Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. I hope you are right. I don't know what the Founding Fathers contemplated for sure, the Founders when they wrote the Constitution. I do know they gave the House the ability to initiate spending bills and the President the ability to veto. In the context of how much money we are really talking about, the President added a 6.5 percent increase, and then the House-passed bill added $23 billion to that, which is more than the individual budgets of more than 35 of the States. So people, as they look at this discussion that this isn't much money, it is more than all of the money spent by 35 or 36 of the States in the country. You know, I think in that context, $23 billion is a significant amount of money.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, that is absolutely true. And the money that we spend to defend the country every day is important and it is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government, and I agree with that.

Mr. BLUNT. On AMT, I am not sure the Senate has dealt with AMT yet, but my understanding is that they may very well send that back without the money to offset that tax relief in a tax increase. I am wondering under what circumstances we might or might not see the alternative minimum tax relief in the next 2 weeks.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. My view of that and most of our Members' view of that is that those 23 million people are not paying that tax this year, and so the idea that you have to replace that money to keep them from paying it next year is the fallacy of the PAYGO argument generally, as are many of the other extenders that you mentioned, the supplies for teachers and other things that are tax benefits they currently have, but that is obviously a fundamentally different view of how we view noncollected taxes this year that would be collected unless somehow what I consider to be very good tax policies for teachers and others are extended. On those tax extenders, the doctor payment issue is another issue that I am wondering if the gentleman has any information on, and I would yield on that as well. This is the doctor payment issue under Medicare and the fact that they would take an automatic cut.

Mr. BLUNT. It does. As the gentleman knows, a month from today, actually starting January 1, those new payment schedules would go into effect which would go back to a cut in what those providers are being paid for those same services almost 10 years ago. That is a significant problem, and I am glad that the gentleman appreciates it and I am sad that we have gotten right down to this last moment in the year and not gotten to it yet. You mentioned SCHIP. I know my good friend has worked hard to try to get the votes to override a veto and now perhaps to pass another bill since the President has the bill we had earlier passed. If that does not happen, would you anticipate an extension of SCHIP? My view is that the State programs and the Governors in those States should have some assurance that they can move forward as we continue to work for a better solution than I believe we have found so far. But assuming that has not happened in weeks and doesn't happen in the next 2, would you expect to see an extender, a bill, of the current program while we continue to look for changes in that legislation? Or would that program end on December 14 or 15 when this current CR ends?

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman's work on this. I do know that in terms of a bill that would continue this program, that a significant majority of our Members would vote for that; and the bill that would even expand the program, a number of our Members might vote for that. But it has to be the right bill, structured in the right way. I know you've spent a lot of time on that. I hope you can negotiate even further from where you've been. But I also know that my staff and your staff hopefully are even working together on this to determine that exact right number that would continue the existing program to be sure that shortfalls are met, and that the existing program and the impact of that potential guideline on the existing program, and I think I can assure my friend that there will be enough votes in the House, including votes on our side, to easily extend the existing program and cover those shortfalls while we work for a better program. The last question I have is the gentleman's certainty about Friday. I know a few weeks ago we had scheduled that these 2 weeks would be 3-day weeks and the Members would be able to schedule things in their districts on Mondays and Fridays. I think your sense is today that we might very well be here on Friday, and I would appreciate some clarification on that.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I'm hopeful that my friend has mentioned that date again. Even after the experience of this week, we're still looking at that date. It may be the triumph of hope over experience, but we may all be motivated enough to get that done.

Mr. BLUNT. Hopefully next Friday we won't even have to have a discussion about the week's work coming up because we will be done. And I appreciate the information of the gentleman. I yield back.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. I am wondering, on the appropriations process, the remaining 11 bills, if the gentleman has a sense of when those might come before the House. I know there was at least a discussion of a same-day rule for Tuesday for that purpose. So whatever information my friend has, I yield to get his ideas on when we might see the first effort on the appropriations bill on the floor or maybe the final effort on that bill.

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

Mr. BLUNT. On the remaining 11 of the 12 appropriations bills, some of which the Senate did not pass, was the minority involved in these nonconference conferences that you described?

Mr. BLUNT. That's what I thought, the possibility of Tuesday. I would point out to my friend that the bill that the President did sign, the Defense bill, was very close to the amount of money, a reduction in the amount of money that was equal to the increase on the Military Construction and Veterans bill the President said he would sign, which is actually in the context of both what most of the Members on this side of the aisle had hoped for and what the President said he would insist on, which is the obvious ability of the majority, within the 6.5 percent increase that he proposed, to stay below that number. Actually, Military Construction and Defense, while they are not a perfectly balanced outcome, come close to the way that system can work and still be within the President's number and an example of two bills that he said he would be willing to sign, neither of which are the bills he proposed, but the combination of which certainly are within an amount of money that could be adjusted in the other bills. On the military question, those two bills we are talking about, does the gentleman anticipate any opportunity to have funding, either full or partial, for Iraq and Afghanistan without withdrawal language in the bill we would send over to the Senate or at some later time next week?

Mr. BLUNT. I would hope that can be the case, and we'd hope for our troops in the field and to prevent any layoffs that might occur between now and the time we return in January.

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. I am glad with that assurance that won't happen, and I am sure they will be, too. While we won't know on the 15th whether they can run out of money by the date you mentioned, the middle of February, it is very possible that we will know by the day we leave here, and a January letter then would be required before we got back that indicated that a furlough would happen.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his hard work on the floor this evening, for the leadership of Mr. Hoekstra and others on this important bill. We need to modernize FISA to keep up with changes in communications technology and the continually evolving tactics of our terrorist enemies. We made some important steps in this direction only 90 days ago. We all understand that more needs to be done. But rather than responding to this need, this legislation actually impedes the intelligence community's ability to conduct effective investigations and to prevent future terrorist attacks. This act requires FISA court orders for the first time for thousands of overseas terrorist targets. The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, has described this requirement as unworkable and impractical. This act contains a sunset date which fails to provide the certainty under the law that our intelligence community needs to effectively do its job. It doesn't provide the liability protections for telephone companies and other carriers that assisted the government after 9/11 who now have a flurry of harassing lawsuits facing them. Mr. Speaker, the majority claims that this legislation will restore a balance between civil liberties and national security. In fact, this bill will restore the intelligence gap that existed prior to our actions the 1st of August. I urge this legislation be defeated. The current bill is better than this bill. We need to deal with it certainly between now and the end of the 6 months, but let's not take a step backwards. Let's let the law do what this law was intended to do in 1978 and is doing today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to my friend, the majority leader, for an update on next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank you for that information. I certainly agree with your observation about our veterans and the appropriateness of us taking the day on Monday to honor them. On that issue, we went to conference this week on two different bills, and my impression was, based on the combination of the Military Construction and Veterans bill with Labor-HHS, that that veterans part of that bill was probably done. I'm wondering if the gentleman has any sense of how we can reinitiate a conference on that bill so that we can get the veterans and the military quality of life, military construction money passed. Is there a plan to go to conference there?

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I appreciate that. And I do know that the chairman has worked hard with the U.S. Trade Ambassador and others, and I'm appreciative of that. And the administration, as this process works, will decide whether to send those up, but I know that they will do that in significant consultation with the chairman and ranking member and, I hope, others in the leadership. And these are important discussions. I thought we had a significant step in the right direction for our neighborhood this week. To have all of the leaders of both parties vote for a trade agreement was a good sign about the future of our relationships with Panama and, I hope, a good sign about how we approach more of these trade agreements. The other question I had also relates just on the Armenian resolution. I know that a lot of things have happened in regard to that resolution. But I also know that the leader, 3 or 4 weeks ago, maybe it was 4 weeks ago, said that that resolution would be on the floor by November 16. I know it wasn't announced today. I wonder, has any decision been made on advancing that resolution? And I would yield to my friend.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. I'd also say that I was heartened by the good work that Chairman Rangel and Mr. McCrery and others did on the Peru agreement, and certainly, I think I want to continue to reach out to you and the chairman and others who'd like to get things done so these bills could come to the floor. Colombia is the one that was negotiated next, and because of the Panama complication, it may even be more likely that that could come next. I would be pleased to yield to Mr. Rangel for any thoughts he has on that topic.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. What I believe will be my last question, Mr. Leader, is on Tuesday, knowing this is the last week before there is a break, and we may not stay with the normal procedure, should we expect anything beyond suspension bills on Tuesday? Do you think there's any likelihood, not possibility, but any likelihood of a rule bill as early as Tuesday?

Mr. BLUNT. Well, we'd be pleased to be notified as early as you know about it. And I think you're absolutely right, that Members would be pleased to work a little longer days this week to get some time at home with their families during the holidays.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I appreciate that. And I would think since essentially it appears that bill has already been conferenced, since it was included with the Labor-HHS bill in conference, that it should be pretty easy to do and hope that we can do it. The President has announced he would sign that bill. The difference in this year's spending and last year's is about $18.5 million dollars a day, and I would hope we could get there. On the trade agreement this week, I thought we had a significant bipartisan vote on the Peru Trade Agreement. There are three other agreements out there that have been negotiated, and I wonder if the leader has any sense of when we might be able to look toward any of those bills coming to the floor. And I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time, and I thank the gentleman for the comments that he's already made. I certainly agree with the chairman of the committee that in 1969, certainly a long time before I came to Congress, and there are a few Members here who were here then. I think the chairman was here. He said this was a bad idea. It was a bad idea in 1969. It was a bad idea in 1993 when the alternative minimum tax was made worse. It was a really bad decision in 1999 when the Congress voted to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and a Presidential veto prevented that from happening. This is an unfair tax. Everything that's been said about this tax today by both sides I believe is accurate. Now 23 million more taxpayers are on the edge of this unfair tax and we are figuring out how to tax more people to somehow equal out this unfairness. I think it's clear that a significant majority of this Congress knew last year that we wouldn't have wanted this to happen. But for some reason we still apparently wanted to commit to spend the money that would occur if it did happen. So we are taking money we don't have today, this $50 billion or $70 billion, I think I am hearing two different numbers here, money we don't have today and assuming that we have got to replace it tomorrow to have not stepped backwards. This is money we did not collect this year. But we are saying we have to have this. This is what I see as a real twisted application of the PAYGO rule. We are now spending also time we don't have on this issue because our friends on the other side of the building have said they're not going to let the major tax increase here be part of a final solution. So once again we are spending a day we don't have when we could be spending a day doing things like passing the military construction, military families, veterans bill that somehow got lost this week. It got pulled out of a bill by the Senate. We went ahead and passed the Labor-Health and Human Services bill and went to conference on two other appropriations bills, but we chose not to go to conference on the one that would help veterans and help military families and pass that bill today. Instead, we're passing a bill today and I guarantee you we will be back on this floor with a different solution that the Senate and the President will accept and doing this work at a time when this work matters. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let's get on with the work of not letting these 23 million new taxpayers be affected, but let's get this done rather than make another effort to just give a speech about how we can raise more taxes.