Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the career of Patricia Mattimore, who is retiring after more than twenty-seven years of service with the U.S. House of Representatives. Ms. Mattimore began her House career in July of 1984. Throughout the years, Patricia has brought a wealth of professional expertise to all of the positions she has held at the House. She has worked for the Appropriations Committee, Clerk of the House, and Chief Administrative Officer. Over the past eight years, she has ensured accurate reporting to the U.S. Treasury for the House's monthly cash activity. This critical process is necessary for the House to demonstrate financial accountability to the public and was performed with great accuracy due to her attention to detail. Her passionate customer service, organizational skills, resourcefulness and dedication to her work has benefited the House as a whole over her career. On behalf of the entire House community, I congratulate Ms. Patricia Mattimore for her many years of dedication and outstanding contributions to the U.S. House of Representatives and wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I might just say that, in answer to the question raised by my friend from Virginia ``why would anyone oppose this?'' it is because of the Constitution. This provision, section 18, is clearly violative of the Constitution. It would have you believe that you could go to court, an article III court, and have a final decision--a final judgment--rendered by a court, including a jury. Then after that, there's not an appeal to an appellate court but an appeal somehow back to an administrative agency? Does anybody sense there is a violation of the separation of powers? Does anybody understand what the Court said in the Plaut case, which said that the Constitution gives the Federal judiciary the power to not merely rule on cases but to decide them subject to review only by superior courts in article III hierarchy? You can argue all you want, but that's what the Supreme Court says. This is an obvious, blatant violation of the Constitution. That's the answer to my friends who say we have to have this provision. Yes, it may be that the U.S. Constitution is the inconvenient truth here. We are not allowed to violate it even though we do it with the best of intentions.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. You know, Mr. Speaker, my mom was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, and listening to her stories about what transpired in the political process when she was growing up there, I used to think that the only place that you could find immortality in this world was on the voting rolls of Cook County. But I find here today that Ronald Reagan was right: Immortality is in the name of a Federal Government program. This was supposed to be a temporary program. It was supposed to give temporary assistance to the States to make sure they could comply with HAVA, and it has done that. It has done that. It has let out all the money, billions of dollar that go to the States to assist in doing that. Its time has come and gone. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot see that in these very difficult budget times we have to make some difficult decisions with respect to looking at programs to see if they've exhausted their usefulness, then we'll never be able to respond appropriately to what our constituents expect of us. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, carefully drafted, allows for those small elements of this agency to be transferred to the FEC with funds to carry out those responsibilities. The argument that the gentleman has just made, that somehow the FEC is not up to snuff, is not an argument I would think that the gentleman would support to somehow get rid of the FEC. We are giving them some responsibilities with funds, and hopefully they can carry those out. The idea that we can stand here with a straight face and argue that an agency which spends over 50 percent of its total funding on overhead--and be able to say that to the American people is not only disappointing, but it's dispiriting, because it suggests to the American people that we are incapable of looking carefully at agencies and departments to see when, in fact, they are doing a job that continues and needs to be done, or when they have finished their function and, therefore, no longer need to exist. Now, the Secretaries of State have spoken rather forcefully before our committee with respect to the fact that they no longer need the assistance of this particular arm of the Federal Government. How often do we have people who come to us and say, We don't need this assistance anymore? Not very often. Should we ignore that in this particular case? Admittedly, this is a small amount of money. It's only in the millions. Where I come from, that's important. Millions mean a lot. This is more important, though, as a symbol or a signal as to what we will do. Look, if we had all the money in the world, maybe we wouldn't have this on the floor. We don't have all the money in the world, although we've tried to prove that we can print all the money in the world. The fact of the matter is folks back home want us somehow to get our house in order. That's the House of Representatives, and it's the house that we call the United States Federal Government. This may be a small room in that house, but, nonetheless, it is one that needs to be addressed. The gentleman from Mississippi has done an excellent job of holding hearings on this matter, hearing from all parties on this, and has come up with this legislation. The suggestion that somehow by disestablishing the EAC we are going to penalize the military is something that I cannot understand very well at all. The Federal Voting Assistance Program under the DOD will continue to implement the MOVE Act, as they have very ably done since the passage of this bill in the last Congress. If you really examine it, the EAC has a very small role in the process, and that role will be continued after the EAC has been shut down. States are looking at us to see whether we can give them some relief, and, in most cases, we are not going to be able to give the States some relief because, frankly, we don't have the money. Businesses are looking at us, those who are in businesses, to see if we will understand the mistakes we've made in the past and do what they have to do, that is, to try to become more effective and more efficient. Our constituents are looking at us as they look for some glimmer that we understand the terrible fiscal situation we find ourselves in. And they're looking for just the littlest, the smallest suggestion that we are going to be serious about the fiscal mess that we find ourselves in. This is a small start, but it is a start. And again, as the gentleman from Mississippi said, if we can't do this now, when can we do it? When you have a demonstrable record of an agency that's outlived its usefulness, you have to act. That's all we're attempting to do. I would hope that we would have a near unanimous vote in support of the gentleman's bill.

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 joint resolution (S.J. Res. 9) providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 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 joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) providing for the reappointment of Shirley Ann Jackson as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 1934) to improve certain administrative operations of the Library of Congress, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent 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 all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on Senate Joint Resolution 7, Senate Joint Resolution 9, House Resolution 299, and H.R. 1934.

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. on Monday next.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent the committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LUNGREN

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Speaker, the recipients of the 2011 PeopleSoft Certificate of Recognition collectively and individually provided support and solutions for the transition from Federal Financial System to PeopleSoft Financial System. The conversion to PeopleSoft occurred October 1, and the system went live October 12, 2010. To prepare for this conversion, the employees of the CAO worked tirelessly and were persistent in their efforts to implement PeopleSoft at the U.S. House of Representatives. Whether working directly with Members or staff, supporting CAO internal operations, or ensuring that technical infrastructure is operational, each employee served as an exemplary role model for the entire CAO community. Recipients of the 2011 PeopleSoft Certificate of Recognition are: Jessica Abbott, Marty Adkins, Rose Agnew, Patricia Akinsegun, Mallikarjuna Akula, Sharyn Alexander, Lisa Alvey, Janciera Armstrong, Omar Awan, Peter Baer, Samantha Ball, William Barkell, Robert Barrett, Traci Beaubian, Lashon Bethea, Kelly Boger, Esther Bouryng, Karen Bowers, Chaunette Bowling-Stokes, Shelia Bowman. Karen Bowman, Kevin Boyle, Toinetta Bridgeforth, David Brown, Kimberly Brown, Annette Brown, Troy Buckler, Kenneth Burch, Elizabeth Burnham, James Butler, Alicia Carcamo, Ronald Carrico, Delisa Carter, Elery Caskey, Andrew Caulk, Jacob Ciango, John Clarke, John Clocker, Faye Cobb, Joel Collins. Richard Cooper, Luis Cornejo, Thomas E. Coyne III, Mark Dalton, Karen Davenport, James Deaver, Gary Dieffenderfer, Mark Dobbins, Karen Donaldson, Geneva Dooley, Brian Dozier, Sandra Durham, Mary Ellen- Wilson, Gretchen Ewers, Trena Gates, Michael Gould, Andrew Graeub, Raymond Griswold, Norman Gugliotta, Philip Hamner. Tina Hanonu, Keith Harrington, Stephanie Harris, Michelle Hayes, John Heeb III, George Holau, Richard Hornburg, Alfredda Horton, Steve Hunter, Jacqueline Hurda, Wanda Jackson, Araceli Jennings, Derek Johann, Reginald Johnson, Andre Johnson, Rob Jordan, Tara Kelley, David Kemp, Katherine Knell, David Lau. Dion Lawson, Cyrus Leghvan, Carlos Leon, Chau Lim, Andreal Little, Anthony Loving, Louis Magnotti, Steve Marsh, Richard Martins, Marc Mathis, Patricia Mattimore, Bryanne Mayhew, Bradley McDonald, Saint Juan McFadden, David McKittrick, Kathryn Meek, Darlene Meister, Donna Minton, Margaret Mitchell, Rachelle Mobley. Nelson Moe, Edwarda Moore, Ronald Mullvain, James Murphy, Robert Murphy, John Nadeau, Rebecca Neilson, Juan Nelson, Jonathan Nelson, Hieu Nghiem, Jason Nowak, Igor Nusinzon, Carla Ohlis, Lindsay Oldham, Melissia Oulahyane, Sarah Parker, Stephen Pearson, Lisa Phillips, Richard Piazza, Stephen Pinson. Kaley Poag, Sharon Porter, Sridhar Ramavarapu, Erica Randolph, Brenda Register, Lawrence Rice, Deborah Robertson, Sandra Rubio-Marrero, Zainab Sanusi-Hopes, Subashini Sethumathavan, Mohammed Shabeer, Kirat Shah, Arlie Shoemaker, Mirna Simonetti, Donita Simpson, Carolyn Sims, Susan Sneden, William Solomon, Clyde Springfield, Angel Stanley. Christine Stewart, Ayana Stokes, Shannon Strickland, Joyce Stringfield, Keith Sullenberger, Lillie Talcott, James Tammadge, Alison Thompson, James Tiani, Arrica Tillman, Lawrence Toperoff, Stan Turek, Jermaine Venable, James Ventre, Quoc-An Vo, Cheraisse Ward, Kenya Watkins, Sarah Watkins, Dan Weiser, Kenneth Wenzel, Andrea Williamson, Katherine Wyatt, James Young, Shin Yun, Eric Zabel and Jordana Zubkoff. On behalf of the entire House community, I extend congratulations to today's recipients for their unwavering efforts and outstanding service to the U.S. House of Representatives. I wish them continued success in their endeavors.

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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 16) authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to support this resolution authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on June 5 to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha of Hawaii. King Kamehameha, often called Kamehameha the Great, is a legendary figure in Hawaiian history and culture, and rightly so. He fought heroically for its unity and independence at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. His law, or Rule of the Splintered Paddle, protecting noncombatants during wartime has been commended for its justness and established a human rights benchmark that would later be built upon in the Geneva Conventions. An illustrious statue of King Kamehameha is part of the National Statuary Hall Collection, and it now sits in the Capitol Visitor Center, visible to millions of our fellow citizens. On June 11, the people of Hawaii will celebrate the 95th annual King Kamehameha Day in Hawaii. In adopting the resolution, the Members of the House will join our colleagues in the Senate in authorizing the use of the Capitol Visitor Center for a similar celebration here in Washington, D.C. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, May 27, 2011. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, 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 S. Con. Res. 16, a concurrent resolution authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha, in order that the legislation may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. Sincerely, Daniel E. Lungren, Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just say that it gives me great pleasure to join my colleague from Hawaii in bringing this resolution to the floor, particularly because my daughter, who was married in this town on Sunday, is on her way to Hawaii to celebrate her honeymoon and I believe will actually still be there on the 5th of June, so that she will see that up close and personal. I would urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement on June 2nd 2011, we rise to thank Mr. Al Powers for his more than twenty-nine years of distinguished service to the United States House of Representatives. Al began his career with the House working in the office of Representative Bob Whittaker as an Office Assistant, and when the Member retired, he was the office Press Assistant. Time spent handling press issues led to the idea for the House Enterprise Facsimilie Service which he was instrumental in helping to develop when he joined House Information Resources (HIR) in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Office of the CAO) as a Systems Engineer. This service is currently used by the House. Al was also instrumental in the inception of many services that are critical to the House today-- including the current E-mail system. Al's knowledge, experience, dedication and consistently outstanding performance in his daily tasks has set a fine example in providing superior customer service and has earned the respect of his co-workers. On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Al Powers for his many years of dedication, outstanding contributions and service to the United States House of Representatives. We wish him many wonderful years in fulfilling his retirement dreams.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I know we want to get to a vote very, very soon and normally I would refrain from speaking on this except that because this is such an important issue and some of the things that have been stated on the floor are so patently untrue, there is an obligation for those of us who have been working on this issue for some period of time to make sure that the public is not misled by statements that have been made here on the floor. Number one, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. We have heard statements on this floor that are absolutely not true. They are the same statements that were made the last time we had this on the floor, the same statements that were made when we reauthorized this a few years ago. And one of the most amazing things is there is a continuation of this argument that we haven't done proper oversight. I don't know where you have been, but many of us on this side of the aisle have been in briefings and on hearings on these very issues seeking out the truth on these things. The canard that somehow we are tearing the Constitution up just does not stand any kind of inquiry whatsoever. The suggestion that somehow we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us. And the argument that somehow, since we got rid of Osama bin Laden, we don't need this, is the most absurd at all. One of the lessons of our successful mission being executed against Osama bin Laden is that you need actionable intelligence over a long range of time that you can connect together with analysis to give you the information that you need. It doesn't fall from heaven. It doesn't come like manna. You have to go get it. We have carefully constructed these provisions to allow us to do the kind of work that is necessary not to collect the bodies after a successful terrorist attack has occurred but, rather, to prevent these terrorist attacks. One of the things people should keep in mind is that we have the intervention of Federal judges in these three different areas of the law. It is not something where the executive branch is allowed to go unfettered into looking for this information. Rather, they must justify it to an independent Federal court; and some say, oh my gosh, it is a secret court. It is a secret court because, in fact, there are certain secrets that must be maintained as we attempt as best we can to save this Nation and our citizens from those who would attack us. One wonders at times whether we have the sense of urgency that is necessary to continue with the efforts to make us safe. The fact that we have thwarted successfully terrorist attacks is not a reason to dismantle the means which allowed us to do that. It is, in fact, a reason why we should continue this. Any honest examination of the history of this Judiciary Committee and the Crime Subcommittee will reveal that we have done the oversight necessary to ensure that we have the tools to fight the threat of terrorism and at the same time preserve the civil liberties of American citizens. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the record. To suggest it's unconstitutional is to somehow ignore the decisions made by every Federal court that has looked at this. But you can continue to make these statements, you can continue to confuse the public, you can continue to raise alarm where alarm ought not to be raised. With all due respect, while everybody is entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. They must take the facts as they are. And the facts are this is constitutional, it is workable, it is necessary. We have to do it, and we have to do it now.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Father Martin Moroney, who is retiring this month from his pastoral responsibilities at St. John Vianney parish in Rancho Cordova, California. A native of O'Callaghan's Mills, Ireland, Father Moroney chose to enter St. Patrick's College Seminary in 1960. St. Patrick's forms priests for overseas work and Father Moroney chose to come to the Sacramento Diocese because its rural nature reminded him of Ireland. Arriving in Sacramento in 1967, he has spent the past forty- four years serving Californians. After a brief stint at St. Mel's in Fair Oaks, he moved to St. Anthony's in Mt. Shasta, a small lumber town in the Cascade Mountains. For the next six years he served at St. Theresa's in South Lake Tahoe before returning to Sacramento to serve at Sacred Heart and then All Hallows. In 1981, Father Moroney was given the opportunity to return to a rural community when he was asked to become the pastor of St. John's in Quincy, while also taking care of the mission church in Greenville. For twelve years, he drove twenty-two miles each way to Greenville twice a week to care for the community there in the mountains of Plumas County. Quickly integrating into his new community, he was even recruited to work the first down chains at local high school football games. Father Moroney has always been a man of prayer. When he was faced with a difficult decision in 1993, he turned to God for guidance. Giving up his rural post in Quincy, where his parish consisted of 250 families, he decided to assent to his bishop's request to move to a parish in the suburbs of Sacramento, consisting of 1,500 families. There, at St. John Vianney's, Father Moroney has been serving as pastor for the past eighteen years. Under his guidance, the parish has grown in unity and diversity, adding a Spanish and an Indonesian outreach program. He also proved to be a skilled financial manager, eliminating $200,000 of debt and growing the parish school endowment dramatically. All of these achievements are not just material achievements. They were motivated by a heart filled with compassion for all people and accomplished by a man willing to sacrifice himself--and even his health--for the betterment of others. It is truly a privilege to offer Father Moroney my sincere gratitude and congratulations for all of his service as a priest. I wish him all the best in the coming years.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, today the United States Supreme Court delivered a body blow to the safety of the people of my home State of California. Today, in an unprecedented action of judicial intemperance, the United States Supreme Court basically ordered that between 38,000 and 46,000 prisoners currently in the California prison system be released. Many times Supreme Court decisions are of mere academic interest. This one specifically deals with the safety of the people of my home State. As one who led a team of attorneys general of the States of the Nation in the nineties to have prison litigation reform which was incorporated into a law that was passed by the Congress and signed by the President, this flies in the face of every piece of that bill. You rarely say this, but I fear that there will be murders, there will be rapes, there will be assaults, there will be unnamed and unnumbered crimes in my home State as a direct result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since when did they take over all of the three branches of government, becoming the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary may have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18, 2011, to file its reports on H.R. 1800.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the bill under consideration. I heard one of my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest that the only thing people in California or other places that live near beaches, the only oil they're concerned about is suntan oil. I have to take exception to that. Even though I represent an inland district now, I was born a block from the beach. I was a resident of a beachside community for 42 years. I grew up with kids whose parents worked in refineries, worked on oil rigs, were wildcatters, worked in offshore drilling in the Port of Long Beach, worked offshore, Huntington Beach. I just have to tell you, I find it insulting to suggest that those people are not concerned about the good of the United States. We're talking about the loss of middle class jobs in America. There's nothing more middle class than those men and women who have worked for years in the oil industry. Where do you think it comes from, from the sky? You've got to drill for it. You've got to produce it. You've got to refine it. And everything I hear on the other side of the aisle is we're not going to allow you to drill; we're not going to allow you to produce; we're not going to allow you to refine because somehow it's just going to show up. We watched the President of the United States, supported by the Members on the other side of the aisle, journey to Brazil and laud their efforts to use American technology to explore and drill and maximize their recovery of their resources. He lauded them for it. He thanked them for it. He applauded them for it. Then he turned around and said, And we want to be your biggest customer. In other words, he promised that we would pay a foreign entity for a resource that we need. I'm absolutely convinced that my friends on the other side of the aisle will oppose any notion that we can have any offshore drilling unless we make Brazil the 51st State. That's how absurd it is.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chair, as someone who grew up with family members, with people whose families worked in this industry and did not consider it a dirty industry, considered it an all-American industry, how far have we come that now we denigrate it from top to bottom? We also hear from the other side, well, it won't have any impact because it takes 5 to 10 years to develop it. I heard that on this floor 32 years ago. I heard that on this floor 27 years ago. I heard that on this floor 22 years ago. I heard that on this floor 5 years ago, and it is correct. My friends on the other side are correct. It will make no difference so long as they make sure we don't drill now, we don't drill 35 years from now, we don't drill 10 years from now. We are harming ourselves. It's time to stop the harm.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that the President announced this week he was going to give a major address on immigration. As one who's been involved in this issue for three decades, I was very interested to find out the approach the President was going to take. So let me register my disappointment at the demonization of those who might have a disagreement with the President that was expressed by him in his speech yesterday. Talking about moats and talking about alligators and talking about intransigence on the other side of the aisle is not the way to attract bipartisan support to deal with one of the most difficult and important questions of our Nation. I wouldn't say I'm outraged. I would say I'm disappointed at the tone of those remarks of the President yesterday. If, in fact, we're going to work together on issues as important as that, it would seem to me to be important for us to, in some way, at least accept the fact that there may be legitimate reasons for differences and try and bridge those differences, rather than expand them.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor my constituent, Lillian Mohr Jost, who will be 100 years old on May 8th. She is a remarkable woman and a proud American who has lived through, and participated in, many of our nation's most important events over the last century. Ms. Jost grew up in New York City, where her father and grandfather built pipe organs, including the one for the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia in 1876. Thomas Edison recruited her uncle to refine the lead composition for his new invention, the phonograph. Ms. Jost remembers the glorious night in her childhood when electricity replaced the gas lamps on the streets of New York City. When she was nine, she walked her mother (who was blind) to the polls for the first time--women having just that year gained the right to vote. Three years later, visiting Washington, D.C., with her parents, she read a small sign in a shop window that said, ``The President has died of apoplexy.'' In the next few days, she witnessed the arrival at Union Station of the already-sworn-in President Calvin Coolidge and the solemn pomp of Warren Harding's presidential funeral. Ms. Jost graduated from Vassar College in 1932 and went on to Columbia University to become a librarian--this service would become her life's work. A passionate American, she took up flying lessons when World War II broke out, with the goal of joining the Women's Army Air Corp. Although the War, and the need for women pilots, ended before she achieved her desire, she was inducted into the Ninety Nines, that illustrious group of female pilots founded by Amelia Earhart. As a member of the Civil Air Patrol, Ms. Jost drove the Military Brass when they arrived in New York from the battle front to be debriefed. She met her beloved husband Elmer at a military ball of the Old Guard of the City of New York, where he, too, appeared in Civil Air Patrol uniform. Their love brought forth four daughters, 16 grandchildren, 26 great grandchildren and a growing number of great- great-grandchildren. As she turns 100, Ms. Jost remains devoted to her country, her church, to America's parks and wilderness, and to animal causes everywhere. She continues to be optimistic about the future, and is always vigilant for new things to learn and new adventures on which to embark. She recently took up the practice of yoga; she is an avid solver of crossword puzzles; and she keeps vigilant watch over the deer and other wildlife that frequent the yard of her Fair Oaks, California, home. She truly embodies the best of the American spirit. Congratulations, Lillian Jost!

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, as we have appropriately celebrated the successful mission to take out Osama bin Laden, there has been one discordant note sounded in the Halls of Congress, and that is with the testimony of the Attorney General of the United States. There still is a reluctance on the part of this administration to recognize the major contribution made to this country by those who were involved in enhanced interrogation techniques which resulted in part of the information, the intelligence information, that allowed us to find Osama bin Laden. The reason I bring this up is this administration has said in the past that certain types of enhanced interrogation techniques equaled torture. I do not believe that to be true, and for that to remain on the record subjects those men and women who have done a tremendous job for this country, which has resulted in one of the successful missions, in addition to other missions that have taken place in our war against terror, subjects them to the cloud of prosecution in the future and the accusation that they involved themselves in forms of conduct that would be defined as torture by some of the highest officials in the United States. That is something that we cannot allow to happen. When we have the CIA Director indicate that we did receive information as a result of some of these activities, it seems to me that we are duty bound to clear up the record and to thank those men and women, not condemn them.