Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This bill comes to the floor today, this rule comes to the floor without an opportunity to talk about issues that have been before the House for months now. Our Members--even with a 9:45 notice last night that finally there was a bill that nobody had seen on this side of the aisle before 9:45, 10:45 Rules Committee meeting--brought a stack of amendments a foot high to the committee, none of which we're voting on today, amendments and legislation that have been out there for months for people to look at that do most of the things that the gentleman from Vermont just mentioned. And I agree that we need to be doing everything--we need to be doing more biomass, we need to be doing more wind, we need to be doing more solar, but we need to be doing more of everything. And everything is not in this bill. There is no nuclear, there is no lawsuit permitting reform. There is no real way to do oil shale in this bill. Most importantly, this bill that now purports to allow drilling offshore doesn't do that because you don't open the door to that offshore drilling. We have four States in America today that get 37.5 percent of the revenue taken from that resource near their State. We're telling the other States, the other coastal States, you're not going to get anything, but we want you to vote to open the door to that 100-mile area offshore. We're taking too much permanently out of play. The 25-50 mile range that Republican bill after Republican bill--and in fact Democrats also supported bills that have that 25-mile boundary in there and let the States open that door, this doesn't do that. This doesn't produce any real new energy to solve this problem. And it sets efficiency standards for utilities that can't be met in the time frame necessary. This bill will raise almost every American's utility bill, some by as much as 100 percent in a decade, and it won't produce the energy that it purports to produce. I think it's a shame we're bringing this rule to the floor. I will vote against the rule. I am going to be working hard to find another alternative to this bill.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Two more votes tonight. And then we go to debate the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill and all the amendments, with no votes anticipated tonight.

Mr. BLUNT. We will finish up this bill.

Mr. BLUNT. If I heard the gentleman correctly; you said that there would be no more votes tonight. But there will be one more vote tonight.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I just advance the idea that the moment we are in right now is not a Katrina-analogous moment. There is no temporary disruption of supply that you need to do something about. There is a long-term problem that needs to be solved. In fact, you mentioned those gas lines. Those gas lines in the seventies, the embargo in the seventies, that led us to this idea of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And at the time we set the reserve up, it is the same size it is now, or when Congress set it up, before many of us were here, at least, at the time Congress set it up, it had a 117-day supply. That same amount of oil is now a 56-day supply because of the amount we now use. Taking 3 days out of that 56-day supply only postpones, in the view of many of us, the reality of dealing with the long-term challenge that we face. We would like to have a debate on that. You could bring that bill back to the floor next week under a rule. If a majority wanted to send it to the Senate, they could. But the chance you take is that others with another idea would get at least one amendment on the floor, and that's why we are here with suspension bills as opposed to rule bills because it's a take-it-or-leave-it-this- is-all-of-the-debate kind of approach. I yield back.

Mr. BLUNT. Let me say one other thing, and then I will yield. The other thing I would say about a full and fair debate, these bills that come under suspension obviously narrow the debate. I guess I understand that. We have had some discussion on the floor, well, let's have all these ideas out there and just see who a majority is for, but 20 minutes of debate on a side of an issue really isn't the kind of full and fair debate we need. I would like to see a bill come with plenty of debate, with plenty of opportunities for every Democrat that wants to make an amendment to make an amendment, for every Republican, it could be prefiled, it could be anything, and the will of the House would determine which direction the country goes in this real desire for energy, more American energy, American energy created by and producing American jobs. I hope we can get there. There is a real demand in the country for that. A Member just has to go home to know what is the number one economic issue in a country where people are concerned right now about what to do about the economy. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that observation. I would say in terms of deep water, I think sometimes I say that rather than make the point that when we talk about drilling on the coast, and the Atlantic and Pacific coast which is where we restrict, and no one else restricts their coastal drilling, I am always talking about something way beyond the line of sight. I can say that as well as deep water. I think there is drilling in the gulf even significantly deeper than the 1,000 feet to the floor and below that. But there is potential there. If, in fact, people of the various States don't want to drill well beyond their shores even though they get part of the revenue, that is a decision they'd get to make. I do think that is an issue that is dramatically changing. I also believe firmly, and every economist that I have read on this topic agrees, that if we announced we were going to drill, it wouldn't matter if anybody had a drill or not. That one signal from the United States where we have at least twice as much readily available oil shale in the Rockies as Saudi Arabia has in its known reserves, readily available, not to count the other amounts that could be available later, just if we were to announce that we were going after that supply, it would have an impact on price. We had a hearing a couple of weeks ago where we had people from Interior talk about that particular supply, a lot of supply well off the coast on the Atlantic and Pacific coast. And if there is speculation here, I think the best way to deal with speculators would be to get them caught on the wrong side of a market that is going the other way because the United States of America has announced it is going to go after its own resources in a more dramatic way. There are two prohibitions on the appropriations bill. One is coastal drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coast, no money can be used to issue a lease, which is another way that legislators say you are not going to get a lease, and one in the oil shale in the Rockies. Removing both of those prohibitions would have a huge impact on price. It would start us in the right direction. The idea that some of this oil won't be available for 3 years, some of it for 5, some of it for 10, we are still going to need oil 10 years from now. Oil that is not available for 10 years is not an unacceptable goal because we know we are going to need oil 10 years from now. I am convinced, I will tell my good friend, and we are good friends, I am convinced that if we just announced we were going to take those steps, it would have an immediate impact on price at the pump. We both know the reason there is no line at the pump. I went to 12 gas stations in my district on Friday and Saturday. There was no line anywhere, but every person that I talked to, whether they were traveling to Branson, Missouri, on vacation, or filling their car up in Andersonville or Neosho, Missouri, they all had a story as to how these gas prices were affecting their lives in other ways. Members have those stories. We can do something about them. But to do that, it is going to take more than a 20-minute debate on whether we release oil that we have already bought in the short term. If supply matters, long term going after that supply really matters. I yield to my friend.

Mr. BLUNT. On the extenders package, I'm hopeful we see that bill back here because it is one of the things we could do that would have energy impact. And I hope we could even consider whatever is the maximum time that we would be able to do there is what we should do. On energy generally, yesterday, Mr. Boehner from Ohio and I, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Putnam and others introduced a bill, the American Energy Act. It's a bill that is broad based and designed to promote American energy, conservation and invest in the future. Is there any opportunity for that act or other acts that we've had discharge petitions on, other bills, coming to the floor? And if not, what kind of energy legislation do you anticipate?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. We have other bills that we've started discharge petitions on, some sponsored by Democrats, that we think are part of the solution here. Clearly, based on the understood facts that some of this oil and natural gas gets online quicker than others, it seems to me that that is one of the principal reasons to get started everywhere that is reasonable for us to go as quickly as you can. We're the only country in the world that has the potential for offshore drilling, deepwater drilling, that doesn't do it. And I think any proposal that we've advanced through the Senate in previous years or anybody is making now involves the Governors or the State governments of the affected States having to agree. So if Governor Schwarzenegger and the people of California don't want to drill, don't want the revenue, in fact, even if they don't want the Federal Government to have the revenue from that drilling, they wouldn't have to drill. But if the people of Virginia or North Carolina or any other State did, they're part of that decision- making process. And other countries do this. Some of that oil, particularly in the deep water, is going to come online quicker than others. But geologists believe in the deepwater drilling there is roughly an 18-year supply of natural gas and oil. So it doesn't all have to come online at once. Also, my view has been, as my friend knows, that if we just announce that as a country that has some of the most known and plentiful reserves in oil and natural gas that we were going to start in a real effort to go after all of it that was reasonably and safely achievable, that that would have impact on price.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank you for that information. This will be the first appropriations bill on the floor this year. Do you anticipate other bills in September? I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, to tell us about next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the information. On the first bill under a rule, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, will that be an open rule?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that. In the past, we've had in previous Congresses an open rule on these appropriations bills. I don't recall a prefiling requirement, though I'm sure we will talk about that in the Rules Committee. In appropriations, whatever the amendment is has to be paid for out of the bill so it has always been felt that that provides its own level of constraint. We would certainly argue for that kind of open rule. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. On that topic of September, since at the end of next week we wouldn't have a chance to talk about the upcoming schedule, does the gentleman have a sense of some of the priority legislation that we might consider in September?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In fact, I think the discussion we just had about more time indicates the lack of seriousness on this issue. For the 12 years I have been in the Congress, a House which for the first 10 of it was led by Republicans, we repeatedly sent bills to the Senate that would solve this problem, bills to the Senate that would allow us to explore for oil and gas where oil and gas is. And again today, we have the same people that voted against all of those bills, that stood in the way of that discussion, that took advantage of the fact that the American people at that point said no, we don't really need to have more supply and let's not do the right thing for the future, let's do the right thing for now. And they bring this bill to the floor, as we face a generational problem, that is a 3- day solution. A 3-day solution to a generational problem. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny, but it is serious. And what we have to ask now, the good thing about this solution is our friends who bring this bill to the floor are admitting that supply matters. If supply matters, let's go after supply. If supply has an impact on price, let's find the oil and gas that we have and really affect the world market. Let's not assume that taking oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the level of 5.6 gallons for every car in America is going to solve any real problem. The real way to solve this problem is to go after our own resources and to look for ways we can conserve energy and look for ways to invest in new alternatives in the future. It is not another gimmick that says let's be 3 days closer to being totally dependent on people who don't like us, instead of using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for what it is and going after the real supply that can make a difference.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I heard my good friend say we ought to deal with this in the next Congress, and I wonder why, why the next Congress. Why not this Congress? The reason we are having this critical we must vote today, vote right now, is that we haven't taken advantage of this opportunity to move forward on reform. The notice came up weeks ago. In fact, the notice came up months ago, and that's when the majority could have brought a great debate to the floor instead of the debate about whether we should debate or not. Over a decade ago, Congress created the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. One of the recommendations of the commission was to require a trigger so that the Medicare trustees in Congress will have to publicly debate whenever the Medicare program is in danger of becoming insolvent. The trigger is one of the many recommendations of this commission, not ideas just out of thin air, recommendations of this commission that were formally adopted as part of the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003. But this Congress seems to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I am very disappointed that the Democrat leadership has halted consideration of key legislation designed to safeguard the future of Medicare, reconsideration, in fact, that's required by law unless we today vote to say we are not obeying that law. If not obeying that law is the right thing to do, I don't know what could be more important than having a discussion on the future of Medicare, unless it would be the future of energy, and we are not having that discussion either. Let's debate it, let's talk about it, let's see what we can do. One of the ideas that we have put forward that apparently is particularly fearsome is medical liability reform. If this rule passes, we will avoid being forced to debate and vote on lawsuit abuse and its impact on seniors, taxpayers and doctors. Such a reform will lower health care costs for all Americans and save Medicare $4.8 billion over the next decade.

Mr. BLUNT. They don't want to debate means testing for wealthy seniors or more competition to serve patients. We could be doing all of those things today. We could be doing none of those things today. We could be debating whatever the majority wants to debate. The point is we could be having a debate about the future of Medicare. First, we are afraid to debate energy. Now we are afraid to debate Medicare. What are we willing to debate on the floor of this House? I want to have that debate. I oppose this vote to run away from those solutions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit in the Record the statement of the Health Coalition on Liability and Access on this legislation. That states that medical liability reforms are a central part of reducing costs and improving access and quality in the Medicare program. [From the Health Coalition on Liability and Access, July 24, 2008] Statement From HCLA Chair on Medicare and Medical Liability Reform Washington, DC.--HCLA Chair Shawn Martin issued the following statement regarding today's Congressional vote on Medicare: ``Today Congress will consider legislation pertaining to the so-called ``trigger'' provision of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. Complying with the law's requirements, the President has put forward legislation, which includes medical liability reforms, to address the Medicare funding issue. The Health Coalition on Liability and Access believes that medical liability reforms are a central part of reducing costs and improving access and quality in the Medicare program. ``Medical lawsuit abuse drives up the cost of medicine for everyone. In fact, it's estimated that medical liability reform would save Medicare $4.8 billion annually, not including savings from reductions in the practice of defensive medicine. ``Comprehensive medical liability reforms have a proven track record of success at the state level of reducing health care costs and increasing patient access to quality medical care. Controlling our nation's Medicare costs is one more reason America needs national medical liability reform.''

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. As you mentioned, there is lots of interest in the bill. I appreciate the fact that we were able to extend debate, even on a suspension bill. But I think this is a topic where certainly both sides evidenced a willingness to discuss it. And we need to do that. And I would hope to see more energy legislation on the floor and would hope to have it under a rule if that is at all possible. On appropriations, last week I mentioned that the chairman, the appropriations chairman, had appeared to announce that there would be no appropriations work on the floor. Your comment at the time, if I recall, was that that had not been a decision that you and the other leaders had made yet. Today, the Speaker announced that the House would consider the Defense bill before October. I'm wondering if you have any idea when that might happen and if there is a chance that the five other bills that are out of committee could also get to the floor before October, and what could happen with the Interior bill which would obviously be the most important bill as it relates to this topic of energy that we just discussed. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. And the Defense bill certainly is critical, as all these bills are. And obviously I share the sense that it's a primary responsibility of the Federal Government to defend the country. But the Homeland Security bill, the Military Construction and Veterans bill also are particularly important components of that very element of what we do, and other bills that are out such as the Financial Services bill, all the discussions we're having and will have about housing over the next few days, but another bill where if we knew that the regulators were funded and how they were funded and the other things that happened, that is a helpful thing to know. I think that is all the questions I have for today, and I would yield back.

Mr. BLUNT. On the topic of additional energy-related legislation, I know we just had a bill on the floor on energy. It was a heated debate. And while a majority voted for the bill, it didn't pass. I wonder if there is any opportunity that bill might come back next week with a rule.

Mr. BLUNT. I would like to ask my friend, the majority leader, to give us an update on what he plans to bring to the floor next week. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leading this debate today. I think we all know what's going to happen today, but we don't know what this debate is all about. The gentleman just mentioned that one out of five people on Medicare now take advantage of Medicare Advantage. This is not a debate about the insurance companies and the doctors, this is a debate about competition. Now, there is a legitimate division on the floor of this House about whether competition and patient choice is part of the key to the future of Medicare. I believe it is, and I think we could have taken care of the providers in a way that didn't step in and impact competition. In my district alone--and, in fact, in rural districts and minority districts, that's where that one out of five Americans live. In my district alone 28,000 people take advantage of the opportunity to be part of Medicare Advantage. Half of them take advantage of the opportunity to select their own doctor. That opportunity goes away if this bill becomes law. I intend to vote ``no'' today not because I don't respect the providers but because I think this is a terrible way to solve this problem that could be solved otherwise.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. We are.

Mr. BLUNT. If we don't deal with any bills this year, I guess our average is going to go down quickly. If we had 12 hours on Labor H last year and zero this year, I guess for this Congress we will say we spent an average of 6 hours debating the bills because one of them never got debated at all.