Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Well, to make the point, I'm not sure in my statement there that I mentioned a veto-sustaining majority. I'll just point out, if we had that veto-sustaining number, rather, it would also mean that the bill wouldn't pass and that it would fail on suspension.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and say thank you to a true American hero--and Missouri native. John Playter might not be a household name for many, but his service to our country during World War II certainly earns him a leading role in America's Greatest Generation. Mr. Playter was called to duty in 1941 and served as an artillery officer before being taken prisoner with thousands of other U.S. servicemen after the fall of Bataan. His story of survival--through death marches and labor camps--in the Philippine jungles as an American soldier and a prisoner of war is extraordinary and nothing short of inspiring. After more than two years in Japanese captivity, Mr. Playter regained his freedom only after the Japanese prisoner ship Shinyo Maru sank while transporting 730 Americans. Again defying the odds, John was one of only 83 survivors to be rescued by an American submarine. When returning to Missouri, Mr. Playter met a young woman named Charlene at the O'Reilly General Hospital in Springfield where he recovered from injuries sustained during his captivity. John married Charlene and spent the next 38 years of his life with her at his side. Staying true to his roots, Mr. Playter worked 25 years as the city engineer for the City of Bolivar. And, along the way, published his memoir, Survivor. His personal telling of this powerful story describes the service, faith and triumph of John and his brave colleagues. The Bolivar Rotary Club will honor Mr. Playter for his service to his country, community and more than 50 years of service as a Rotarian this 4th of July when they name a three-acre park in his honor during their annual ``Celebration of Freedom.'' John's life is an inspiration to everyone and one that deserves this long overdue honor. I'd like to publicly thank Mr. Playter for his dedicated service to his Nation and community.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding. I was actually pleased to hear two things there. One is I heard my good friend use the word ``drilling'' in a positive sense, and that's good news.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that information. There are really two topics there I want to talk about just briefly. One is the refinery capacity itself. I think there's probably more reason than capacity that there's only been one permit in 30 years for refineries. But refineries are really a separate issue from whether the oil is available or not. In fact, you could argue, we'd have more refinery use if we had more oil available. I do know that we imported gas last year. I think importing oil is bad. I think importing gas and paying somebody to take that raw material of oil and turn it into gas is a worse idea. It's hard for me to believe that people that run refineries would be doing that if the refineries were the problem. In terms of the leases, clearly, in the last 7 years, the amount of leased public lands has almost doubled. Most of that drilling has been for gas. In fact, our natural gas numbers are quite a bit better than they were before that started. Secondly, I think something like 52 percent of the exploration produces no product. It's a 10-year lease. Most of those leases are now beginning to get into the middle of that 10-year period of time. I certainly hope that we're encouraging, without doing anything that violates what we've already agreed to, that we're encouraging that to be done. And I think, frankly, I personally think, and have for a long time, that drilling in the ANWR in the area that was set aside for drilling by President Carter and the Congress in 1980, is part of the solution. But it's only part of the solution. And wherever we have those resources, we're the only country in the world where coastal drilling is possible that doesn't allow it to happen. I think we need to revisit that. And I think the American people are at the point that they want to revisit that as well. But this discussion is exactly the discussion we hope to have, a discussion that leads to more production and looking for the future. My good friend said that many on our side think that drilling's the only solution. I haven't heard that. What I've heard is many on our side think it's part of an immediate, short-term solution. But in the last Congress and the Republican Congresses before that, there was lots of legislation that encouraged alternatives, renewables. We want to still do that. Most of that requires a lot of transition in the economy and will take a while. Announcing that we were going to go vigorously after our own resources, I, at least, believe would have impact on that last topic you brought up, the futures market. If we announced we were going after substantial resources that we have, in fact, resources that are now believed to be significantly more substantial than they were 5 or 10 years ago, that would have impact on the futures market. And we should be looking at that market and see what's driving that and what we could do about it, in addition to thinking we're going to just simply regulate a worldwide market from the United States of America. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. The bill that we talked about, the portion of the bill that would require furlough notices to go out, that portion of the bill has been here in the Congress for over a year now. I do hope we can deal with this before not only any members of the Armed Forces are asked to work without pay, but before civilian employees that run things like day care centers and things that work with families in the military are having to be notified that those efforts will stop because the Congress hasn't appropriated the money to provide those services. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. This week we voted twice, including one vote yesterday and one vote today, on an unemployment insurance bill. I think the unemployment rate nationwide had gone up one-half of 1 percent. As the gentleman knows, a lot of our concern was that it was widely targeted, instead of States that had a significant unemployment problem. The Speaker said last week that ``America's families and workers can wait no longer, neither will the Congress. This bill will come to the floor of the House,'' and it did; and it did again. With a 75 percent increase in the price of gasoline during this Congress, Republicans have been arguing that we need to have an energy bill that would produce more energy on the House floor. Will the Democrats work with us to schedule that legislation that allows for more energy to be produced in the country. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. On that last topic, I believe this is the third week straight that we said we hope to have the supplemental on the floor next week. My understanding is that if that supplemental is not completed, that our troops will begin to work without pay in July and civilian employees of the military would be laid off in July. We have next week and the week after that. I really have two questions here. One is do you think there will be a bill next week? And two, are we expecting a bill that will be vetoed or a bill that will be signed? I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. BLUNT. And two is the numbers I see for the deep water drilling of natural gas indicate that there is an 18-year supply in the deep water. If you're right, and there's four times that supply on public lands that could be drilled on, I suppose that means we have almost a 100-year supply of natural gas if we just go after it. We should find out whatever it takes to go after that, and insist that that happen. My view is both, and wherever the infrastructure is most amenable to getting that natural gas and oil into the energy system the quickest, that's where we should be drilling the quickest. If we've got a leasehold that's 500 miles away from the nearest place you can hook it up to a line, that's probably less appealing than a leasehold somewhere in the deep water or other places that's near a current way to get that gas or that oil into the system. I do know in the 181 area that we opened in 2006 in the gulf, opened for a brief period of time, that there's one 2-acre platform there, at least I'm told there's a 2-acre platform there that's producing roughly 10 percent of all the natural gas that we're producing in the United States of America. I do believe that these resources are greater than we thought they were 5 or 10 years ago. I think we ought to be pursuing that on all fronts. I saw where one of our colleagues in the Senate, the senior Senator from New York, said that if we had a million barrels more of oil every day, that that would reduce pump prices by 50 cents a gallon. I'm not sure how he calculates that, but I'm prepared to accept that. A million barrels is what we'd be getting from ANWR today if we'd started drilling there 12 years ago, or any of the other times that the Republican House sent a bill to the Senate that would have allowed that. There may be other million-barrel locations, as my friend has just suggested there were, that we should vigorously be pursuing, and we are eager to have that discussion on the House floor, see it had on the Senate floor, see something get on the President's desk that encourages American use of American resources for America's future. I yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend. I believe for those things that look toward better solutions for the future, better conservation now, we all should be focused there. We also should be focused on using American resources, and frankly asking every question why they haven't been used. Again, I will just conclude my remarks by saying I know that these leases have been almost doubled in the last 7 years. And how long it takes to develop, some of them issued only in the last 1 or 2 years for 10 years at a time, I don't know what the planning is on that, but I am absolutely committed to the most efficient and effective use of America's resources for America's future, and I would like to see this Congress work together to get there.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding. I, too, share the concerns that, for all the time that the House has dealt with this whole issue of extended unemployment benefits going back to 1981, we have never before left this up to the States to decide how this Federal money would be spent. By, in the past, saying that you had to meet the 20-week requirement, at least every State had the same situation that they dealt with. I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is being considered under a procedure known as suspension of the rules. Of course you know that, Mr. Speaker, but everyone who listens to this debate may not. Usually that procedure is used for noncontroversial matters. By putting it under a suspension of the rules, the so-called PAYGO requirement that the majority has talked about and trumpeted as fiscal discipline doesn't. That's a requirement where you pay for these benefits with a bill you bring to the floor. The roughly $10 billion cost of this bill is just being added to the deficit. As we're well aware, a group of Democrats known as the ``Blue Dogs'' has been particularly strong in advocating this PAYGO arrangement, yet apparently they're not going to oppose this bill. And the reason appears to me to be quite revealing. This morning's CQ Today quotes one of the Blue Dog leaders as saying that PAYGO should not apply because it's only a temporary bill. The Member said it's not a bill that's forever, like the GI benefits bill, it's a short-term thing. So that means, I guess, that temporary spending increases don't have to be offset. Yet these same Blue Dogs have forced the House to pass billions of dollars in tax increases to extend current temporary tax provisions, like the research provisions, the development provisions, or the alternative minimum tax patch that we've been able to use to prevent more people from falling into that tax trap for some years, or the continuation of being able to deduct local and State sales taxes. As I've said many times, the PAYGO provision is a tool that's used to promote tax increases. But every time the majority wants to figure out how to get around it, they seem to be able to figure out how to get around it, and they have with this bill today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. On gas prices, as I am sure you have noticed, Republicans have been talking about gas prices a lot this week. We'd like to see some legislation scheduled that would allow more exploration, more American security in our energy sector. Is there anything like that scheduled?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that. On other appropriations bills, you have announced in the press that the Appropriations Committee will begin its subcommittee markups next week. Do we anticipate that some of these appropriations bills would be on the floor this summer, and if so, which ones? I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. In that regard, has any conclusion been reached or not about whether tax increases similar to the ones that the House sent over to the Senate or other ways to pay for the ongoing expenses of the GI Bill that we all hope that we can arrive at a language on that we can be supportive of will be part of the package, or will the Senate view that there doesn't need to be a pay-for in this package be the prevailing view? I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I further yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. After next week, we have 2 weeks remaining before our July 4 District Work Period, and I hope we can continue to work together to find a solution to that problem, to get the supplemental on and off the floor in a way that it properly funds the troops, and we get our work done. We will be working together to do that.

Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to my friend.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman's information on that. I will even be glad to accept some of it. Maybe gasoline was $1.46 in 2000. It had moved almost to $2.50 in the next 6 years. It has gone to $4 in the last 18 months. That is a record we are more than happy to talk about. In terms of refining capacity, actually we have been bringing refined gas product into the country in recent months. I don't know enough about refineries to know if a 10 percent downage in refineries is normal or not. I do know we haven't built a new refinery since 1976, and a number have closed. In terms of seeking oil, the Chinese now have an agreement with the Cubans that they can drill for oil 45 miles off our coast. Our companies can't do that. There's tremendous potential, I believe, and I think many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle do, in the water, in the oil shale, and certainly the gentleman is right, and neither of us want to particularly give away our age in suggesting that that transition that we both anticipate will occur, will not totally occur in our lifetime. Even if we knew what it was right now, the last person will put the last gallon of gas in the last car that burns gas 30 or 40 years after we move toward whatever that next thing is that powers the economy. We certainly need to encourage getting there, and I think there are many parts to that puzzle, from wind and solar and nuclear and better battery technology. But we firmly believe that you can have impact, and I don't mean we in the royal sense, I mean those of us who have been talking for years about supply, that you can have impact on the world price by just announcing that the United States was going to go after its reserves, known and unknown, and that unknown criteria is much more promising because of recent finds in this entire hemisphere than we would have thought it would have been. We are eager to enter into that and feel strongly that more supply is part of the important transition to a different energy future, and would like to see legislation on the floor that increases supply. In terms of legislation, one issue that we have talked a lot about, you and I have worked on, one of my colleagues has worked on a lot, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I am going to yield for a moment to my good friend from California.

Mr. BLUNT. I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, to tell us what we plan to do next week.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. On the appropriation bill, supplemental appropriations bill, I think we are getting close to the time that the Pentagon may have to send out furlough notices to civilian employees, and probably beyond the time where they had to start shifting money from other accounts to the Army. Does my friend believe we will have that bill relatively early in the week, or is your confidence it will just be sometime next week?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican Earmark Guidance, I submit the following information. Requesting Member: Congressman Roy Blunt. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Defense-Wide--RDT&E, Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: LaBarge Inc. (subcontractor of Raytheon). Address of Requesting Entity: 1505 Maiden Lane, Joplin, MO 64801. Description of Request: $10 million is included in this bill for key components of the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense, a Stunner interceptor used by both the United States and Israel. The use of taxpayer funds is justified because the need for this capability was demonstrated during Israel's conflict in Lebanon in 2006 and remains a top concern for U.S. troops deployed around the world. David's Sling is a joint U.S./Israeli program developing the affordable Stunner interceptor for use by both countries. Requesting Member: Congressman Roy Blunt. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army--RDT&E, Medical Advanced Technology. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Missouri State University and Crosslink. Address of Requesting Entity: 524 N. Booneville Ave. Springfield, MO 65806. Description of Request: $6 million is included in this bill to develop a localized drug delivery system for use on amputee and burn victims who are wounded in combat. Effective localized controlled drug delivery will provide amputees and burn victims the needed pain and healing therapeutics while minimizing the required dosage because the drug will be delivered locally and not systemically. This will aid in reducing chances of developing drug resistance and dependency both of which reduce healing time and reduce quality of life. The use of taxpayer funds is justified because there are an estimated 20,000 injuries in Iraq and many amputees are not wearing their prosthetic device due to discomfort resulting from inflammation and infection. Requesting Member: Congressman Roy Blunt. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Army--RDT&E, Medical Advanced Technology. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Missouri State University and St. Johns Health System. Address of Requesting Entity: 524 N. Booneville Ave. Springfield, MO 65806. Description of Request: $6 million is included in this bill to fund technology to allow for the improved ability to quickly treat soldiers who sustain severe eye injuries in the field. Currently, the time from injury to treatment for eye injuries in the Iraqi conflict averages more than 18 hours due to the lack of field-ready, easy-to-use eye injury stabilization materials. The use of taxpayer funds is justified because many of the injuries suffered by our military personnel serving in the Middle East are a result of lED (improvised explosive device) mortar and direct action injuries. Between October 2001 and June 2006, over 1,100 troops with combat eye trauma were evacuated from overseas military operations, making serious eye wounds one of the most common types of injury experienced in current U.S. conflicts. Walter Reed Army Medical Center feels strongly that the project has considerable military relevance and plans to collaborate in the program.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I thank my friend for yielding. And certainly we do have a disagreement here on how to move forward. I tend to agree with the idea that the only way to rectify this and not have future court challenges is to send a bill to President that there's no question about. Let's go through that process and get it done. I would say that the lecture on adult behavior from my very good friend, the majority leader, and he and I both know we are good friends; we're going to be friends when we leave here with this discussion today, is I don't know that that's very helpful. The standards of the House on trying to help people through mistakes did not just begin yesterday. And I, personally, the Republican leaders generally, were challenged over and over again on anything that could potentially be a way to challenge our integrity, our goodwill on the issue that you just brought up of the Deficit Reduction Act. Let me tell you the big difference in that and this. The big difference in that and this is that at least this Republican leader had no idea until we were at the bill signing ceremony that there was a problem because it all happened in the Senate. I'm just saying what I knew, Mr. Hoyer. I had no idea. My guess is that nobody else did either or they wouldn't have scheduled a bill signing ceremony where 100 people were sitting in the East Room waiting for 30 minutes beyond the time it was supposed to start because the White House was deciding how to deal with this particular problem. And they did decide how to deal with it, and they may very well have looked at the case that you looked at, the 1892 case, because the Court eventually looked at that. The Parliamentarian may have given advice at that time on that case. It may have been the same advice you're getting now. But the big difference in then and now was that the President signed the bill. And I don't really know how the House would have started that process again. It wasn't something that back at the House that we had some options to deal with. That's why I'm supportive of the option that would give the President the bill we intended to give him. I'm not supportive of sitting here all day and being told that that's not an adult point of view.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I thank my friend for yielding back. You know, it's possible, for instance, on dividing this bill up, that I could have been for the farm bill, which I was, at great criticism from my colleagues and some editorial writers in the country. I was for the farm bill 6 years ago. I live in a district where the farm bill matters. It's very possible that I'm not all that excited about the soft wood lumber provision in title III. I would just suggest to my friend, I might vote against title III and be doing that because I have real opportunities to do that since we divided this up, which was part of my case yesterday as to why a partial bill sent to the President doesn't mean that the entire House was in favor of the bill in its division rather than its totality. I hate to start down that line where that happens. I would also say that I read from the Clerk of the House today that somehow this is a problem because of a Republican procedure, change in procedure 10 years ago. 10 years ago. And again, instead of the majority saying it's a mistake, which I'm willing to accept, the majority has to say, well, it's really something foisted upon us by the Republicans a decade ago. Amazingly, we dealt with those same procedures for a decade, and on our side of the building, I'm not aware of any problems created by that. Certainly the problem we've talked about was a Senate side of the building problem, and I think we all know that. But, again, you know, looking back 10 years. Now, if you want to change the procedures, apparently Republicans changed them 10 years ago, lived with those for 10 years or more. If you want to change the procedures to have a greater protection of the process, I think that's fine. But to have to reach back 10 years and say this was a mistake created by the Republicans, there's only so long that we can take blame for everything on anything that happens on the House floor. This is a procedural problem. I'm not sure it's the first one. We haven't really sent that many bills to the White House that were either substantive or controversial, in my view, in this Congress. But I'm not opposed to that. But, you know, again, looking back 10 years and saying this is really a problem the Republicans created a decade ago does not move us toward acting like adults on the floor of the House. I hope we can solve this problem. I hope I can be part of that solution. Frankly, I don't think dividing up the bill is part of that solution, and I think it subjects the whole process to court cases. And you might win again on the 1892 case. But the difference in this and the last case, the most recent case, is that the House has the bill back under its control, as opposed to a bill signed by the President, exactly like the 1892 case was, where the President signed the bill and then the courts say, well, the President signed a bill that the House and Senate purported was the finally passed bill, and so it's the law. Well, the President didn't sign this bill, and so we have a great opportunity to do something to ensure that we don't spend all kinds of time and effort in court proving that a 1892 standard would still be the case in 2008 or 2009. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm sure we're going to have a vigorous debate today.

Mr. BLUNT. It's your time, and if you'd give me back time, I'd yield to you right now.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I don't think, as I listen to this conversation and see it develop today, if we pass this section that the President hasn't seen, and the Senate passes the section that the President hasn't seen, and he either signs or vetoes it, that would be the only bill that the House actually passed that the President sees on this topic. It is clear if you look at the line-item veto case, it was clear in that case that the President can't selectively veto things in a part of a House bill. Again, think through this with me, if you will. The only thing the President will have seen that the House and Senate both passed as it stands would be this last portion. The concept that we can start sending bills over piecemeal because the House had passed this part of it is a flawed concept. Who knows what the House would pass if it didn't get a chance to pass the full bill each time. We would have passed the tax extenders today, unanimously, if it hadn't had the portion on it on new tax increases. We would have all voted for that part of the tax extenders bill. It wouldn't have changed that part of the bill. In fact, if we had only sent the President that part of the tax extenders bill, he would have signed it. But he probably won't sign it with this additional thing. When we had the Deficit Reduction Act, which, believe me, I remember in vivid detail, vivid detail; we had a bill that we sent to the Senate, the Senate clerk made a change in it and sent it to the Senate floor. Nobody in the Senate who voted on the bill knew that it had been changed, so it had no impact on the Senate vote. The Senate clerk got it back, realized that her change was inaccurate, sent it back to us just like we had sent it over to them. We voted on it again and sent it to the President, and didn't know until the signing ceremony that this had ever occurred. We didn't know until the signing ceremony that this had ever occurred. There was no action on the House at all with any knowledge any of this had ever occurred. In fact, none of it even occurred on the House side. At that time, the minority leader stood up and said: ``Whereas, although the Senate Enrolling Clerk mistakenly changed critical numbers that had major financial significance, leadership deliberately chose to ignore that notification and instead allowed the House to vote on an incorrect version of this legislation.'' Not true, by the way. ``Whereas, the effect of these actions raises serious constitutional questions and jeopardizes the legal status of this legislation. ``Resolved, that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall begin an immediate investigation into the abuse of power surrounding the accuracy of the process and enrollment.'' The Speaker of the House, my friends, certified to the President that we were sending him a bill exactly as we had passed it. We now understand that clearly was not an accurate certification of what the House has done, and we are about to go down a path that might have the only action really taken by the House that the President sees in totality, this last segment of the bill. Why we would have moved forward, knowing all those facts before we moved forward, is a mystery to me.