Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that, and I don't intend to spend any time defending the time of the working schedule of the Senate.

Mr. BLUNT. We're not pleased either.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the question. I would think that if we find ourselves in that situation, at least I personally would want to look for the shortest period of time when we could reasonably reach a permanent solution to this. I don't think the country benefits from a constant debate on how we move forward on this issue. I think we need to find a permanent solution or at least a longer term solution than we've found to date, and I wouldn't want to see the law lapse. I think we want to look at the circumstances at the time, what we were dealing with with legislation, and hopefully a conference of some kind and look at it at the time.

Mr. BLUNT. I think he's going to bring it up this Thursday on the Senate side is what I meant.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. As he and I discussed last week, the FISA legislation that passed with, obviously, a bipartisan majority in early August expires on February 1. I think the Senate intends to bring that up on Thursday, and Senator Reid has suggested a commitment from the Speaker to bring a bill up next week. I wonder if we have any information on that. I yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I hear my friend's displeasure. In August, I think 41 Members of the majority joined with almost everyone on my side of the aisle to put the Protect America Act in place for this period of time that's about to expire. The very fact that the Senate majority leader and others are calling for an extension leads me to believe that there is a reason to have something beyond the normal bill, the regular bill, that may or may not allow some listening to information we need to hear in the future because of what's been decided today. Clearly, in my view at least, the Senate believes that an extension of the current law would be necessary to provide the current level of protection or they wouldn't be worried about the deadline. They'd take the gentleman's suggestion that maybe we have a year to listen to the things that we now know we need to listen to, and we shouldn't be rushed. I would not like to see the current law expire without an adequate replacement. The goal the gentleman mentioned for the legislation, hearing those things we need to hear, and I'd paraphrase here, in the quickest possible time frame, is an appropriate goal. We'll continue to debate how we get there. I would hope that neither body allows this law to lapse with nothing to provide the level of protection the American people now have and in the future, and I yield.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that. I believe I understand the point that you just made that the procedure there certainly was a procedure that, frankly, we could have spent a lot of time debating. By doing that, we could have slowed down this pay increase, and I think we wisely did not do that. I suppose that if the greater issue of individuals that were harmed by the Saddam Hussein regime comes to the floor, we can debate that at the time. And I just would suggest right now, if there was some way to reach the personal or family assets of Saddam Hussein, that is one thing. I think we hamper the efforts of this new government if we continue to hold the new government responsible for whatever bad things a government did that was virtually universally held in the lowest possible regard by the Congress. And I think we are universally glad that government is gone, no matter how we feel about the other issues in Iraq. I think that is really the point at the end of this one part of that debate. The government is gone. I suppose we can debate that. I think the arrangement we made in the bill handles other countries appropriately and also gives the President the proper waiver authority for dealing with this new situation in Iraq. But I suppose today is also not the day to debate that, unless my friend wants to comment on that.

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that information. I also appreciate the way we are able to work through that problem, get the DOD authorization bill on the way back to the President's desk, get that remaining half a percent of pay increase for military personnel taken care of. I don't know on this side of the aisle of any interest in addressing that. Certainly it is a debate that we could have, but it does seem to me that we have already reached a bipartisan consensus on that, and we may or may not want to pursue that. But I had heard those same things and wanted to ask in that regard.

Mr. BLUNT. I look forward to talking to my friend during the week next week and at the end of next week at this same opportunity about that if we don't yet quite know where we are. But I appreciate that, and I know we are both going to keep a close eye on that. This is an important law, and my belief is that everyone involved would rather have a long-term solution as another short-term solution, but it does appear at least possible if not likely that a short-term solution might have to be part of what happens here before we get to a conference. On the DOD authorization bill that we passed by working together this week to solve a problem, does the majority leader have any sense as to whether that bill that we sent over originally will be back on the floor at any time, or if there will be any provisions? I have heard some discussion that there might be those among our Members who would like to vote on just the passage that created a problem, and I am wondering if you have any thoughts on how to deal with that bill. The authorization bill we replaced is still out there, but it would be my impression that it is not coming back in any form, and I am wanting some verification on that.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. And we are having a short week next week because of the Republican planning retreat and a short week the next week because of the majority's planning retreat. With those two short weeks, I know that the FISA legislation that had a bipartisan extension in the very first days of August expires February 1. That is just 2 weeks from now; it is about 4 or 5 working days. Given that deadline, I wonder if we could expect the House to consider some extension during that 2-week period of time, and if the gentleman has any sense yet as to what extension the majority might propose.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to join my colleague from Maryland, the House majority leader; to introduce the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2007. As Mr. Hoyer will attest, this is not the first time we have come together in a meaningful way in this important area--and we were both proud when the Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 became law in the 108th Congress. It's estimated that between 7 and 8 million Americans live with intellectual disabilities, impacting nearly 1 out of every 10 families. For these individuals, life is not always welcoming--and very rarely is it easy. People with intellectual disabilities are often excluded from society--whether at school, in the workplace or in their communities-- simply because of their differences. So I was glad to learn of a program called Best Buddies. This organization. founded in 1989 by Anthony Kennedy Shriver, helps integrate people with intellectual disabilities into mainstream society, end their social isolation, and embark upon productive, fulfilling lives. The Best Buddies program works with volunteers to establish meaningful friendships with their non-disabled peers in order to help increase the self-esteem, confidence, and abilities of people with and without intellectual disabilities. This is a program that has enhanced the lives of actual people by providing real and safe opportunities for one-on-one friendships and new options for employment. And while these activities may not sound like life-changing events to the average person, for individuals with intellectual disabilities, they make a world of difference. This bill helps accomplish that goal in a number of significant cant ways. It authorizes the Secretary of Education to award grants or contracts with Best Buddies to conduct and expand its activities--with an eye on increasing the participation of individuals with intellectual disabilities, as well as to promote outreach programs. This bill will go a long way toward dispelling negative, hurtful stereotypes and make clear the extraordinary gifts that people with intellectual disabilities nonetheless possess and utilize. More important, it will help move people with intellectual disabilities from the margins of society to the mainstream of society. I am also pleased to note that this bill is budget neutral. The $10 million authorization in this bill is offset by repealing two programs that in the most recent fiscal year were funded at $10.4 million. I know Mr. Hoyer and I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this bill into law, in the hope that we can help raise the hope and dignity of people with intellectual disabilities, and further empower their full participation in our communities.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. I'm just here to say that I think this 18-month extension gives us the time we need to make SCHIP an even better program. It extends the current program. It increases funding for the current program. It helps the States that have a shortfall. It ensures that kids who don't have Medicaid, who are in that second 100 percentile, the families who are closest to the Medicaid number, get their coverage first, by not reversing the policies the administration has lately put in place on waivers. It does important things to ensure that the qualifying standards for SCHIP don't change. On those areas that extend Medicare payments to doctors, I would remind my friends here that we're paying for those, most of that, through the stabilization fund on the last big fight here we had. This was the fund we thought we might need to make part D addition to Medicare as a competitive and innovative addition to Medicare work. We didn't need that money because it's working on its own. The last fight we had this big on a health care issue, we kept hearing how terrible it would be for seniors. Eighty-seven percent of the seniors don't think it's terrible at all. I think we're going to see that this debate also leads to better results for SCHIP, not worse results for SCHIP. I'm glad to see this extension.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, the truth is that this $50 billion that we're now prohibiting being collected from 23 million new American families next year isn't our money. It's their money. It's not money that we have this year. Now, it's money that we said at the first of this year we never want to collect from these families, but then we decided we immediately wanted to go right ahead and spend it. That's the real fallacy here. Whether the White House makes that mistake or the legislature makes that mistake, we have no right to this money. As my good friend from Massachusetts said, Republicans oppose raising taxes. Now, because of that, our friends on the other side kept putting this issue off, and because of that, when it comes time for Americans who aren't impacted by the alternative minimum tax at all to get a refund, their refund is going to be slowed up. This should have been done 6 months ago. But we are getting it done today. We need to move forward in a way that doesn't let this continue to be a pattern. This tax was put in place in 1969. Unfortunately, it's still affecting the same families that were affected in 1969. But no modification for inflation. No forward thinking. It was made worse in 1993. Republicans in the House, and some Democrats, voted to repeal this tax in 1999. And that's the best answer. We need to get on to how we eliminate this unfair tax. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. And we have no claim on this money. Acting like we do, spending it in advance, waiting till the last minute to do anything to protect these families was bad management. But we are getting the job done today of protecting these families. Madam Speaker, I'm glad we're doing that.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I will take that information and thank you for that information. On the AMT, on the alternative minimum tax, the status on that right now is the Senate has sent over a bill without an offsetting tax pay- for, has passed one. Can you give me some information of where that bill is at this moment?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for information about what I hope to be the last week's schedule of this working year.

Mr. BLUNT. And I understand for the last 5 or 6 years we have taken the initial step necessary by June to not let this encumber the tax collecting system. And even if we now are able to clarify this, it is so late that it is going to have impact on how people can file their taxes next year. I certainly would agree with any premise to suggest this should have been taken care of long ago. And as my good friend knows, we did send a bill that I voted for to President Clinton in 1999 that would have eliminated this tax. We should have done that at that time. I am sorry we couldn't figure out a way to work together and eliminate that tax then so we wouldn't have to wrestle with this issue every year between then and now.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that, and let me just clarify in my own mind. The energy legislation would not be considered on Monday, but if we get it, I am anticipating it would be considered on Tuesday.

Mr. BLUNT. And then further clarification on your observation about more action on the children's health insurance program as it relates to the doc fix. I am a little unclear on your information on that.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. I do know whoever is in the majority on this side has to spend a lot of time explaining why an apparent majority on the other side of the building doesn't really become a majority on that side of the building. I thank the gentleman for his information.

Mr. BLUNT. On that topic, my friend, I wonder, do you have any sense on what time over the weekend or on Monday it would become obvious, the Monday evening work, because we have had many Members, as I am sure you have, inquire about that specific issue.

Mr. BLUNT. They do, and it is a difference. I think the third thing that should be considered, that unfortunately we still are not able to bring ourselves to consider, is how you manage to deal with that revenue shortfall by savings and spending, by just not planning to spend it. But the President's budget did, your budget did. I don't agree with the President's budget and I voted against the majority's budget, and we do have to look at savings as one of the options. The President's budget, the President would have increased spending by over 6 percent, by over 4\1/2\ percent in the bills left, and I think that is the number right now we are trying to deal with. I look forward to working with the gentleman as we deal with that, get the work of this year's Congress done, and let our Members go home and talk about what we have done or what we have failed to do.

Mr. BLUNT. I will look forward to that coming back from the Senate. I would say whether the administration does it or we do it, this policy of taking revenue we don't have now, that we don't think we should be collecting and creating a situation where we have to come up with another tax to collect it, and you mentioned the administration did that, and I believe you are right, that they did anticipate that, I think that was a wrong thing for them to do. I think it is unfortunate we have let this tax get into this situation.