Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, when I served in this House the first time around, the Cold War was still ongoing, and there was a term that often appeared in the press. It was called Samizdat, S-a-m-i-z-d-a-t. That word was used to describe communications which conveyed the opinions of people disfavored by an oppressive regime. It was the personally published commentary among peoples who felt they were oppressed in Communist countries. Why? Because their opinions were not allowed to be expressed in the official press. Today, we have a situation in this House in which Mr. Herger, Mr. Lamar Smith, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Olson, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Roskam, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Conaway, and Mr. Price thus far have been refused by the majority permission to express their points of view with respect to one of the most critical issues facing our country, that of reforming our health care system. One of the most distinguished Members of this body, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Kevin Brady from Texas, in working with the Republican economic staff of the Joint Economic Committee, came up with this chart, outlining what we believe to be the bureaucratic nightmare contained in the majority's proposal for health care. Now, the majority disagrees with our interpretation of the facts, and that's part of politics. That's part of this body, but the majority has now said we will not allow you in the minority to use any official communications mechanisms to share your views of the impact of this legislation on your constituents. Now, why does this seem strange? Well, it just happens that, in 1993, we were faced with what later became known as HillaryCare, an attempt by the Clinton administration to take over health care by the Federal Government. At that time, Republicans also came up with a flowchart that showed the bureaucratic morass that would result from that proposal. I have with me a copy of the permission from the franking commission at that time that this be allowed. The only difference I can see between the two charts is that one is in black and white and that one is in color. What has happened in the interim? Well, HillaryCare was defeated. The President said we can't stand to defeat his particular proposal, that they somehow have all of the answers. Now, some people may say, ``Well, what is it that the franking commission is supposed to do? What are your rules?'' The rules have been established essentially to make sure that Members do not abuse the right of communication by turning their publications into campaign pieces, so we limit the number of pictures one can have there, the number of references that can be made to the Member, himself or herself. To give you an example of what we on the Republican side have approved, I have a newsletter that has gone out by one of the Members on the Democratic side in which the claim was made that the stimulus package has helped create and save 3.5 million Americans jobs. I think that's absurd; I think that is a point of argument, but I don't believe that we ought to stop a Member of Congress from the Democratic side from making that assertion to his constituents. I have another one with me that was approved in which a Democratic Member has claimed that 3.5 million jobs nationwide have been created-- 215,000 jobs in New York and 7,200 jobs in her particular district. Then I have a copy of a letter that was approved last year from the Speaker, herself, in which she says that the New Direction Congress-- that's how she defines it--also fought to increase compensation for our troops in the face of opposition from the Bush administration. It then goes on to criticize the President even though he signed it. We disagree with the characterizations that were in Speaker Pelosi's letter, but we didn't think it was our purpose to censor her. Let's get rid of censorship and allow the American people to hear the facts as they are argued on both sides.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Franking Commission for this body. The purpose of the Franking Commission essentially is to make sure that government resources are not used in a way that would look like it's campaign purposes; that is, we are very careful about how many times you use the personal pronoun ``I,'' how many times you can have your picture in a newsletter. But never in the history of this House have these rules been used to censor Members from articulating a point of view on an issue that is before this House. This chart has been introduced into the record, the official record of consideration of the health bill before the Ways and Means Committee, and yet we have been told by the majority, we've been told that it's been taken above the level of those of us on the Franking Commission. We've been told that we cannot use this. Why? Because they disagree with our opinions expressed herein. I didn't know that one of the obligations of the minority was to accept censorship because the majority does not want our efforts to get in their way of passing a health bill that takes control of health away from people and puts it in the government.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. When I returned to this House Chamber in 2005, it was obvious to me that we were spending too much money on the Federal level. It was obvious to me that Uncle Sam needed a diet at that time. But at this time, it is even worse. We need what I would call a budgetary gastrointestinal bypass. And instead, what do you bring to the floor? You bring us cosmetic surgery. You give us a fiscal facelift. It looks good, but there is nothing behind the mask. All you have to do is look at the figures. Since my friend from South Carolina has been chairman, he has been allowed to be called ``chairman,'' since his colleagues on the Democratic side have been allowed to be called ``chairmen,'' ``chairwomen,'' ``chairpersons,'' in other words, since they have been in charge of this place, what has happened with the spending in this place? It has gotten worse. You complained about overspending, and then you came in and you saw the patient and you put the patient on a diet of milkshakes. We are in real trouble today, and everybody knows it. Now what did we do last week? We decided the fiscal situation in this country was so bad we needed to have a new program for wild horses at a cost of $700 million. Seven hundred million dollars. Millions of more acres were closed up for that purpose, but $700 million dropped on the laps of the American taxpayer. And this week you're trying to sell us a story that somehow you're concerned about overspending. The American people really are a little bit sharper than that. They understand that when you complain about overspending, and yet in the first opportunity you have to have your President in the White House to control both Houses, we pass the magic trillion-dollar mark. Yes, we had in the very same week for the first time in our dictionary ``earmarks'' listed as a word that is now conventional language. In that same week, we set the record $1 trillion deficit in a single fiscal year. So after a while, you can keep looking back, you can keep pointing to the mirror, you can keep saying, Look at what those guys did. But at some point in time, you have to use an old expression, ``You've got to man up.'' You've got to actually say you're responsible for the actions taking place right now, and those actions have given us the largest deficit in the history of the world. We are going to double all of the debt that we have garnered from George Washington to George W. Bush in 5 years, and we're going to triple it in 10 years. I know that's not the intent of the gentleman from South Carolina, for whom I have great respect. I know it's a heavy burden he has to try and carry this Democratic proposal and the administration's proposal. And I understand he would rather not be in this position. But he finds himself in this position, Mr. Speaker, and all I can say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle is, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry you have to do this.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 131, directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave our National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in the Capitol Visitor Center. These two statements of historical significance speak to the culture and development of our nation as a people united by a core set of philosophical maxims. This resolution stands as a tribute to the work of our founding fathers, a legacy that this body has been entrusted to maintain. Abraham Lincoln argued that the Constitution could not be read properly without reference to the Declaration of Independence whereby the origin of our individual rights is identified as God. The Declaration refers to those unalienable rights as endowed by God, or ``their Creator'' with a capital ``C,'' specifying that those rights do not exist except by the grace of God. This concept, of individual rights as given by God, is the very foundation upon which our Constitution stands. It was revolutionary at the time because it defines the worth of an individual apart from and prior to the state. To refuse to recognize God as the origin of our unalienable rights is to refuse the very basis by which one's worth is established. Removing God as the basis by which we define and recognize our individual rights removes a constancy within our constitutional order, subjecting the definition of those rights to an ever changing and inconsistent standard of public opinion and momentary context. It is the very fact that these rights are endowed by our Creator that makes them unalienable--a truth we as a nation must never forget. Furthermore, acknowledgement of God and His tenets has been an integral part of our national story, since its inception. Those assenting to the Declaration understood it as an appeal ``to the Supreme Judge of the world for rectitude of our intentions.'' Moreover, George Washington, in his farewell address, observed, ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.'' When Patrick Henry advocated revolution in his famous ``give me liberty or give me death'' speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses, he declared, ``Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.'' Continuing, ``[We] shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.'' Madam Speaker, the reliance upon and foundational belief in God is deeply interwoven into the fabric of this nation's beginning and growth. So much so that, to omit an appeal to Providence in the retelling of our history would be a profound disservice to that history. In the short period that the Capitol Visitor Center has been open it has attracted over one million visitors, with many more to come. The historical offering of the CVC will be augmented by this resolution, ensuring that the philosophy which provided the Cornerstone for our great nation will endure in words, and as many of us in this body aspire, hopefully in deed as well. I urge the support of my colleagues for this resolution and look forward to its swift passage.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, last night I had a telephone town hall with constituents in my district. As I made the call, I informed them that we were going to discuss any subject they wanted, but I wanted to concentrate on health care. As a result, I had one of the largest responses I ever had. Thousands of people got on the line. Most times, there were no less than 1,400 people on the line. I didn't choose them by party. I didn't choose them by income. I didn't choose them by occupation. It was random, calling people in my district. The response was overwhelming, overwhelmingly negative with respect to the plans they hear about that are coming from the White House, the Senate and the House. Why were they negative? They were negative because the people in my district were concerned about whether or not the government was going to dominate health care in this country, and those who were satisfied with their plans--even though they had some imperfections, even though they had some desire to have them improved, but by and large had made choices with respect to their plans--wondered whether their freedom of choice would be taken away by the government plan presented by the President and by the leadership in both the Senate and the House. It was interesting, they also were very concerned about the cost. When they hear the word $1 trillion, they begin to think that this particular plan has real problems. As we discussed the various aspects of it, they referred me to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office's report that disappointed the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate because the report suggested that this program cannot pay for itself, that we're talking about at least $1 trillion to be imposed on the American people. The dialogue that I had with my constituents was very lively. They were also concerned about the fact that we have Medicare and Medicaid-- as we call it in California, Medi-Cal--that is on an unsustainable path to bankruptcy. This has been pointed out by the director of CBO as well as many others outside the halls of Congress and outside the Federal Government. So the American people are trying to tell us that they are concerned that we have an unsustainable program already that we have not faced up to; and on top of that, we're going to impose this new national health plan. It was interesting because the President and the Democratic leadership have said that, look, the public option is just that. It's not going to destroy the private sector. Yet constituents in my district were very, very clear as to their understanding of the necessary impact of this program. They also were concerned about the promises made in this plan. I guess you could sum it up in these words: First entitlement and then rationing. When government takes over a program like medical care, and when it promises everything, and when you see the track record with respect to Medicare and Medicaid, you understand that at some point in time, we're going to hit the fiscal wall, and government's only ability to control cost at that point in time--if you look historically at other government-centered health programs around the world--is through rationing. You can look at it in Canada. You can look at it in Great Britain. You can look at it in every country around the world. And frankly, I do not want--and my constituents told me last night they do not want the imposition of a government bureaucrat between them, as patients, and their doctors. Interestingly, last night in one of our committees marking up that case, that question was posed: Could we say in the plan that there would not be the intervention of a government bureaucrat to dictate to your doctor as to what your health care should be? That specific amendment was voted down almost on a party-line vote. Every Democrat on the committee, save one, voted against that prohibition; and every Republican voted for it. In other words, it was crystal clear. The amendment presented last night before that committee was: In this plan, can we at least promise the American people there will not be intervention by a Federal bureaucrat to dictate the care you will receive or not receive from your doctor? That specific public policy prohibition was voted down. If you believe that health care delivered by the Federal Government is superior to what you get now, go to your local DMV and see if you'd like them making the decision with respect to your medical care.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, trouble, oh, we got trouble right here in Capital City. With a capital T, and it rhymes with B and that stands for Broke. Right here in Capital City, right here, we've gotta figure out a way to help the Americans we're about to choke. You've got trouble right here in Capital City. With a capital T, and that rhymes with D and that stands for debt. Right here in Capital City we've got trouble. Remember the millions, the billions, the trillions. And don't you forget, we've got trouble. We're in terrible, terrible trouble. The game of some 256 Members is a devil's bet. Oh, yes, we've got trouble, trouble. Trouble with a T. It rhymes with D, and it stands for Democrat.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies FY10 Appropriations Act. The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill: Aerospace Museum of California Foundation, Inc., McClellan, CA for maintenance of collections Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: FY10 Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Account: Institute of Museum and Library Services--Museums and Libraries Requesting Agency: Aerospace Museum of California Foundation, Inc. Requesting Agency Address: 3200 Freedom Park Drive, McClellan, CA 95652 Amount: $930,000 This project will provide for the repair of seven aircraft, six of which belong to the Federal Government. There are 150 retired military people that are volunteering their time to repair the aircraft. The volunteer contribution is equal to $620,512. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds as it provides for the maintenance of property of the U.S. Government, partnering with volunteer contribution to deliver a maintained educational resource, expounding the importance and history of our aeronautical endeavors.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies FY10 Appropriations Act. The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill: State Route 99 Interchange Improvement Project, CA Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: FY10 Transportation, HUD Appropriations Account: FHA--Transportation and Community & System Preservation Requesting Agency: City of Galt Requesting Agency Address: 495 Industrial Drive, Galt, CA 95632 Amount: $500,000 Funding this project will provide for the reconstruction of the Central Galt (C Street)/SR 99 Interchange, which is critical to relieve congestion, improve regional transportation mobility, and ultimately alleviate a deficit in adequate emergency services access. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds by elevating the ingress and egress of a major trade corridor to standards of safety commensurate with the impacts to the effected community. International Drive Extension/Folsom South Canal Bridge, CA Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: FY10 Transportation, HUD Appropriations Account: FHA--Surface Transportation Priorities Requesting Agency: City of Rancho Cordova Requesting Agency Address: 2729 Prospect Park Dr., Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Amount: $500,000 The International Drive Extension and Folsom South Canal Bridge project will construct a new six-lane extension of International Drive from Kilgore Road to Sunrise Boulevard. The waterway creates a barrier that cuts the City in half from north to south. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds by facilitating the crossing of a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation waterway which bisects the City of Rancho Cordova, allowing emergency service access across this present barrier. ADA Infrastructure Improvements Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: FY10 Transportation, HUD Appropriations Account: Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--Economic Development Initiatives (EDI) Requesting Agency: City of Citrus Heights Requesting Agency Address: 6237 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA 95621 Amount: $450,000 Disability access is limited in several identified locations throughout the City of Citrus Heights, and the City has been and continues to be the subject of lawsuits from advocates in the disability rights community. This funding will cover the cost of new ADA-compliant infrastructure. Citrus Heights is nearly 100% built-out, extinguishing the stream of development fees which might normally provide for this infrastructure improvement. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds by providing for the elevation of city facilities to meet the requirements of ADA compliance.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I'd be happy to yield.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim my time, let me just underscore this. The gentleman mentioned the Constitution. The Constitution gives to the House of Representatives and the United States Senate the single greatest power that we have, which is the power of the purse. The power of the purse means the spending policy, the spending authority of the Federal Government resides in this body and that across the Rotunda. And when we're denied the opportunity to offer amendments, we're denied the opportunity to be able to represent our constituents as to how their money ought to be spent or how their money ought not to be spent, and that is the essential issue that we ought to talk about here. We have been sent here by our constituents to represent them, and the most powerful tool that we've been given under the Constitution, the power of the purse, is being denied individual Members. This goes against a tradition that's over 200 years in this House, and we're doing it for the purposes of expediency, which is the very argument undercut by the fact that we're taking time here to deal with the question of horses and burros in the West. Now horses and burros in the West are important. I want to tell you that. I am from the West. We understand it's important. But it certainly is not as important as the appropriations process. And the essential question in a democracy of what right do we have to take money involuntarily from people--that is the tax--if we then are not going to exercise our responsibility to represent them in the decisions as to how those tax dollars will be spent? I thank the gentlelady for the time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise in opposition to the rule. You know, there's an expression around here: When we need filler on this floor to keep Members here for whatever reason, we bring up the dogs and the cats. Well, I guess we couldn't find one so we bring up the horses and the burros today. Somehow, those who may never have seen a mustang, who may never have ridden a horse that has a mustang heritage, are the experts on this floor telling us what we ought to do. They're the experts that tell us when government does something, it's not going to cost us anything. I'm sort of reminded of ``Bidenomics.'' That's the new word used to describe the statements of the Vice President of the United States on economics. He told a group yesterday, the AARP, that we have to spend more money. The Federal Government has to spend more money, the Vice President said, or else we're going to go bankrupt. Now, let's understand what he said. Unless we spend more Federal money, we're going to go bankrupt. We've got news for the Vice President. We're already bankrupt. Bankrupt means you're taking in less than you're putting out. And we just had a magnificent accomplishment in this administration this week. For the first time in the history of this Nation, we now have in a single year a deficit of $1 trillion. Not a billion with a B, but a trillion with a T. This is extraordinary. Yet, we have the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, coming up and telling us once again: Don't worry; this bill we're bringing up here won't cost us any money. We heard just a couple of months ago, or maybe it was a month ago, the President of the United States said, Pass my stimulus package and I guarantee you we won't have unemployment above 8 or 8.5 percent--8 percent, he said. I'm sorry. I want to make sure we're accurate here about what the President said. He assured the American people that this stimulus package would stimulate the economy, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has just cited some statistics about all the jobs being created in North Carolina. I'm sure he's looking at the list now so he can get up and tell me how many jobs are being created in my home State of California. I'll be happy to debate that toe to toe any time. We're losing jobs in the State of California. They're losing jobs in this Nation. If the gentleman--well, I don't want to refer to the gentleman. Let me put it this way. We have funny math here. The statistics that we have, the official statistics show that we are losing jobs at an alarming rate. We have an unemployment rate at the highest we've had in, I think, 26 years; yet we hear from the other side, Hooray for the stimulus package. It's creating jobs. And they will cite you State by State by State. This is the only place I know where you can add up--well, you have a total number of losses of jobs, but they come to the floor and they will tell you how many jobs they're creating in each State. It's the only place I know where I guess you add up all those additions, but the net result is a subtraction.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If I might just respond to that, perhaps that's the reason why they're keeping us here. The Democratic leadership doesn't want us to go home and hear from the folks at home because somehow they want us to continue with that notion that we know best. Because we know best here. We realize that in this difficult issue of dealing with wild horses, mustangs, and burros, in our greater wisdom, we have decided that there's no reason to have representation on the Board that's going to control this by the Native Americans. Why would we think the Native Americans would have any interest in this, or any knowledge in this, when those of us in Washington inside the beltway have superior knowledge.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And yet the gentleman from Arizona is attempting to give us an opportunity to exercise our constitutional prerogative, to represent our constituents here, and we are being denied that time and time again. Shame on this House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting in my office watching this debate, and I am absolutely astounded that the general criticism of the gentleman from Arizona appears to be that his amendments appear to be of really no consequence, why are you nitpicking, going after different earmarks. And yet the gentleman has on 11 occasions, I believe, asked to be able to substitute what no one could disagree with, that is, that there would be serious substantive amendments that would go to consequential issues that this House should be given an opportunity to vote upon. And yet because of the actions of the Rules Committee and the majority party, time and time again this gentleman has not been allowed to do that. And so the American people are being prohibited an opportunity to have their general membership in this House be able to make decisions. I first came to this House in 1979. One of the things that was crystal clear at that point in time is when you had appropriation bills, every single Member, no matter whether they were a Member of the majority or minority side, had an opportunity to present amendments. Why? Because the power of the purse is the strongest weapon we have in the House of Representatives to be able to exercise the will of the American people, and yet time and time again we are being prohibited from doing that.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to sit here on the floor and listen to my colleagues from the other side describe their health care bill. It's going to solve everything. The only thing they haven't said is it's going to have a solution for cancer overnight and every other disease known to man. And I thought, where have we heard this kind of promise before? How far back do we have to go? And then I realized it was the stimulus package. We were told we had to vote for the stimulus package on the President's timeline, and they guaranteed us unemployment wouldn't go above 8 or 8.5 percent. They guaranteed us all these jobs would be created. They guaranteed us that government solution. Well, we've seen what's happened, and now we're hearing the same thing on health care. Well, just remember what the President said when he was in Michigan recently and someone asked him a question about their 100-year-old mother who received a pacemaker. He asked, Under your system, what would happen? And the President's response was, Well, boy, that's a tough question; you might just have to give her pain pills. That sounds like rationing to me. I'm not sure I want the Federal Government to tell me I should take a pain pill when I need some surgery.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for us to make a political pinata out of the CIA. How long ago was it that 9/11 occurred? And what did the commission on 9/11 tell us? It said we did not have adequate intelligence. We had lost an entire generation of intelligence operatives as a result of prior action by this Congress. We can talk about the Church Committee report. We can talk about what happened during the Carter administration. We can talk about what happened in the Clinton administration. We thought we didn't need human intelligence; we could do it all with electronic. The way to attract people, bright young people, committed patriots, to this country's intelligence is not to go after the CIA, is not, after the fact, for what appears to be political reasons, to threaten criminal investigations of those who are doing nothing more than trying to save this country from attack by others who would try and kill innocent Americans. This outrage must stop. Do not make the CIA a political pinata, for whatever purpose.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183--the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. The following earmarks were requested by my office and are listed for funding in this bill: American River Watershed (Common Features), CA Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821 Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $6,700,000 The project will reduce the possibility of loss of life and flood damage by improving the levee system protecting the Sacramento Metropolitan area from flooding along the Sacramento and American Rivers. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the American River Watershed. American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Modifications), CA Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821 Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $66,700,000 This funding will provide for the design and construction of a new spillway at Folsom Dam that will reduce the frequency of flooding in this major urban area. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the American River Watershed. American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Raise & Bridge), CA Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821 Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $600,000 The Folsom Dam Raise project consists of the selected 3.5' raise of Folsom Dam and reservoir dikes, reconfiguring the Folsom Dam penstocks, ecosystem restoration projects, and the construction of a bridge below Folsom Dam. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the American River Watershed. South Sacramento County Streams, CA Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Corps of Engineers; Construction Requesting Agency: CA Dpt of Water Resources Requesting Agency Address: 3310 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821 Recipient: US Army Corps of Engineers Recipient Address: USACE; Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Amount: $4,750,000 This public safety project will increase the level of flood protection for the highly urbanized area of South Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento, protecting more than 100,000 residents. The project will increase the level of flood protection from the Morrison Creek stream group, from 50 years to over 200 years. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds due to the glaring need to bolster flood control systems in the Sacramento Region, specifically with regard to the Sacramento River. McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: Department of Energy--Nuclear Energy Requesting Agency: University of California at Davis Requesting Agency Address: One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 Amount: $500,000 This request is to provide funding to replace the nation's current sole domestic source of Iodine-125 (I125) production located at the UC Davis McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center (MNRC). In April 2004, the system experienced its fourth and final failure causing production to cease entirely and the system remains inoperable today. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds as the McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center represents the only domestic source of Iodine-125, which is essential in detection and treatment of various types of cancer.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we've talked about the professionalism, the dedication of Mr. Barrow. I'd just like to relate a particular incident that came to my attention. It was the day after the House office buildings were shut down because of the anthrax attack. At that time, the Committee on Resources was still in business, bringing bills to the floor for consideration. So how did they do this? Well, the only way the committee was able to bring its legislation forward was through the efforts of Pope Barrow, who was working from a dark corner in a conference room in the GAO building, using two BlackBerrys, an aged laptop and the phone. He was able to produce the necessary legislative materials, and the House was able to continue its work but only because of his ingenuity and resourcefulness. It is that kind of dedication, when he could have used any excuse not to be able to perform his job at that time, that has marked his tenure as the legislative counsel, and for that, we thank him profusely. Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers on my side, so if the gentleman has no more on his side, I will be happy to yield back the balance of my time while urging support of this resolution.

Mr. LUNGREN of California

Mr. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) such time as he may consume.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 635 expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives for the service of M. Pope Barrow, Jr. In 1970, as a student at Georgetown Law School, I had the opportunity to take a class from a colleague of Mr. Barrow's who was then working in the Legislative Counsel's Office. It was to teach those of us who were law students what the legislative process was really all about, how you made an idea a law. I recall at the time marveling at the command of the rules and the use of the English language that was presented by that Office, and how they were an integral part of the workings of the House of Representatives. Later when I came to the House of Representatives the first time in 1979, I made it a practice for my office to regularly consult with the Legislative Counsel's Office to ensure that we, in fact, were doing what ought to be done in order to make legislation a reality on this floor. And although a member of the minority party for all 10 years of my first service in this House, I never despaired of the possibility that I might actually pass legislation. So we wanted to make sure that it was done in the right way, and the work of the Legislative Counsel's Office was always extraordinary. Their ability to continue to work tremendous hours is something to behold. I would also say that they always acted in a nonpartisan way, so that those of us on the minority side, and then during my return here to the House, my first 2 years on the majority side, which I might say I did enjoy that short period of time, and now once again on the minority, I never noticed a change in the attitude of anybody in the Legislative Counsel's Office with respect to the professional job they did to help those of us who are elected by our constituents to ensure that we get the people's work done in this House. So, therefore, I am pleased to rise to honor a longstanding member of this Institution's support staff, or Legislative Counsel, Pope Barrow. The House Office of the Legislative Counsel is, as I mentioned, a significant resource and an absolute contributor to the effective execution of a Member's legislative efforts, contributing nonpartisan service to bring important policy objectives to fruition. I can recall some of the most disappointing moments on the floor of the House when Members have turned to me as we were discussing legislation and I have pointed out what certain words are and they say, don't worry about it; the courts will decide. That's an abrogation of our responsibility under the Constitution. And as one who has had the opportunity to actually see the product of legislation effectively impact the law, that is, as a trial attorney, you know that a word, a phrase, a misplaced comma, an incorrect grammatical presentation can make all the difference in the world in terms of a decision, a real- life decision with litigants before the court. We also know that it impacts the lives of many individuals as they are the beneficiaries of government services or government programs, so it is important for us to attempt to get it right, and Barrow has been one of those people who has dedicated his life to ensure that we do that. In his various capacities with the Office of Legislative Counsel, he has continued his family's legacy of service to the United States Congress. That legacy, which I understand includes three former Members of the House of Representatives and one Member of the U.S. Senate, is further enriched by the alternate and complementary role that Pope Barrow has served as legislative counsel. He has dutifully served the House of Representatives, guided by the principle that his service might necessarily be equally diligent, regardless of the petitioning partisan, aiming to minimize the enormous cost to society of having law out there that nobody understands. Those are words to live by in this House. For his many years of service to this body and his commitment to drafting a body of legislation that is intelligible and coherent, I extend my sincere thanks to Pope Barrow, and I would urge a unanimous vote in support of this resolution. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I continue to reserve.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we voted on cap- and-trade, or cap-and-tax, here in this House; and a lot of people are wondering what the American people think about it, what does the rest of the country think about it, and what does the world think about it. Well, the votes are in from the elitists. We've just heard from Great Britain's Prince Charles who tells us unless the rest of the world follows us, we only have 96 months until basically the end of this planet. He says, We ought to stop this idea of consumerism, and we've got to stop the little people from being able to advance themselves. Oh, only the elites. Then there is Vice President Gore; and he, appearing across the pond, said, The passage of cap-and-trade is the best step towards global governance that we've ever seen. So you may wonder what the people in Detroit think. You may wonder what the people out of work in my district think. But we know what the elites think, Thank God for cap-and-trade so we can keep the little people where they belong. They don't deserve any advancement in the economy. But let the princes of the world continue lecturing the rest of us.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I rise today to submit the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of the Interior-Environment Appropriation. The following earmark was requested by my office and is listed for funding in this bill: City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Requesting Member: Daniel E. Lungren Bill Number: HR 2996 Account: EPA/STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Requesting Agency: City of Galt Agency Address: 495 Industrial Drive, Galt, CA 95632 Amount: $500,000 Description: The City of Galt is being forced to upgrade their existing wastewater treatment facility as a result of increased Federal water quality mandates. The new wastewater treatment facility will put Galt in to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES is the Federal system for the issuance of permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and many of the stringent NPDES permit requirements are based on National Toxics Rule (NTR). The NTR is an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that established numeric water quality criteria for priority inorganic pollutants for fourteen States and jurisdictions, including California, into compliance with Section 303 (c)(2)(b) of the Clean Water Act. Federal mandates dictate an increased number of contaminants for which the City must treat wastewater. The existing WWTP was not designed to meet most of the new standards, and therefore must be upgraded. The City is subject to mandatory Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fines until such time as the project is completed. This project will enable the City of Galt to come into compliance with these Federal mandates. This project represents an appropriate use of taxpayer funds as it responds to EPA mandates to improve wastewater treatment, to provide mitigation against a wider array of water contaminants, in a community acutely impacted by the capital demands of such undertaking.