Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize a constituent of mine, Gail Belmont from Valley Springs, CA. Gail is an Operation Officer in the Quilts of Valor Foundation. She will be in Washington, DC next month. A ``Quilt of Valor'' is a wartime quilt made to honor our War Wounded. It is given to all wounded service men and women to show these brave young men and women how much their sacrifice and service is appreciated. These quilts are meant to provide comfort, love and healing to those who have given so much. It is a tangible way to say, ``Thank you for your sacrifice and service for our country.'' It is not a charity quilt nor a service quilt. It is a beautifully pieced and quilted wartime quilt. It is a wartime quilt made by wartime quilters. Over 22,000 quilts have been given to the wounded. Gail has quilted over 350 of those herself. Gail is a native Californian, born in Dos Palos. After graduation from High School she entered the Women's Army Corp Band playing trumpet. She served 7 years active and reserve. She then spent 25 years in civil service; law enforcement; warehousing and production control at Sharp Depot. Shortly after leaving Sharp Depot, Gail's parents had purchased a longarm quilting machine and curiosity had Gail trying her hand at running it. It was an instant success and led to establishing a full- time business, at first in the family garage. Quickly outgrowing the garage necessitated a move to the present location on Stabulis Road in Valley Springs. Gail has won numerous awards at Machine Quilters Showcase and all the local Fairs and Quilt Shows. Her work is well known in this community in all charity affairs. Quilts have come to her from all over the nation for her special expertise which is free hand quilting and then have been sent all over the world. When Gail left Valley Springs for camp Lejeune NC, she and others had 200 Quilts of Valor with them. They stopped at different towns across the country picking up quilts and delivered them to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina where they awarded 1,354 quilts to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines who just returned from Afghanistan. While in DC, Gail will join Catherine Roberts who founded this organization as they award the Women's Veterans Memorial at Arlington a quilt and will be honored at the Commandant's evening Parade at the Marine Corps Barracks. On a previous trip to Washington, Gail awarded the Pentagon a quilt she had quilted which is called the ``Pentagon Pride Eagle of Valor Quilt of Valor''. This quilt is on display at the Pentagon in the 9/11 display case.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield for just a moment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. This points out vividly the difference between a system where competition exists and where a monopoly by government exists. Where a monopoly by government exists, inevitably to attempt to try and control costs, you have to impose rationing. That's why you have these variations of survival rates among cancer patients, because they are not getting the care in those other countries that we get here, and they're not getting the care in a timely fashion.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, I happen to be someone who had a hip replacement about a year and a half ago. Under the rules that prevail in at least one of those countries, I would not have been able to have it because I'm not 65 years of age. Had I needed it when I was 80, I would have been too old to get it. They have defined by age the category of people who can receive that operation. It's not just a limitation on time, on how long it's going to be. The point is, if you look at our younger generation today and look at how active they are in certain sports, with repetitive actions affecting their joints, we are going to have younger people being in need of the replacement of joints--of knees and hips. That runs precisely contrary to what you see as being available in these other countries. That's why this debate is so important. If, in fact, as we believe, the plan presented by the majority would inevitably lead to government-run health care, these are the consequences. That's why we ought to be able to debate that. They can argue with us and say, No, it's not government-run. We can argue how we believe it is, but at least we ought to be allowed to have that debate so that people can see what the consequences of our actions here in the House are on them and on their personal lives.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Only a Texas Aggie would ask that question, and I will take that as a rhetorical question that needs no response.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. This makes about as much sense as the Vice President's recent statement that in order to avoid bankruptcy, we have to spend more Federal money.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And the President is basically telling us, by entering the Federal Government in the largest way in the history of the United States into medical care, it is going to cost less and provide more accessibility. And I think that is--well, what I'm finding from my town hall meetings, my teletown halls, my discussion with people back home, they're not buying it because they know it just doesn't seem to make sense. Just as the gentleman has pointed out on this amendment, if in fact they're not going to put anything between you and your doctor, why would they reject an amendment that says just that?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. But he has no charts.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The 100-year-old woman, who was an extraordinary person with great verve in her life, who also had tremendous health, needed a pacemaker. Her doctor thought she should have it because he knew her. He called a specialist who would actually do the implantation of the pacemaker, but he was skeptical. He said he wasn't going to do it on a 100-year-old lady. He said, Just meet her. Examine her. He examined her, and his position was changed. She received it at 100. She is now a very active 105-year-old. It was presented to the President, and it was said, Mr. President, will my 100-year-old mother still be able to have a pacemaker? The President gave a long, long convoluted answer. At the end, he said this: It may mean that, instead of some sort of surgical procedure, we will give your mother painkillers, pain pills.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. But I never lost the sense of service that my dad had as a doctor. From my observation of the way he practiced medicine, he taught me that the doctor-patient relationship was paramount. I heard him many times on the phone, arguing on behalf of a patient with somebody who was employed by the insurance company. I heard him arguing with hospitals. I heard him arguing with nurses if he didn't think they were doing a great job. I heard him praise the nurses when they did a great job for his patients. I heard him praise the hospital. His whole focus was on his patients. He was not only his patients' greatest diagnostician, and not only the greatest doctor they could have, but he was their greatest advocate. That's what I don't want to lose in this or in any other plan.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. We're not allowed to say that. We're not allowed to say it on our particular chart of the Democratic health plan. We've been told that that is not allowed if we're going to print it and send it out to our constituents. The last thing I would just say is this: Look, I happen to be the son of a doctor. My dad was my hero growing up. I used to go on house calls with him. I'd make rounds with him. I thought I was going to be a doctor until, as I like to say, God sent me a strong message during my sophomore year at Notre Dame called ``organic chemistry.''

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. You can't say it in print.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. You can't use that word.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Well, we do have a Member on the other side of the aisle, a distinguished Member on the other side of the aisle, who in a townhall meeting admitted that this is going to lead inevitably to a public takeover of health care, and he said, yes, that is a good thing.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The way we are phasing them out, you will not be able to get those. They will be, basically, the Federal student loan programs.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Yes. I would like to just follow up on what Mr. Pence said, which is, if you are concerned that there is the possibility that a public option will lead to a government takeover, you need look no further than at what happened with the student loan program. The student loan program has a government option, but what is happening now with this Congress and with this President? We are eliminating the private option, and we're going totally to the public option, which now becomes a public monopoly.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, this week, it is still uncertain as to whether we are going to have an opportunity to vote on a health care proposal before we go home for the August recess. And I would just suggest, Madam Speaker, that what we do is ensure that we have absolute transparency, the capability of every Member to look at whatever bill comes to this floor--we have been told that the bill may be in excess of 1,000 pages--that we have an opportunity to have a full debate and full amendments to be debated on the floor. And why do I say this? Because many people would say that would be what is to be expected. Unfortunately, over the last several months, we have had an experience in this House in which we have had major pieces of legislation brought to this floor, in some cases the bill itself with very little notice, in other cases huge 300-page amendments being dropped on us at the last minute. We have had some suggest that it is unnecessary for Members of Congress to read the bill or have their staffs read the bill or understand the parts of the bill; rather, we are told, ``just trust us.'' Well, I remember Ronald Reagan's very important admonition, which was ``trust, but verify.'' If we are being asked to alter approximately 18 percent of the entire United States economy, if we are being asked to change in fundamental ways the delivery of health care to the men, women and children of this country, if we are being told that what we are going to do is going to inalterably change Medicare and Medicaid, if we are being told that what we are embarking on this week is to fundamentally change the manner in which men, women and children of this country receive their health care, if we are to be told that we must make a decision this week as to what the relationship between the doctor and the patient ought to be, if we are being told that we will have to make choices as to whether or not the government shall insert itself between the doctor and the patient, if we are being told that the President believes that there are doctors--the generalization was most doctors would require a tonsillectomy for a young person rather than continue treatment of a cheaper kind to take care of sore throats, if we are being told that we have to review the entire health care system of the United States, compare it to Canada, compare it to England, compare it to France, compare it to Sweden, compare it to the ideal, if we are being told that this week we have to make the decision as to whether or not the program we put forward will have government decide whether a 100-year- old woman who is in extraordinarily good health but needs a pacemaker ought to instead be told by the government that merely she should take a pain pill--as the President suggested on television not too long ago--then maybe we owe it to the American people to give ourselves sufficient time. Rather than have some sort of artificial deadline, maybe we ought to take the time to go back to our districts and present the arguments to our constituents and at least give them an opportunity to tell us in our town hall meetings, tell us in our tele-town halls, tell us in our meetings with various groups as to what they think ought to be done. Why would we have a rush to judgment here, other than the fact that we have an August recess, other than the fact that the President said that we must pass it by a date certain? Shouldn't we take the time to do the work that the American people expect us of, particularly when it deals with something so precious, so personal, so important as their health? And so I hope that, rather than meet some artificial deadline, we will take the time to allow the American people to see the bill in all of its glory, to see its good points and its bad points, to see whether we ought to change it, alter it in any way, and then come back and make a decision here for the American people. There are very few issues that are as fundamentally important as this issue. Let's make sure we do it right.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, in the debate that we've had over health care, we Republicans have attempted to try and communicate our concerns to the American people. We have developed a simple chart that explains the bureaucratic morass that will exist between you, the individual--the patient--and your doctor, but we've been told we can't send this out because the majority party objects to it. First of all, they said they didn't know whether it was true. Secondly, they said we didn't somehow substantiate everything. Thirdly, they don't like ``House Democrats' health plan'' here. So they suggested that maybe we should put on some sort of disclaimer, so I've come up with a disclaimer. We've tried to figure out what will work: ``The Democratic Party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the American people.'' Maybe they don't like that. ``The majority party assumes no responsibility for providing this information to the American people.'' ``The House Democrats assume no responsibility.'' Finally, maybe this is what we ought to put up here, Mr. Speaker: ``The President and the House Democrats assume no responsibility for providing this information to the American people because they know, if the American people knew this is what would happen to them and that this is what would be put between them and their doctors, they wouldn't support it.''

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of the bill that will pave the way for the Law Library at the Library of Congress to more fully serve this community, the legal community, academia and the public. The Law Library has one of the greatest collections of legal documents in the world, unparalleled in its breadth and depth. The collection is so significant and diverse that following removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, as was suggested by my colleague from California, the Afghani people turned to the Library of Congress' archives to find a copy of the laws and Constitution of their country, Afghanistan. Not much more than a year ago, in May 2008, a good friend and colleague of ours, the late Representative Bill Orton of Utah, appeared before the House Appropriations Committee and delivered compelling testimony toward the importance of properly funding this Law Library. It is, therefore, fitting that it is in his honor that we move this bill forward today. Among Bill Orton's arguments for passionate support of the Law Library, perhaps two are most salient: the manner in which the current budgetary scheme forces the Library of Congress to balance the various departments against one another and the pressing need for an avenue to facilitate and dedicate private support for this Law Library. The American Bar Association, in a letter this month to the House of Representatives, echoed Bill Orton's testimony, explaining that the spreading of budgetary shortfalls has led at times to the neglect of particular portions of collections. For example, the ABA highlights the fact that the Law Library's loose leaf subscriptions are months out of date. At the time of his testimony, Bill Orton appeared as a representative of the American Bar Association, which is dedicated and committed to specifically address the maintenance, accessibility and relevance of the Law Library. When pressed as to whether the legal community would pitch in as a partner in financially supporting the Law Library, his response was emphatically, Yes. With the passage of this bill, we enable our partners in the legal community to fulfill that commitment, and we give them an avenue through which that can be done. More personally, this bill serves as a tribute to our late colleague, Bill Orton. During his service in this body, he was a passionate advocate for the law library and its many resources. He recognized the value of the careful stewardship of the law library's institutional mission. And so I hope that with our vote today, we will move that much closer to seeing the goal of Bill Orton realized. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to join me in supporting the memory of Bill Orton, the mission of the law library, and this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1752, which will vest in the Committee on House Administration the authority to evaluate and implement best practices to improve efficiency in our payroll process. The House Inspector General has reported that it may be of benefit to the House to transition to a bimonthly pay cycle with a lag time. Preliminary financial assessments suggest that after incurring up-front transition costs, this change may reduce overpayments over time and reduce errors by more easily distributing the burden of incorporating payment changes into the system. If the distinguished gentlelady from California would enter into a colloquy on the subject of exactly how this authority is to be exercised, I would like to stress that the legislation before the House simply grants the Committee on House Administration the authority to change the pay cycle and does not in and of itself authorize any changes. As the gentlelady is aware, any change to our current operating status with regard to payroll would have a large impact on the daily lives of House staff. It is thus important that the committee granting this authority will act cautiously and only after soliciting and evaluating the feedback of the House community. I understand on the majority side that you would be willing to work with us to ensure that the opinions of House staff are gathered and considered prior to any potential change in the pay cycle.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I appreciate that very much. With that, Madam Speaker, I would urge support for this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bill, the TRAC bill, which will encourage States to adopt measures toward the modernization of election systems. The legitimacy of our election systems is based on the public trust that properly cast ballots are counted, and in the case of absentee ballots, reach their appropriate destination. Any time an election system fails to include properly cast ballots there is cause for concern as to the legitimacy of the outcome. Long gone should be the days when dog-eared absentee ballots are relegated to dark and dusty corners of election offices with voters never having the certainty that their vote counted. By instituting a tracking system, States can further ensure the security of their absentee ballots. Some have said this is really promoting uniform postal progress information for election shipments. Moreover, an absentee ballot tracking system will enable voters to act as guardians of their own vote, providing them the ability to call attention to ballots that fail to reach their destination. An important aspect of this bill beyond the benefits of a ballot tracking system is that it is a voluntary, incentive-driven program. Whereas each State approaches its election process from a unique background and context, this voluntary program empowers the States to modernize their election systems in a manner appropriate to their particular challenges. The Committee on House Administration has held several hearings over the past year dealing with challenges to the administration of reliable and credible elections. Through the testimony of many qualified witnesses, we have come to realize that one particular subset of voters who are particularly vulnerable to those challenges is overseas military voters. My colleague on the committee, Mr. McCarthy, has introduced a piece of legislation which will help remedy that disservice to our men and women in uniform. And just as we take up this bill today, I am hopeful that we will soon see Mr. McCarthy's bill brought before this body for a vote. It simply isn't acceptable for ballots to disappear, some might say, like wandering puppies. We owe our uniformed servicemembers better than that. Madam Speaker, I urge support for this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.