to see you. And President Ford said to his staff, call his doctor, call Pat Nixon, ask whether it would be good for me to visit him, and I will abide by their decision. They called up and talked to Mrs. Nixon, who then called my dad and asked whether it would be a good idea. And my dad said it might be the best thing for his health that could happen. And when that was told to Gerald Ford, he said, make it happen. And he did. He came and he visited Richard Nixon at the hospital. After it was over, he turned to his aide, his Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney, and said, that's as close to death as I've ever seen anybody, because President Nixon was very, very sick at the time. My dad called me up after that was over and said, this was a wonderful visit. It will help the health of President Nixon. And then he said to me, this--probably politically incorrect to say today, but my dad said, That President Ford, he's a real man's man. What he meant by that was he was a genuine person who, irrespective of the political consequences, decided to go forward with what most people would consider to be a genuine act of friendship, trying to help a friend in need, a friend who was in difficulty and, in fact, almost on the doorstep of death. But that was Gerald Ford. He acted the way we would all hope that we would act, without concern for the consequences politically. Gerald Ford was, in fact, a man's man. Mr. Speaker, I would urge our colleagues to support this resolution so that we might have the presence of Gerald Ford's statue here in our Nation's Capitol so that generations from now children can come and visit and ask questions about who that man, President Ford, really was, and perhaps they will get the real picture.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 27, providing for the acceptance of a statue of Gerald R. Ford from the people of Michigan for placement in the United States Capitol. President Gerald R. Ford was a distinguished Member and minority leader of this Chamber, a man of the House. He was Vice President of the United States and our 38th President. A proud citizen of the great State of Michigan, President Ford served this Nation at a time of great national pain and turmoil. He ably served and helped us heal our wounds. This resolution allows, at the direction of the people of Michigan, the Rotunda to be used for a ceremony in President Ford's honor on May 3 of this year. It also allows for the statue to be permanently displayed as part of the prestigious and historic national Statuary Hall collection. Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution, introduced by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and cosponsored by the other members of the Michigan delegation, should garner overwhelming bipartisan support. So I thank Mr. Upton for introducing it, and I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 27. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, March 10, 2011. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Michigan (Mrs. Miller).