Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Maryland, I would like to join him in his comments regarding Lou Costantino, who served us well and ably for a long time. Lou Costantino was always proud of his job, he was proud of his family and proud of our country. To his wife, Doris; his daughter, Edie; and to his son, Louis, Jr., who we got relatively regular reports on, I am sure that the sympathy of the House goes out to them. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, for information about next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT. I want to say in response that I am not quite as confident, and maybe you're not confident either, that law doesn't meet all of the circumstances that occur. And even if it does, that law reaches an anniversary of those particular orders August 1. Again, coming back after Memorial Day, we are suddenly under a situation where even those things that we currently believe are covered, we will begin to have a problem in them expiring. And certainly the things that are not covered, there is no easy way in my view, which may be different than yours, there is no easy way to begin to listen to a new set of conversations that we just determined need to be listened to. That is what that whole debate is about. We don't need to have that debate here. But I have pledged to do everything that I can to bring this to a conclusion.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. I have a couple of inquiries about other legislation. The 1974 Budget Act set a budget deadline of April 15. I am well aware that the Congress has seldom met that deadline, I think maybe four times. The latest three were in 1999, 2001 and 2003. But with that deadline in mind, I wonder if the gentleman has any sense when a budget might be on the floor. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I come to the floor to talk about this bill with real appreciation for the hard work that the gentleman from New Jersey has put into this effort. I know it is a heartfelt effort on his part. In fact, I first met his mother when we were both serving as the Secretaries of State of respective States, West Virginia and Missouri, at the time. I just come here to say that the States have handled the responsibility of the mechanics of election administration well for a very long time. The process of voting, how you vote, the mechanics of what the ballot looks like, whether you have a straight ballot voting system, all that has been left to the States, and I think wisely so. In the Help America Vote Act, the Congress provided States with over $3 billion to modernize their voting systems, including allowing the States to decide whether they wanted to have a paper backup. In my State, the State of Missouri, the Secretary of State determined if that money was used, there would be no system authorized in our State unless the paper backup was part of that system. As it turned out, that was a very good decision. But in the aftermath of the 2000 elections, many States took that incentive, that $3 billion that was out there, and in my view made decisions more quickly than they otherwise would have. This bill now offers a second round of money that would be available to encourage changing their systems, many of them that we know about today changing their system from a system they just used Federal money to change to. I think this is neither wise nor the responsible thing for us to do. I also very much think that there is no reason to rush this bill at this time. There is not enough time left between now and the November election to change voting systems. Over 30 States have already conducted primary elections with the system they will use in November. The very worst time to change a voting system is an election that has overwhelming participation, as we believe this one will. Election administration and the mechanics of election grew up in this country over decades and generations of voting and voting habits. To try to change those voting habits from a primary election some time earlier in the year to a new system, to be frankly tested the first time in probably the biggest election turnout that we have had or will have in a long time, is just a mistake. To think that we should pass this bill today for the November election, I think, is as far off base as we could be. I am not absolutely opposed to the Federal Government encouraging States to do better with their election process; I am opposed to this feeling that we get into that creates an environment where the States have to make these decisions more quickly than they should, and particularly to make a decision like this just in advance of a high-participation election. I don't think the $3.2 billion so-called solution produced the right results. In fact, several States are now complaining that it produced problems. But they are the ones that decided that they would deal with those problems. Those problems, frankly, become less significant every time voters use a system. Maybe you made an investment that you wished you didn't make, but you made that investment. It is not impossible to either reverse it on your own or decide you are going to make it work. I think this is the wrong approach at the wrong time. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill today, not to give up in working with our friend from New Jersey to find a bill that would be helpful to the States, but not to pass a bill today that would only create with certainty more problems in November than we will have without it.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. I, too, vigorously oppose this rule. It seems to me the House today is doing two things that this Congress has done too often. One is, if you don't like the rules, you change the rules; and two is, we continue to take actions that reduce confidence in dealing with the United States. When you change the rules, other countries just simply don't want to deal with you. Five hundred days since this treaty, this agreement was negotiated in good faith. Changes made sense then in elements that dealt with the environment and labor that the Colombians went back at our request to make. Sixteen months of talking to the leaders of the majority about what was the best day to bring this agreement, now 500 days old, to the floor of the House, and it's going to happen today or it's apparently not going to happen anytime in the near future. We had no trade agreements before we went to the process of Trade Promotion Authority because nobody wants to trade with you if they don't think you're dealing in good faith. Nobody wants to deal with you if they don't think you're dealing in good faith. This is about jobs. It is about middle-class jobs that my good friend from Illinois just talked about. I mean, how much more middle-class jobs could you try to provide than you provide when we open their market to us? Seventeen years ago we opened our market to them. This is not a debate about whether we can compete with Colombian products or whether their workers are being treated fair. Their workers already make products that come in here every day with virtually no tariff. This agreement would let our workers send products there with no tariff. Eighty percent immediately would have no tariff. Very quickly, 100 percent would have no tariff. The 8,600 Caterpillar jobs in Illinois would be sending their products to Colombia without the 15 percent tariff. Why wouldn't we want to give those 8,600 labor union workers a 15 percent advantage that they don't have today? When you change the rules, bad things can happen. This is about manufacturing jobs. It's about union jobs. It's about middle-class jobs. And of course, it is about our closest ally in South America, the second biggest country in South America, a country that for 17 years has had access to our markets and, in the last decade, has worked closely with us to try to solve their problems and the problems of this hemisphere. This is a huge mistake today. It is the wrong signal to send not just to Colombia but anybody who's thinking about working with the United States of America. You have got to deal with countries in good faith. We are not doing that. We are not dealing with our own workers in good faith. I hope we do everything we can to defeat this rule.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader from Maryland, for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. That was going to be my second question. There are two other negotiated agreements, and I believe what you just said was that this vote today was about the Colombia agreement only and those other agreements should not be prejudiced by the vote we took today, and perhaps the Colombia vote will not be either. I felt strongly about this. I still do, but I hope my friend's comments are correct and there is some way to now actively pursue whatever discussions need to be had on Colombia. But on the final two if I heard you right, the two that have been negotiated and have not been sent up yet, I think I am hearing you say this does not establish any new way of doing this, and I yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I would ask my friend on the last bill you mentioned, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act of 2008, H.R. 5715, is that the bill that was introduced this week?

Mr. BLUNT. That is a problem, and part of what I used to do before I came here involved that. I am anxious to see what the bill looks like. It is clearly a major problem out there. On the vote we took earlier today, the rule vote on Colombia trade, if you listened to the debate, you heard two very different views of that debate. The view of my side was that this likely ends this discussion for this year, and the view I heard from the other side was not quite there at all. I am wondering if as the majority leader you have a sense of this bill, this agreement, whether it can come back to the floor this year or not.

Mr. BLUNT. I hear your answer and the explanation of your answer, and I understand that. On the supplemental defense budget that we talked about last week, it would seem that during this period of time between now and the work period at home during Memorial Day, that the supplemental budget will move. I think last week it was your anticipation that it might move in committee as early as this week. That didn't happen. I also read this week that following the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, that a number of Members, including the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, indicated that they thought that this supplemental would have not only extraneous spending, but also some restrictive language. Have you had any further discussions about either timing or whether this supplemental will get, in my opinion, bogged down and held back by any restrictive language? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I thank the gentleman for that. I would say that my sense of that is that the troop supplemental should be that, and that we should be willing to work together on these other issues, as we did the stimulus package earlier this year. That's a package that the tax provisions are already beginning to have some impact. The rebate provisions will begin to have impact when people get their money in May, June and July. But I think we proved, with that effort to work together, that when both sides decide we want to make something happen, we don't have to use the troop funding or any other issue. We just have to get together and make something happen. I think that would be, generally, the view on this side of the House about how to move forward on those two issues, and we can and will probably debate this for some time. One of the issues that puts people in crisis, we saw a discussion on the floor today, a bill out of transportation that dealt with beach nutrition. Many of our Members thought that the Transportation Committee and the Energy Committee would be better spending their time focused on gasoline prices, which are $1 higher today, per gallon, on the average, than they were a year ago today. And I wonder if the gentleman has any sense of when we might see some legislation on the floor that would deal with gasoline prices.

Mr. BLUNT. The debate today, I thought, was important and, you know, certainly, the numbers you cited about what's happened in the last 7 years, I don't fault those numbers at all. But we took a lot of responsibility for all of that when we were in the majority. And I haven't seen anything coming from this majority that would have stopped that $1 increase we've seen since the majority changed. I just hope we can work together to do that. And some of it's shorter term rather than longer. Our long-term energy needs are clearly going to be met with some long-term solutions. But things that encourage more production here, more and better use of the fuel sources we have as we develop alternatives, I think, are part of that solution. I hope that the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Transportation Committee both are encouraged by both sides of the aisle to get some legislation to the floor that would let us deal with that. And I hope that happens sooner rather than later. Actually, the debate today may have related more to the committee than it did the bill, but I thought it was a debate that the American people want to see us have on the floor of the House.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, while we don't want to enter into this debate too fully, on the projections, even though we still had deficits in those years, which I regret for a number of reasons, those deficits were always less at the end of the year than we had thought they were going to be at the beginning of the year because revenues exceeded projections. That's why the deficit was less. The third topic, I think my last topic today, is, we're at a point in the congressional calendar where it's at least possible that, under the TPA, the Trade Promotion Authority rules, the President will send the Colombia Trade Agreement up because of the number of days left that under TPA would require a vote during the calendar we've put in place. And I wonder if the gentleman has a sense of whether the Colombia Trade Agreement process will go through the normal Trade Promotion Authority process, or if that process could possibly be shut off. And I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I wouldn't quarrel with the gentleman about not having a good time for tax increases since '01 and '03, but revenue actually has increased during that period of time. I think in '05, '06 and '07 we may have set records of increased revenues, percentage over last year. So, you used the term revenue, and I think you meant taxes, because we did see some revenue increases during that time, and they were significant. I think over 14 percent in FY05, and double digits in the next 2 years. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I think in that time frame there is a chance there will be some administrative actions taken as well, and that may be an important part of that debate. I do know that this week Mr. Bernanke testified before the Joint Economic Committee, and part of his testimony was that he thought that this would be the wrong time for any tax increases. And I would hope we could maintain some openness on that PAYGO discussion as it relates to this housing concern that people are facing. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I do appreciate that. And I just say for my friend's information that we've certainly discouraged the White House, we're hoping, not only discouraged them from moving forward with any new additions, and I think they have decided not to do that and will be concerned about this going as quickly as possible and meeting these defense needs rather than being tied down. Another topic is housing. On the other side of the building they've been talking about housing this week. I know that Chairman Frank has some proposals on housing. I really have two questions there: One, when do you anticipate some housing legislation on the floor? And two would be, do you expect that that housing legislation will follow the PAYGO rules of this Congress, or will those rules be suspended for that housing discussion? And I would yield.

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

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. I think that date is important, and we need to be sure and be aware of it as we move through this process, as you are. The spending bill, I know as this administration comes to an end, I'm confident that the White House has had lots of requests from the administration side for additional spending, which I believe they have held the line on. Does the gentleman have a sense of whether this bill will be able to be contained to the defense supplemental, or will it possibly get bigger than that? And I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. I have a couple of questions on things that we haven't discussed. First of all, the supplemental budget, I know General Petraeus is in Washington next week, and I believe Ambassador Crocker. The President sent up a supplemental request in February of last year. By approximately June of this year we're told that the Army will run out of money, and that by July, their ability to use transfer authority will be exhausted. I wonder at what point, in conjunction with or following the Petraeus visits next week, does the leader think we will be talking about that supplemental request. And I yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor two men who have spent many years serving their community in Springfield, Missouri, as charter members of the Board of Trustees of the Ozarks Technical Community College. Frank Farmer and Don Wessel both enjoyed long and distinguished careers in private business before being selected by their neighbors to serve on the newly created Board of Trustees, following the creation of the school in April 1990. They have each been reelected to consecutive terms since then; at the end of this month, both men will be ending their tenure of service. Farmer and Wessel helped shape the growth and direction of a school that serves the students of 13 public school districts in southwest Missouri--and far beyond that. The growth of the school has been nothing short of a phenomenon, with enrollment this year topping more than 10,000 students. OTC, as it is known to many local students and residents, is also moving forward on plans to expand its operation to a second campus in Ozark, Missouri, with an eye on affording greater accessibility to its growing student body. From its modest beginnings in central Springfield at the old vocational-technical school, OTC has blossomed into a modern campus that has helped revitalized center Springfield and help train its local youth. From the beginning, Farmer and Wessel led the way in developing the infrastructure and educational leadership OTC would depend upon for its spectacular growth. First they hired an effective president in Norman Myers. The board of trustees, led by president Wessel from 1992 to 1994 and Farmer from 1994 to 1996, embarked on a plan to build new classroom buildings and greatly expand the number and diversity of available courses available to students. Farmer's background in education includes service on the Willard Board of Education, on which he also served as president. Journalist, author and dairyman, Farmer has lent his experience and expertise to several public boards and charities, while attending to his duties as the editorial page editor of the Springfield News-Leader before his retirement there. Wessel is a well-known car dealer and philanthropist, who has been active in the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, American Red Cross, Cox Medical Centers, and has served on virtually every public and civic board in the Springfield area. To Mr. Farmer and Mr. Wessel, I wish to extend a heartfelt ``thank you and well done'' for their untiring work over the last two decades. Their unflagging efforts have made the Springfield area a better place in which to live, and the Ozarks Technical Community College a beacon of educational excellence for the entire region.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hoekstra for the leadership he has given on this issue. The problem we have with the bill on the floor today is, in everything I read, it can't become law. That is one problem. A bigger problem is that it doesn't address the fundamental question of how we treat these companies for doing what we asked them to do after 9/11. It is clear from all of the facts that as the FISA law anticipated, that the leaders of the House and the leaders of the Senate on the Intelligence Committee would be informed of what was going on. And, in fact, in October of 2001 and November of 2001, in March of 2002, those leaders were informed. On our side, the ranking Democrat at the time is the current Speaker of the House. Porter Goss, the future CIA director, was the chairman of the committee. They were informed on all of those occasions, and these companies only have liability protection if they were pursuing what was given to them as a lawful government order; orders that Members of Congress, including the now Speaker, were told would be issued to these companies. This program doesn't work without voluntary compliance on the foreign side. It also doesn't work without subpoenas on the American side, the U.S. side. Every U.S. effort has to include a subpoena. The 1978 law anticipated that. The law we would like to have on the books today continues that. But for foreign subpoenas, to have to get a court order for a foreign request of somebody in a foreign country simply bogs this program down to the point it won't work. We proved that in July of last year when this FISA came to a screeching halt. This bill is not the improvement that we need. There is a bipartisan majority in the House ready to pass a bill that could go to the President today, be signed today. We are now 4 weeks away from the time when we said, if we just had a 21-day extension, we would solve this problem. This problem needs to be solved. It needs to be solved now. I urge the majority to step back and bring a bill to the House that can pass and become law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this replacement.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I think it would be my obligation, even though I haven't actually moved to do so based on our discussions, to bring information and communicate information that is confidential and that I believe ought to be kept secret at this time. I will also remind my colleagues that many of them in September of 2006 voted to go into secret session, and we didn't go into secret session that day. I am pleased that we appear to be moving in that direction. But there is a time that the rules call for when you are in a situation where the national security of the country is important, and there is much of the information that reaches a secret level that could be discussed in a secret session that conclusions have been drawn from and can be drawn from, that my belief is we would benefit from that discussion.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget he brings to the floor. I think it's clear, looking at that budget, that the specific cuts that have just been suggested don't have to be the cuts that are made. That's up to those committees. Now, I personally, as a former university president, would not go to student loans as the first thing to look at of all of the things that are in the Education and Labor Committee to decide what the Federal Government's doing that it could be doing better. This is a budget that's willing to take that kind of responsibility. This is a budget, a budget that's being presented by Mr. Ryan, that's willing to look at the things that otherwise will overwhelm us in the future. The mandatory spending in the Federal Government is going to be overwhelming if it is not dealt with. This budget deals with it. I had people yesterday, reporters, asking, well, how could you slow the growth of these mandatory programs from 5.2 percent to 3.8 percent? That would be $400 billion over 5 years. Now, the key is slow the growth. The other key is they would still grow by 3.8 percent. And the final key is we're going to have to look at these programs and not just think about them in terms of whether we care based on how much money we spend, but whether we care based on the service we provide. And we can look at these programs, as this budget anticipates we will, in a way that makes us look at health care so that people have more rights to have choices in health care, so they have more rights to their information in health care. We can look at health care. We can look at Social Security. We can look at things that provide a better service in a better way for taxpayers and recipients. Just simply not exceeding inflation as our goal doesn't mean we're going to provide worse service. It means we're going to really look at these programs seriously. This budget has the courage to do that. I rise in support of it and hope that my colleagues will join me.