Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman would yield, that's to the best of my knowledge. I'm the minority whip. I am sure the leader would verify that as well, and we have Members who were here during that time. But there has not been a secret session since 1983. There have clearly been times when the room has been secured, but not for secret session.

Mr. BLUNT. That's not correct.

Mr. BLUNT. I think in the early days they were in secret session all the time or much of the time. Since 1825, I think, there have been three secret sessions. Prior to that I think there were many secret sessions.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Trooper W.L. ``Corky'' Burr of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, one of four state troopers nationally to be nominated for the 2007 International Association of Police Chiefs' Trooper of the Year Award. Although I am disappointed to learn that Trooper Burr did not win the award, I want to take this opportunity to honor him and his service to our community. I also extend my congratulations to the winner of the Trooper of the Year Award, New York State Trooper Amanda Reif. Trooper Burr's actions last August in Neosho, Missouri, are testament to his skill and training as a Missouri State Trooper. On August 12, 2007, a tragic shooting spree occurred in my district at the First Congregational Church in Neosho, Missouri. That shooting left three people dead and several others seriously injured. Trooper Burr arrived at the scene, along with officers from the Neosho Police Department and the Newton County Sheriff's Office, and joined a team of other experienced officers schooled in special weapons and tactics. As they entered the sanctuary of the church, they found a man holding a female hostage at gunpoint, with around 30 members of the congregation positioned around him. Three victims were found lying on the floor mortally wounded and five others critically injured. During a tense confrontation between the suspect and the officers, Trooper Burr was able to calm the gunman, leading to his surrender and allowing the officers to take him into custody. I had the privilege to meet with Trooper Burr and the other brave law enforcement officers shortly after this tragic event and personally thank them for their heroic actions to save the lives of the others in the church that day. I am proud today to honor Trooper ``Corky'' Burr for his well deserved nomination for Trooper of the Year, his dedication to his profession and his service to our community, and ask my colleagues in the House to join me in doing the same.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I come today to express my great appreciation for him, the work he has done in this and past Congresses, the work he has done as part of our whip team, the consistent good judgment I think he shows as a Member of this body. And I was surprised last night with the letter that appeared on the floor. I was surprised yesterday, frankly, that there could have been information available to the Members of this House from the staff of the Ethics Committee that deals with the proper work of the internal committee that has overseen the ethics of this House for a long time that that information would be out there and not made available to us, and frankly pleased that Mr. Hastings followed the procedure that the rules call for and let that information be available to Members. And then, on the floor of the House last night, I received a letter from the chairman of the committee. And I appreciate her work too. The Ethics Committee is not an easy committee to serve on. Being the chairman is not an easy role to fill in this Congress, and I think Members of the House should be and are grateful to their colleagues who are willing to serve on the Ethics Committee. But when I saw this letter last night, I was particularly taken by a paragraph, the third paragraph from the end which says, ``Representative Hastings' reliance on rule 7(g) which states `Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the committee, only the chairman or ranking minority member of the committee, after consultation with each other, may make public statements regarding matters before the committee of any subcommittee.' '' And then it went on to say after it quotes that rule, that that rule ``does not relieve him of the obligation to comply with the rules of confidentiality.'' First of all, I don't know what purpose that rule would serve if it doesn't allow the ranking member and the chairman to tell the other person, as the rule says, here is something that I have decided is important to the Members of the House to understand or important for others to understand. That is what the rule is for. The rules of confidentiality as I read them, appear to clearly be talking about investigation, not opinions of outside ethics efforts that may or may not impede the work of the Ethics Committee. And that was important for us to have. It went on in the last sentence to say, the last two sentences to say, ``I do however want to make it clear that if he continues to release confidential communication, I will seek to have him sanctioned for violations of the Code of Official Conduct.'' The relationship here may be such that this is not intimidating, but it certainly seems intimidating to me. And I join my good friend in rising to this moment of personal privilege to explain how he was working within the rules, how he is a long-term member of this committee, understood the rules, and how he properly, in my opinion, arrived at the conclusion that if we are voting on the floor on something that is likely to impede the efforts of the internal Ethics Committee as the bipartisan, nonpartisan staff of the committee said it would, that that is something that Members had a right to know, and I rise in support of my friend and the actions he has taken.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. If the vote is necessary for another vote to occur, what's the parliamentary way to challenge that vote before the subsequent vote occurs?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Am I right in inquiring that the majority has said that any vote that doesn't change for 3 minutes and then changes is a vote being changed for the purpose of changing votes?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BLUNT. Am I right that the rules of the House read, ``A Record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote?''

Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Does this rule have any impact at all?

Mr. BLUNT. What is the proper motion to ask that that vote be reconsidered?

Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that that was a rule change that was made this Congress this year?

Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, if the rule is violated that the majority put in the rules package this year, does that eviscerate the vote?

Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BLUNT. May I restate my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago at the beginning of the 109th Congress, the minority leader, today the Speaker, said that the rules of the House should never be changed without bipartisan cooperation. I think that did not mean without a bipartisan meeting. It meant without a bipartisan effort to reach a conclusion that both sides believed would improve the ethics process in the House. During this Congress, the Ethics Committee has not worked. I don't think anybody is going to rise to debate the other side of that. This outside commission, if it does become part of the rules tonight, through this rule, it would have no vote, no amendment, no alternative. If it does become part of the rules, almost assures that the Ethics Committee will not work for the remainder of this Congress. This new outside group will become the reason to wait. It will take 45 or 60 days to reach agreements on people who can serve, if that can be done that quickly. It will take them another 60 days to get a staff together. Already we're clearly outside the ethics process working in this Congress. The bill that Mr. Hill just mentioned, the bill that Mr. Smith just mentioned would both be focused on making the process work and work now. They both would be focused on ensuring that this process does what it's supposed to do. This rule not only rushes without any real alternative or debate, but also Members were informed today that last November the bipartisan staff of the Ethics Committee asked to evaluate the concepts behind this bill gave reason after reason after reason why they thought those concepts were flawed, concepts that have not been improved by the changes that were made in the last few days. They gave reason after reason after reason why they thought this commission would make the Ethics Committee less likely to be able to do its job effectively. And we still rushed, Mr. Speaker, to try to force this on the Congress when that information, we now know, has been available since November. We got it today. I think we ought to give the time for the people who work on ethics every day to be able to publicly evaluate this concept.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Regina Werder O'Connor on her 90th birthday. It has been my pleasure to know and work with her granddaughter, Kathleen O'Connor, who has told me about her grandmother's wonderful 90 years. It's important in this day and age for children to grow up in a strong family environment. Gina made sure that her four children grew up in a home that valued hard work, devotion to their Faith, and love for the Buffalo Bills. Her children have now passed these values on to her many grandchildren, and now great-grandchildren. Gina has also been a blessing to her community. She sacrificed many hours in service to the high schools her children attended. She has been a devoted and faithful parishioner of her beloved St. Mark's Parish for which, over the past several decades, she has sent out weekly parish bulletins to shut-in parishioners. She has also been a long-time volunteer at Sister's Hospital where she finds time to not only help those at the ``Welcome'' desk but also to help ``the old people'' she sees there. Gina is a true pillar in the community. Her devotion to her family and commitment to helping others are examples to us all. I would like to ask this House to extend best wishes for her upcoming birthday on March 21st and for many, many more. May her coming year be filled with happiness and good health.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I do, too. I do think this liability issue is important. We want to continue to have voluntary compliance. We also don't want to put these companies that have voluntarily complied in a situation where the only way to prove that what they did was appropriate is to produce documents that are at this point, we believe, in the national security of the country not producible; but maybe we can work through this. I hope to see this bill on the floor next week. I think we've had 2 weeks that I and others feel that each day the process gets more cumbersome than the day before because of the way this process builds up, and I look forward to working with you on that.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. I do think since those discussions began the Colombian Government has made changes in the agreement in those areas, all of which have now been passed by the Colombian legislature, and I look forward to moving forward with that.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the leader for that information. On the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I'm certainly hopeful we can do whatever is necessary to get that bill to the floor. I know that a majority of Members of the House, at least I believe a majority of the Members of the House, based on what I believe to be the case on this side and on the letter sent to the Speaker by Members from your side, a majority would be ready to pass a bill that met the standards of the Senate, in fact, the Senate bill. I'm wondering if the gentleman has any idea if we would have that legislation or previous House-passed legislation, or what kind of product you think we may be moving toward as it relates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I would thank the gentleman for that. I hope we can work to resolve this. I do think the foreign individuals making calls in a foreign country, for that to work the way it needs to work, voluntary compliance is extremely important; and that's why working out this liability issue is, in my view, critical to that foreign-to- foreign, the only area where we say a foreign person in a foreign country, the only area where we don't believe a warrant would be required but that to not have a warrant you have to have voluntary compliance. And the liability issue, I think, continues to endanger future voluntary compliance, and I hope we can work together in that regard to move forward. I would yield.

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

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. I do know that Senator Rockefeller in the other body has said that our intelligence is being downgraded and has made the case that the people that voluntarily complied don't get paid for it. He said, in fact: ``What do they get for this? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it.'' Then he went on to say: ``They don't have to do it, because they do have shareholders to respond to, to answer to.'' I believe there is a way to address this issue. We need to find it, and I hope we can. Last night, we had the Andean trade bill on the floor. This is a bill that allows access to our markets by Andean countries, including the country that we currently have a negotiated agreement with; and that country has changed dramatically since we put the first Andean bill in place 17 years ago. I'm wondering if the gentleman has any sense of where we might be on that outstanding agreement with Colombia. Certainly with the vote we took today they can continue to have the same kind of access to our markets that they've had for the last 17 years. A trade agreement would give us substantially new access to their markets, and I'd like to hear any sense of when we may get to that bill and have a situation where the President would be encouraged to send a bill up to us so we could get to it. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my objection.