Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. I just would suggest to the gentleman that we have changed the rules in a way that, while that particular messaging between the two Houses has seldom been used, I think it is even harder to do in light of the House rules changes, and we would hope that these bills are done in conference and, of course, hope they are done in conference in accordance with the rules that this Congress has proposed for conferences.

Mr. BLUNT. I would ask on conferences, in a press report this week there was a suggestion, as a matter of fact, I think it was today, that the ethics bill might come to the House under an extraordinary procedure that didn't actually involve a conference. I think the House changed its rules this year to be much more stringent on requiring a conference, and I am wondering if that report has any merit to it that the gentleman would be aware of.

Mr. BLUNT. Let me ask one other question about conferences, and that would be unless this proceeds into another area.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor. I'd actually thought, based on the other things I was doing today, that the case was being well-made that a $7 billion increase is an increase. And I didn't plan to come to the floor this afternoon. I had a number of other things I was working on that I thought were important. I was watching the debate and assuming that the case was being well-made until I heard in the last debate that a 4.3 percent increase was a cut. And I was so stunned by that, a 4.3 percent increase was a cut, a six-something billion dollar increase of the $7 billion that the majority hopes to increase was a cut, that I decided I'd come to the floor for a minute, and I've been amazed on the floor at what I've heard. I've heard the gentleman just ask a series of questions about the Abandoned Infants Assistance Program that's the same funding as last year's level; the community-based child abuse program, prevention program, that's the same funding as last year's level; adoption opportunities that I believe I heard were below last year's level. And I'm not asking the gentleman specifically this question, but I'm asking myself this question: why is that? Why is that that Abandoned Infants Assistance could be funded at last year's level and somehow that's appropriate? Is it less important than it was last year? Is it less important than the many unauthorized things that this bill funds for the first time ever? Why is it that we're not doing more, as the past Congress always tried to do more, in IDEA? Why is it that NIH, in the debate we heard yesterday, the National Institutes of Health, didn't deserve the funding that the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee found a funding source for for that to be raised? Why is it, if inflation is a factor, that we don't care at least at an inflationary level about Abandoned Infant Assistance or we don't care at least at an inflationary level about community-based child abuse prevention? The gentleman from California is saying let's just cut this by one- quarter of 1 percent, one-quarter of 1 percent, a growth of still almost $7 billion, but instead, we're funding the unauthorized Full Service Schools Act. Now, why are we funding the unauthorized Full Service Schools Act, but we can't find enough money to keep adoption opportunities at at least last year's level? I'm amazed by what I've heard here on the floor. Why is it we're funding the unauthorized sexual education program? Why is it that grants to local education that could be funded at $25 billion, because that's what the Congress in the past says we could allow, are only funded at $14.4 billion? Part of the problem here is, once again, we're authorizing on an appropriations bill. We're trying to come up with new programs instead of fulfill the promise of the last programs. IDEA took major growth in funding in the last 10 years, but we haven't sustained that level in this bill because we're trying to fund new things. And I just close by saying that every American knows that $7 billion is an increase and 4.9 percent is an increase, as was 4.3, as is 4.4.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments on that. I do recall that extraordinary session and dissatisfaction created with some of our Members and maybe with the country, and the country does look at what we do and how we do it and when we do it. They look at what we do over and over again, and it is up to the country to evaluate the purpose served by that. And if they evaluate it to the detriment of the majority, the majority sometimes pays the price for that. And our troops in the field, not to debate this bill again, also I think, have some reason to anticipate that there should be a point when they are given direction and given an opportunity to follow up on that direction. The last question I have is on energy. We have heard reports that the majority would hope to move an energy bill the week of July 23, and I have also heard that that bill could be moved in two parts, one dealing with the part of the bill marked up without the Ways and Means portion and then the Ways and Means portion. And I am wondering, as we anticipate that debate, if the leader could give us a sense of whether what we are hearing about that is the likely way that that energy bill will proceed. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that. That is helpful information, and we will proceed with next week's work next week.

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. Well, I sensed the sadness on those Friday opportunities to work in the district, and I'm glad we're working those out for our Members. On the schedule next week, I'm wondering if we should anticipate any votes next week on Iraq. We voted today on an Iraq withdrawal bill that was introduced just 2 days ago. That bill wasn't noticed on last week's schedule. It didn't go through committee. It didn't have a hearing; didn't go into the Rules Committee until 1:30 on Wednesday, and I'm wondering if we're going to see anything like that on an Iraq bill next week. I yield to my friend.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that. Though that possibility is one that I'm surprised wasn't in the potential work for next week, though I hear that it's not in the scheduled work for next week, I'm wondering if we would see an Iraq bill next week or in the following week, will those bills go through committee, or will we just, once again, see those bills created and brought to the floor like the bill this week? I would yield to my friend on that.

Mr. BLUNT. Using my time here, I would suggest that in the previous Congress, while we did have some votes on Iraq, we did not have votes that didn't have hearings; we didn't have votes that didn't seek information. At 10:30 at night, I don't want to belabor this in the debate that we've already had today, but I do think that information on these kinds of issues would be helpful if we could gain that through the normal process. And while we may have talked about Iraq in the normal process, certainly, many of the questions that this bill generated never had a chance to be asked. And just from my own perspective as a Member of Congress, I would think that there's a better way to approach this critically important issue than that.

Mr. BLUNT. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I don't remember the bills on the House floor exactly the same way that the leader does, on the House floor in the past. I think there was quite a bit of new material there. And maybe, again, I also think, while we're on this topic, that the result of that vote was also very similar to votes we've had on this topic, and wouldn't anticipate that changing in the next weeks. But if that's the way we're going to spend our time, that is the way we're going to spend some of our time. I have a couple of questions on conferences that I don't have any information on and I believe my friend may. Last time we talked on the floor, which was almost 2 weeks ago now, you thought we would be going to conference on the 9/11 recommendations bill and the lobbying reform bill in the near future, and I see that the Rules Committee is meeting on Monday concerning the 9/11 bill, and I'm wondering if you have any more information about combining that with something else or why there would be a Rules Committee meeting on that. I would yield to my friend for any information on that process of going to conference.

Mr. BLUNT. Are there any other conferences anticipated?

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for the effort he and others are making on the floor here today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to this editorial today from the Washington Post which says, ``It seems like just weeks ago''--because it was that--``that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed General David Petraeus to report back on the war's progress in September. Before Congress begins ordering withdrawals, they should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some help.'' Mr. Speaker, I think that, in a nutshell, sums up what we ought to be talking about today instead of what we are talking about today. I've heard this resolution referred to as a ``new way forward,'' but it doesn't provide a new way forward. It, frankly, serves no purpose in meeting the challenge that we face today with our totalitarian enemies. I'm told that, yesterday, in the House Appropriations Committee, 45 minutes was spent debating whether cats should be declawed before they were allowed into public housing; 45 minutes to decide whether cats should be declawed in public housing, and by the way, that committee decided they should, and no minutes spent to talk about this bill. No hearing on an April 1 deadline. No outside testimony on a bill that was quickly put together to serve a purpose of, I believe, changing the subject of the failure of this Congress to get its other work done back to a subject that is obviously creating stress in America today, and that is, what do we do about the totalitarian enemies we face and their lack of appreciation for innocent human life? Commanders in the field say that a responsible deployment from Iraq would take at least a year. Maybe that's why we didn't have a hearing on how long it would take to responsibly and safely leave Iraq. There was no testimony from the military about an April 1 deadline. In fact, I can't even find any evidence of any consultation with the military about an April 1 deadline. And what does ``limited presence'' on page three of this, what does that mean? What does ``limited presence'' mean? I suppose it means whatever it needs to mean when you go home and explain why you voted for the bill, because it doesn't mean anything. Limited presence means nothing, and it's a key criteria of this approach. The same people who say we went into Iraq without a well thought-out plan now want to leave without a plan at all. And that's what is wrong with what we're talking about today. Let's go back to page three of the bill itself. The President is supposed to report back in January things like the projected number of armed forces necessary to carry out the missions. The projected annual cost of the missions. The projected duration of the missions, I guess to suggest that there really aren't going to be missions if you leave April 1 if you've been on the other side of this issue up to now, if a few weeks ago you were for giving the generals in the field up until September, and now you're for deciding what we're going to be doing in April without knowing what that September situation is about. And it goes on, on page 3, to talk about whether it's necessary, I guess defining the missions, whether it's necessary to have Armed Forces to carry out the following missions; protecting United States diplomatic facilities and United States citizens, including members of the Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions. You can pretty much make this, I guess, whatever you want it to. Serving in rolls consistent with customary diplomatic positions. Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. Now, we're going to decide, apparently the President should decide in January whether that continues to be an important thing, or whether training and equipping members of the Iraqi Armed Forces continues to be an important thing. Where was the effort made to determine the impact on al Qaeda worldwide, or to determine the impact on Hezbollah or other agents of terror and how that would affect our security in the United States if we precipitously leave one more time, if we precipitously leave without a plan? Only a few weeks ago, again, as others have verified all over the country in editorials today, I and others stood on this floor and said, our troops deserve a funding bill without strings and without congressional pork. Today, I'm here to say that they deserve a chance to carry out their mission without looking over their shoulder all the time to see what the Congress of the United States is about to do next.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the Vice President is a talented man. He is a former Member of this body, a former whip of this body. I would like to think that any former whip of the body or current whip could confuse people as much as the Vice President appears to be able to do. Certainly my good friend from Illinois is a smart man. He knows what branch of government the Vice President is a part of. There are only three, after all. We know he is not part of the judiciary. We know he is not part of the legislative. So he must be part of the branch that is funded in the bill. This amendment may be lots of things, but it is not a serious amendment about really defunding the Vice President's office. It is an amendment about something other than that, and we know it. It has nothing really to do with moving this issue forward. There will be some discussion as the day goes on today about whether or not an amendment on our side was really an important part of the debate on the bill. This amendment is an amendment in search of a press release. In fact, let me take that back. This amendment is an amendment that is following a press release. We have already had the press release. We have already had the comments to the press about how we take advantage of a moment about who has access to what records. We all know that defunding the Vice President's office is not the way to do that. I was glad to hear my friend from Illinois say in his concluding remarks, or what I believe would have been his concluding remarks, I may find that was not right, is we understand the Vice President of the United States is our Vice President, we understand that his office is funded under this bill, and we understand that is the work that needs to be done by the Congress. We know what branch of government he belongs to. No matter how confusing that may seem, there are only three. We know which one he is part of.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Ohio will yield, based on the gentleman's time on the topic we are discussing, my personal view is that the Vice President and the President are bound by the same standards. But that is only my personal view. And, after all, we are not the judicial branch of government. Which branch of government would we be? The legislative branch. We know where the Vice President's office is. We know what branch he belongs to.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm on the side that this debate does matter. And, in fact, I think I just heard debate begin, as our good friend just suggested that this doctrine does need to be looked at and does need to be changed. I certainly think that this debate is more meaningful than whether the Vice President is part of the executive branch of government or not, and I'm grateful to Mr. Pence and Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Flake for bringing this issue to the floor today. I'm also grateful, and appreciate the majority's willingness to accept this. And while this may not be an item that was on the House agenda last week, I think it's clearly an item on the agenda of debate in the country. The fairness doctrine, or the so-called fairness doctrine is a clear and bald-faced attack on free speech. It's been declared such by the Supreme Court and the FCC, and just about every reasonable American who ever heard about it. Proponents of the doctrine don't like what they hear on the radio, but instead of empowering the process by engaging the points with regular Americans, they prefer to empower a government agency to silence those voices. This is a diverse country with rich and robust views on politics, on culture, on society, on the role of government. The right to vocalize disagreements on all those topics in whatever medium or whatever way is available, is fundamentally what differentiates us from the countries, the totalitarian views of regimes that our country has stood against for now 230 years. But the fairness doctrine would limit those rights and submit private broadcasters to arbitrary rules of so-called fairness, rules, I suppose, that would change from year to year, depending on who controlled the Congress or who controlled the White House. The content of radio and television shows should be directed by station managers, not by government bureaucrats. The success or failure of that programming should be determined by the marketplace of options and the marketplace of ideas, not by some arbitrary rule of a government agency. Again, I want to thank Mr. Pence, Mr. Flake and Mr. Hensarling for offering this important amendment. I urge its support, both in the House today and in the debates that I believe are starting now. It may have been in an elevator yesterday and a hearing room tomorrow and the FCC in the future, if we don't engage in this important debate again. I'm grateful to the majority for accepting this amendment, but I urge all Members of the House to speak out loudly against this so-called doctrine as this debate continues.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of my friends, the chairman and the ranking member, whether they are willing to work with me going forward on a solution for two broadcasters that cover the Joplin, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Kansas, broadcast area. This includes a significant portion of my district. Due to the forthcoming digital transition, which Congress has already authorized for early 2009, the channel allocation assigned to KFJX, a local FOX affiliate, is likely to be shared with emergency first responders. This could result in significant service disruptions for both the station and the first responders. Another local station, CBS affiliate KOAM, has offered to make available spare spectrum for KFJX's use after the transition, which should provide a solution to the problem. Unfortunately, due to the fact that one of these stations, KFJX commenced operations after the FCC issued viable digital channels for all existing broadcasters, at this point the FCC believes it is unable to make the proposed change without congressional intervention. I would like to work with my friends in order to fix this problem as this bill works its way through the process.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I come in support of my friend from Colorado's amendment that would reduce this by one-half of 1 percent below the spending levels of last year. Over the last 6 months, the new majority has passed or paved the way for $103.5 billion of increased spending. I guess actually, to be technically correct, it's $103.4 billion. While $0.1 billion may not matter here, it sure matters in America. $103.4 billion in new spending. We have already enacted over a $6 billion increase in the continuing resolution for this year. We added $17 billion in unrequested funding to spend in the supplemental for this year. And now we're beginning this process of moving toward the additional $80.3 billion added to spending on this year's budget. $100 billion is a huge amount of money. Today we're considering the Interior and Environment appropriations bill that really makes a good portion of that increase happen right here. This bill increases spending by almost 5 percent over last year's level, $1.2 billion of new spending. And here, if you look at this spending thermometer, we're halfway up to what may be the taxpayer's boiling point. Somebody has to pay the bill. Somebody has to produce the revenue. Some American family is going to have to have a little less take-home pay because government wanted just a little bit more here, a little bit more there, a little bit more everywhere else. And all my good friend from Colorado's amendment does is say, let's reduce spending here by one-half of 1 percent. Let's reduce spending by $138 million and still see if we can't do the things that need to be done in this appropriations bill in the right way. If you add this increase to the increases already proposed and passed over the past 2 weeks, we're spending $23.8 billion more than last year. I rise in strong support of this amendment. I respect both the chairman and the ranking member of the committee and believe that they've done a good job with this bill, but I believe you could do that same job, I think you could do the same job, produce the same results with asking the American taxpayers not to have to carry a burden of 4\1/2\ percent new spending in this part of the budget. And so I strongly recommend that we take this, what may seem like a slight reduction here, but when families have to start paying that $138 million in additional taxes, it's a big deal for American families. It should be a big deal for us.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. That is helpful to me, and I appreciate the information.

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

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for that information. And from the fact that you said we will see how the week goes Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, I think that anticipates that at least there is a chance that with the State-Justice-Commerce bill's not being next week, we may be able to be done on Thursday, and the Members can start their work period on Friday. Would that be one of the options that would be a possibility at least? And I yield.