Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I have one other question that wasn't on a list and not on an immediate schedule, but one of our Members from Oregon (Mr. Walden) had asked me if I would bring up with you the topic of H.R. 3058. It's a bill sponsored by Mr. DeFazio from Oregon on public lands, communities transition. It was introduced last July, voted out of Resources in December. The Agriculture Committee has now discharged the bill. This involves schools in western lands, very important to our western Members on both sides. Mr. Walden has asked me to ask you, first of all, is there any information about when that might be scheduled? And secondly, to make the request that that bill be scheduled. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. And I do recall those discussions. Also, the tax policies that encourage purchases that create jobs are in place. And as all of us on the floor here know, the initial checks that go out as part of the stimulus package are going out in the next few days over the next couple of months. And that, hopefully, will be helpful. On the supplemental, anything that we can do, that I can do, that our side can do to encourage going through the committee in the regular process, we would like to do that. In the last 20 years, under both Democrats and Republicans, there have been 36 supplementals. All but seven of them went through the committee. And those seven did not go through the committee based on a bipartisan decision that Katrina or 9/ 11 or some other event had occurred where Members on both sides of the aisle essentially said we know what needs to be done here, we're in agreement with it, let's take a bill to the floor. In the other 29 instances where there was not bipartisan agreement, every supplemental went through the committee. In the 12 years that we were in the majority, there were 20 supplementals. None of them had a closed rule, all of them except the ones I mentioned by bipartisan agreement went through the committee, and 10 of them had an absolutely open rule where we brought the supplemental to the floor and the rule essentially said bring on every amendment that you want to and we'll debate it until the amendments are exhausted. That's a time-honored process not just under the Democrat majority, but under the Republican majority. I'd like to again encourage that we do whatever we can do to further that discussion that you suggested may be going on now that would have the committee option as one of the options.

Mr. BLUNT. I hear that answer and I respect it, but I also believe that when we've let these tax policies expire, they have some of the same economic consequences. I suppose that can be debated when we get to that point in the debate. But sort of selective waiving of PAYGO, I hope we have developed some principles here that can maybe apply to some other things as well. I think we've discussed that and I appreciate the fact that we've had a difference on this for some time. I mentioned a couple of States that are particularly impacted by the credit situation that we face right now on the sales tax deductibility. That's just another burden on taxpayers that may be dealing with another problem that's part of the overall economic challenge we face right now. And just like the stimulus package waived PAYGO to try to help solve this problem, I'd suggest that there may be items beyond unemployment insurance that equally are related and may be even more contributory to the problem than unemployment insurance. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. I would suggest if that was the criteria, that on the expired research and development credits or the expired deductibility of sales tax from income tax in those States that had that deductibility for a few years ending on December 31, or even on the alternative minimum tax protection for people who don't pay that tax now, it seems to me they would meet that same criteria of having negative economic impact as we let those research and development credits expire or as we no longer allow people in Florida and Texas and other States to deduct their sales tax before they pay their income tax or if we let the AMT patch extend to a number of people. I don't know if there is a way to handle those issues under that same umbrella of economic impact or not, but I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. Again, would that apply if we look at it as an economic provision to the bill to the unemployment insurance and other things as well?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the candidness of that answer. I also remember and remind him that last week on the topic of the expanded GI benefits, the supplemental, under the rules we've been working with, would be considered, at least the wartime part of that, an emergency spending and not under the PAYGO rules. The GI benefits that have been talked about both here and on the other side of the building, I think last week you suggested that those were related to the Iraq-Afghanistan expenditures in a way that you thought that the majority might waive PAYGO and include those in the supplemental. I'm wondering if any of those other items that you discussed, like unemployment insurance, might also meet that criteria where if they were in the supplemental, they wouldn't have to comply with the PAYGO provisions of the current rules of the House. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. On the supplemental, you mentioned Mr. Obey. Is there now a possibility that the supplemental might be marked up in conference? I know during the 5 weeks now that we've talked about this, you had announced a hope that we would have the supplemental on the floor either in the last week in April or you every time have said, ``No later than the first week in May.'' So we're not there yet but we get there next week. You now would not anticipate that on the floor, is one question. The other is, where are we on the question whether the committee will mark that supplemental up or it will come to the floor in some other way.

Mr. BLUNT. I have a couple of questions about that. First of all, on the one you didn't mention, the higher education conference, I think the higher education, the current bill, expired last evening. Will we extend that? Would that be the gentleman's intention that we extend the current bill next week as well as the other work that's been listed?

Mr. BLUNT. On the housing question, you mentioned one bill. Is there a chance there will be two bills coming out of Financial Services that may be incorporated there in some way?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to give us some information about the schedule for next week.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I thank the gentleman for that. I do think the time does matter here because of the potential for furlough notices and other things for troops if we let this bill go much beyond the work period we are in right now between now and Memorial Day. One of the items that I keep seeing reports that could be in this bill would be enhanced GI benefits. The cost estimates I have seen from a Senate cost estimate on a bill over there, to a bill here, have been anywhere from a low of $20 billion to a high of $60 billion over 10 years. I know a number of Republicans have been working on that as well. Some of them have reached out to Democrats this week, saying, We hope we can find a way to pay for this. Does the gentleman have any knowledge of whether or not that GI bill, expanded GI benefits, is being actively discussed as part of the bill? I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. Of course we did a 1-week extension on the farm bill again today. We have done several extensions now. I hope we get to a point where we have a bill on the floor or have some ongoing policy that farmers can rely on, even if that is an extension of the bill we have, but some ongoing policy really does matter, and I hope we get there. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. I know Senator McCain on the other side of the building also has come up with a proposal in this area. He introduced legislation in this area. So it's widely discussed. I think something can be done. Whether or not the supplemental is the place or not, I don't know. I do believe that whatever we do should become permanently part of the benefits that veterans should anticipate being able to have in the future and not have any kind of a temporary aspect to it. The other question I had of my friend are just about the conferences that I haven't asked about in a couple of weeks. There are really three of them I am wondering about, and that would be the conference on the farm bill, the conference on the higher education bill, or the budget itself. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the need to get this war supplemental done. Of course we have been talking about it during this entire work period for the last 4 weeks now. Since 1989, the Congress has passed 36 supplementals. All but seven of them went through the committee process. On those seven occasions--it was the supplemental right after 9/11, the supplemental right after Katrina. I would just say to the gentleman that I know our members of the Appropriations Committee today have expressed great concern if the committee doesn't have the opportunity to mark this up in regular order, and I don't know that that has anything other than informational value to you, it may very well go through the committee. If it doesn't, I have heard a lot of concern expressed about why, with the amount of time we have had here, we would do what is a relatively extraordinary thing. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. I notice the schedule doesn't include anything yet on the supplemental. I continue to see reports suggesting that the supplemental may come directly to the floor and not through committee. I wonder if the gentleman has any indication of what might be the schedule at this time on the supplemental. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. And the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act will be as well?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. Will the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act, will that act be under a rule?

Mr. BLUNT. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for information about the schedule.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BLUNT. I hope we are continuing that. Also, we are now entering the third month since the expiration of the Protect America Act. I know you and I were in a meeting a week or 10 days ago on this, and I still don't see any scheduled discussion of legislation on the floor that brings us back to that whole issue of foreign intelligence surveillance, and I hope we are moving toward a conclusion of that important issue. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. On the idea on a congressional year that will end before the election, I know last week we voted in an unusual way to put off the vote on the Colombia trade agreement, and I suppose that could mean to put it off indefinitely. Without a lame duck session, and that is one of the times when it was thought that we might get back to those trade bills. I'm not aware of any real discussion that has gone on this week on this Colombia agreement. I hope we are continuing to look for a way to get that important bill done. I yield to my friend.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. I think every day matters in this regard, and certainly going home for another work period at home without a conclusion here would be the wrong thing for us to do. I hope we can meet your goal and hopefully meet it earlier than the last day or two that we are here before the Memorial Day break.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. That bill needs to be out of the way, along with the budget, before we can get on with the other appropriating process. And thinking about that appropriations calendar, I know that the majority leader was quoted last week as saying that it is likely we won't have a lame duck session, a post-election session this year. I wonder if you can comment on that a little more. I know privately we have discussed this, but I saw you in print suggesting that we might not be back after the election. I am wondering what your thoughts are on that.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. Of course it is a challenge, but it is a challenge that we need to meet in some way usually before we can move with the appropriations process. But on appropriations on the supplemental, there were conflicting reports this week that there might be a supplemental for Afghanistan and another supplemental for Iraq, and then there were reports that no, the committee would report out one supplemental bill. I am wondering if the gentleman knows whether there will be one or two bills, and are we still anticipating a markup of that bill next week and then floor action following next week? I yield.