Daniel Lungren

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 today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 132, providing funding to ensure the printing and production of the authorized number of copies of the revised and updated version of the House document entitled ``Hispanic Americans in Congress.'' The previous authorization from the 107th Congress did not authorize sufficient funds to make available to Members the same number of copies as the previous publications of ``Black Americans in Congress'' and ``Women in Congress.'' Additionally, the resolution also authorizes the electronic publication of ``Hispanic Americans in Congress,'' ``Women in Congress,'' and ``Black Americans in Congress,'' thereby bringing us up to what is becoming more and more the way of publication, that is, by electronic means. This resolution will help to ensure that this valuable history will be available for future generations. I would urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 132) providing funding to ensure the printing and production of the authorized number of copies of the revised and updated version of the House document entitled ``Hispanic Americans in Congress,'' and for other purposes.

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 today in support of H.R. 6336, a bill that I had the privilege to introduce with my esteemed colleague, the representative from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This bill appropriately places a statue of Frederick Douglass into Emancipation Hall in the U.S. Congress. Frederick Douglass is a pivotal figure in American history who had an unyielding dedication to equal rights, the abolition of slavery, and the advancement of women's suffrage. In addition to a gripping personal saga detailing his flight from slavery to freedom, Frederick Douglass inspired a nation through both his compelling antislavery writings and his rhetoric. Published in 1845, his eloquent autobiography ``Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave'' undercut pro-slavery arguments. He challenged enslavement, and he inspired individuals seeking their freedom. After the Civil War, he served in a number of government positions and became the first African American to receive a vote for nomination as President of the United States at the 1888 Republican National Convention--yes, I would repeat, the Republican National Convention. He was a proud Republican. Mr. Speaker, September 22 marks the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln signing the preliminary proclamation that paved the way for the Emancipation Proclamation to be signed on January 1, 1863. How fitting that a statue honoring Frederick Douglass, a man who brought freedom to so many, will be on display in Emancipation Hall. In considering the remarkable achievements of Frederick Douglass and his contributions to our rich history, his presence within the U.S. Capitol will honor this institution and serve as an endearing testimony to the struggle for freedom and equality. I would like to thank again my colleague, the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I know she, unfortunately, couldn't be here today because I know she has a requirement to teach a class; otherwise, she would be here. But I wanted to thank her for her tireless work to bring this statue to the Capitol, as well as our counterparts in the Senate, the Senate Rules Committee. As many know, Senator Schumer introduced the companion legislation in the Senate. I thank my ranking member for his support in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I look forward to welcoming the statue of Frederick Douglass to Emancipation Hall very soon. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 want to make it very, very clear: this does not change the law that the campaign funds would have to be used for a charitable purpose or for a political purpose, that is, to a party or candidate. It doesn't change that at all. It just changes the person who would have the decisionmaking responsibility. And since this is a situation where a Member or someone running for office would die, those funds, in some cases, would probably--the candidate would have wished them to go to a particular charity or series of charities. And this would ensure that those people who know best the candidate and know what his or her desires would be would make that determination. But it does not in any way change it so that it could be used for personal purposes by the family or anybody else designated. It would still have to go to those legitimate legal purposes for which campaign funds are limited. It would do nothing more than change the person who would make that determination, and we have a real-life experience of that occurring, and that is why I support this very strongly. It has been supported strongly in the House before; and if we can get the attention of our friends on the other side of the Capitol, we can make this happen, and I think it would be a good, good thing. So with that, I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a distinguished member on the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced by our colleague, Congressman Walter Jones. It simply amends the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 to permit candidates for election for Federal office to designate an individual who would be authorized to disburse campaign funds in the event of the death of the candidate. Every private citizen who decides to become a candidate for public office is driven by issues that inspire and motivate them to want to serve. Often those issues outlive the individuals who champion their ideals. This bill will ensure that every Federal candidate will have the opportunity to appoint a trusted individual to distribute campaign funds in the event they die. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 406, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 406) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to permit candidates for election for Federal office to designate an individual who will be authorized to disburse funds of the authorized campaign committees of the candidate in the event of the death of the candidate.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

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 would ask all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6122 to revise the authority of the Librarian of Congress to accept gifts and bequests on behalf of the Library, and for other purposes. This bill simply authorizes the Librarian of Congress to accept nonmonetary gifts of securities, personal property valued at $25,000 or less, and voluntary and uncompensated personal services. The Librarian is required to disclose a description of each gift or bequest valued at $1,000 or more in the Annual Report of the Library of Congress. Over its history, the Library has been offered various types of donations that it has not had authority to accept. These would include donations of IT equipment, audiovisual equipment, and volunteer services outside of the American Folklife Center or the Center for the Book. While the Library is currently authorized to accept monetary gifts, this bill authorizes benevolent individuals to give back to the Library in other ways that would be beneficial to the Library's mission and therefore to this Congress and to the United States. I would urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 6122, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6122) to revise the authority of the Librarian of Congress to accept gifts and bequests on behalf of the Library, and for other purposes.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3510) to prevent harm to the national security or endangering the military officers and civilian employees to whom internet publication of certain information applies, and for other purposes, 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 to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1402) to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives at no net cost to the Federal Government, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the bill at the desk.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 739) to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the Senate at no net cost to the Federal Government, 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 when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Camellia Symphony Orchestra of Sacramento, California. The Camellia Symphony Orchestra is one of Sacramento's prized assets and has deep roots in the region. Today's Orchestra traces its beginnings back to a small group of local musicians who began informally gathering together and playing music, simply for the fun of it. This group began performing at Encina High School, originally naming themselves the ``Pot Luck Symphony.'' On September 1, 1962, the group formally organized eventually adopting the name the North Area Community Symphony. Ever since that September evening, the Orchestra has continued to grow, educate and entertain people in the Sacramento area. By 1970 the Orchestra changed its name to the Camellia Symphony and became a regular participant of Camellia Day events held annually by the City of Sacramento. As the Orchestra has grown, it continues to earn national praise while also showcasing the talent of Sacramentans across the country. In 1979 the Camellia Symphony won its first of many future ASCAP awards, and in 1986 won the prestigious ``INDIE'' award for best classical release. As the years have progressed, the Camellia Symphony Orchestra has developed and produced innovative, historical and exciting performances, earning a reputation as one of the finest orchestras in the region. While earning this reputation of excellence, the Orchestra has continued to give back to the Sacramento community, providing opportunities for local musicians to display their musical ability. The Orchestra's commitment to community is seen through its ongoing collaboration with a variety of Sacramento events and organizations, such as Camerata California, the Strauss Festival, St. John's Lutheran Church and many others in the region. On behalf of all those in the Sacramento area who appreciate what the Camellia Symphony Orchestra means to our community, I would like to congratulate them on their 50th anniversary and wish them many more years of success and prosperity.

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 the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 135) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, in recognition of her leadership and perseverance in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma, 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 the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 133) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the United States Capitol for an event to present the Congressional Gold Medal to Arnold Palmer, in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, has outlined in much detail how the current law--some call it ObamaCare, and some call it the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--does not do what it claims to. In fact, it does not protect the patient, and it does not provide affordable care. He also pointed out that, when this bill was argued on this floor and in the other body, it was denied time and time again that it was a tax. We recall the President of the United States on several public occasions denied it was a tax. Yet he had his administration argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of constitutionality that it was a tax. The American people view the Federal Government as an entity. What have they seen with respect to this as it went from the executive branch to the legislative branch to the judiciary branch? They find that they were played. They find that what they were told at one point was not that which it was at the other point. If you look at the Supreme Court's decision, they had to first consider whether this was a tax under what's known as the Anti- Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act essentially says you can't contest a tax until it has been visited upon you. The question was, since the individual mandate, conceived as a tax, doesn't come into effect for some time, how could it be before the Court? The Court said, for purposes of standing, it is not a tax. Then they went and analyzed the individual mandate and said, Is it constitutional under the Commerce Clause? No. Is it constitutional under the necessary and proper clause, or the Spending Clause? No. But then they said, We will interpret this mandate, this penalty, as a tax for purposes of constitutionality as argued by the administration, which had denied it when it was arguing that case here in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Is it any wonder people are cynical about this? Is it any wonder that people begin to lose their confidence in a government that will not present facts consistently to them? I will not say there were any intentional lies made, but I will say that the American people have to question if they have confidence in their government when they say one thing at one time and say another thing at another. In fact, now by virtue of the Supreme Court decision, this is the largest single tax on the middle class of America in history. That's what we're talking about. Can we do better? We believe we can. We believe that you can provide affordable health care for the American people without the largest single middle class tax in the history of the Nation, which puts the Federal Government in the position of being between the patient and the doctor. It is the antithesis of patient-centered health care. That's why we're here. We're not here because we believe the present system is perfect. We think it is broken. The status quo is not acceptable. But we believe that this bill, ObamaCare, that is before this Congress right now is unacceptable to the American people because it exacerbates the problems that we find in our health care delivery system. That's why we're here. The fact of the matter that we've voted several times to repeal it and have yet to be successful is no reason for us to give up. We are standing here for the American people against the largest middle class tax increase in the history of the United States, and we will not stop until we are ultimately successful.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we've just had a very important vote and some would ask what this second vote is about. This second vote is a simple authorization for the committee involved to be able to essentially hire counsel that would allow us to go into court to seek a declaratory judgment by the Federal court to enforce the subpoenas that have been presented by this committee to the Attorney General of the United States. It's a simple, straightforward resolution. Why is it important? One of our obligations under the Constitution is to provide oversight of the executive branch. There are those in this body who have been here and engaged in debate with respect to important items such as the PATRIOT Act and FISA. One of the things that we've attempted to assure our constituents was that we would ensure that the constitutional rights of Americans would not be trampled upon as we carry out the appropriate responsibility of protecting this country and our constituents against terrorist attack. That requires us to provide active oversight over the executive branch. Similarly, in this case, we have an obligation to stand in the shoes of those we represent, to oversee the operations of the executive branch--in this case, the Department of Justice--to ensure that they are following the law. One manner in which that can be frustrated is by a department--in this case, the Department of Justice--that refuses to respond to lawful subpoenas and give us the information so that we can do that oversight. That is what we were talking about. This Congress, this House of Representatives, was misled. I don't know whether it was intentional or not. I do know we were misled by a representation from the Justice Department in an official response to an inquiry by the Congress of the United States. That was not corrected for 10 months. You can look at it a couple of ways. One is that there was an attempt to slow-walk the Congress so that it could not carry out its constitutional responsibility. There is a lot of talk on this floor by both Democrats and Republicans as to how we have an obligation to oversee the executive branch. In fact, one of the genius points of our Founding Fathers' Constitution is that conflict between or among the three branches of government, that natural tension. But that natural tension cannot exist and we cannot do that which we are called upon under the Constitution to do faithfully if we are denied information to oversee the operations of the Department of Justice.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So all we are doing simply is asking for the authorization so that this committee can have the representation of counsel to see that these subpoenas are carried out. Since we have been given every sense from the Justice Department that it would be folly, in a sense, to suggest that they would carry out the actions that we just voted upon against the Attorney General, this is the method by which we can achieve that which we are required to do; that is, to carry out oversight responsibility against the executive department, including the Department of Justice.