Floor Statements

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. 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?

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to comments on the other side can be quite instructive; although I might warn my colleagues on the other side that they ought to be careful about the metaphors they use. One of those on the other side got up to criticize Republicans for trying to stop funding of abortions, which means saving babies, and used the unfortunate expression of ``don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.'' It shows how almost obtuse they are with respect to what we're actually talking about.

The distinguished leader on the other side from Maryland quoted Henry Clay. I'd like to quote an outstanding American, his name is Steny Hoyer, who said just a couple of years ago here on this floor that if you can't budget, you can't govern. That's why we're in the problem that we're in today, because when they had control of both sides of Capitol Hill and the Presidency, they, for the first time since the Budget Act was passed, intentionally did not pass a budget because they were embarrassed about the numbers.

And what did that lead to? That led to the fact that we didn't pass any of the 13 appropriations bills, which led to the fact that we have to deal with a CR. That's why we're in the mess we are today, because they did not budget. And now they have the effrontery to come out and criticize Paul Ryan, the Republican leader of the Budget Committee's suggestion that we be serious about budgeting around here and that we understand that we're driving our children into the ground and our grandchildren with debt that cannot be paid, and because we have the courage to bring forth a serious adult proposal on the budget, we are accused of trying to put children on the street and to not allow seniors to be able to eat.

Come on. The American people are smarter than that. They want this House, this Senate, and this President to be adults. And to come here to this floor and to suggest that we're trying to kill Medicare--we're not trying to kill Medicare; we're trying to save Medicare. Every objective review has said it's going broke within 9 years.

But maybe collective amnesia is the way to leadership. I hope not. I hope not, not for me, but for my children and my grandchildren. They deserve better. This country deserves better. We should be required to do better.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of her retirement on April 4, 2011, I rise to thank Ms. Marie Colarusso Higgs for over 38 years of outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives.

Marie began her career here in 1971, while a student at Potomac Senior High School in Maryland. She first worked as a clerk in the office of The Honorable Frank M. Clark of Pennsylvania. She went on to work for The Honorable Stephen L. Neal of North Carolina, The Honorable Martin Frost of Texas, the Office of the Clerk, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. Marie has worked in every House office building from the basement of the Ford building to the fourth floor of the Capitol.

Marie's commitment to public service was best demonstrated following the events of September 11, 2001. During that time, she worked tirelessly to assist in setting up temporary offices for Members displaced by the anthrax evacuation. Marie's enthusiasm, professionalism, and attention to detail have made her an invaluable team member on many special projects. Her generosity and support of others have endeared her to her many colleagues and friends in the House community.

More recently, Marie demonstrated her commitment and dedication to serving others when

she travelled to Nepal with her daughter, Erica, to participate in a Habitat for Humanity project this past October. While Marie's long-term plans for retirement are not set, her immediate plans include planning her daughter's wedding, pursuing more volunteer opportunities, and visiting America's wineries.

On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I personally congratulate Marie on her retirement and thank her for her dedication and outstanding contributions to this institution. I wish Marie the best in all her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the question that has been raised during this discussion, and that is the provision dealing with the pay of Members of Congress and the President of the United States.

The Senate has sent over to us a bill which purported to deny pay to the President of the United States and to the Congress on a permanent basis for any time that lapsed during which there was not authorization for appropriations for the conduct of government activities. It is on its face blatantly unconstitutional, violating the section of the Constitution that deals with the Presidential pay and, specifically, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which does not allow us to do that.

The intent, as expressed by the author of the bill before us in the statement of the constitutional authority, makes it clear that we recognize the limits of the action that we can take, and instead we would in this way command those payments not to be made during the period of time in which there is inaction by the President and the Congress of the United States, thereby making a very serious and good faith attempt to put that pressure on Members of Congress and the President of the United States, but in a constitutional way.

So Members should be aware of the difference between the language contained in this provision before us and that which was sent over here by the Senate, which on its face constitutional scholars have looked at it here on the House side and the Senate side and the White House and have suggested that bill that came over from the Senate would not stand up to constitutional examination. This is an attempt on our side to try to provide that action, if demanded by Members of Congress, in a way that would be rendered constitutional.

So at least I wanted to make sure that as we debate this point of order, the rule and the bill, that it is clear what the intention of the author is in this case and why we are attempting to follow constitutional procedures.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter:

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, March 31, 2011.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, The

Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner: I write to formally notify you that

the Committee on House Administration hereby waives further

committee consideration of H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown

Prevention Act of 2011, in order that the legislation may

proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

Sincerely,

Daniel E. Lungren,

Chairman.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I heard the eloquent plea of our friends from the other side of the aisle. Let me just read to you a message I received from the White House about this bill, with the words that the gentleman has presented on the floor.

``Unfortunately, S.B. 388''--which are the words the gentleman puts in his motion to recommit--``is patently unconstitutional, both as applied to Congress in violation of the 27th Amendment and to the President in violation of the compensation clause of Article II.''

No, I will not yield.

So if one wants to, by this bill, have some pressure exerted on the House, the Senate, and the President, it would be in the language closer to that that's contained in the underlying bill----

Upon which you can make an argument it is constitutional because it does not vary the pay given to either the President or the Congress, which----

Madam Speaker, I believe regular order is to not interrupt one at the time that they are making the argument. Maybe it is because it is difficult to hear the words of the White House about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor.

If anyone wants us to act in vain, it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is, under any view, any view, unconstitutional. It violates the very terms of the Constitution with respect to the President and with respect to Members of Congress. So if you want to exert any influence on Members, if you believe this is the way to do it, you would accept the language that's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the Constitution.

I do not find it funny. I find it tragic that on this floor--we just heard the great arguments from the other side of

the aisle about observing the Constitution. And then they come to the floor and give us something which the White House says in its email to me is ``patently unconstitutional,'' not may be unconstitutional, not perhaps unconstitutional, not arguably unconstitutional, but ``patently unconstitutional.''

So the gentleman has presented us the kind of, I guess, shell game we talk about where it looks good when it's presented to you but, by sleight of hand, it makes sure that it has no impact whatsoever.

The gentleman says, well, it will go right to the President. That is not true. This is not the bill sent over to us. It's the same language, so it does not go right to the President, number one. Number two, unless the President is sending me misinformation via his messenger, the President's position is it's patently unconstitutional. The DOJ's position, his Department of Justice says that it is patently unconstitutional.

So I guess the gentleman is arguing to us, send it to the President so that he may commit a patently unconstitutional act.

Now, I may have disagreements with the President, but I have no evidence whatsoever that the President is waiting with bated breath over at the White House for us to send something to him so that he can do an unconstitutional act. Perhaps the gentleman believes that is the position he wants to put the President in. And even though I have great disagreement with this President, frankly, I don't think that is an appropriate thing to do.

So I would argue to my colleagues, reject this unanimously, because it is really something which doesn't pass the truth in labeling act; and more than that, it violates the Constitution on its very words. It's almost an attempt to directly violate the Constitution. You couldn't have written it better to violate the Constitution, but somehow the gentleman has achieved that high honor.