Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Is it the gentleman's view, I guess I am repeating what you are saying, I want to be sure I have this right, that you still intend to have 11 bills done by 3 weeks from tomorrow?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the time and his response. Just in response to that, I do know that the Appropriations chairman today said that Members would expect to be here on Saturday if those four bills are not done prior to Saturday. Is that the leader's view as well?

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that response, and I would also say, as I recall how that process has always worked, it's usually negotiated between both sides at some point during that open-rule process, when both sides feel that there's been adequate time given for Members' views to be heard. I think that was the appropriate way to handle that then. I believe it's the appropriate way to handle that now. I hope we're able to continue on that unanimous-consent view of this where both sides are able to achieve a sense that their Members have been heard.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, if he wants to respond in any way.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for his views on that. We do see the pre-printing requirement as not as open as the open rule that we used to describe and use with some frequency, but I am pleased also that the gentleman appears to see my point in terms of the appropriations bill itself. It is a much more fluid process. It involves proposing that money be taken from one place to place in another place, and so if a pre-printing requirement is on a document that you have no idea, frankly, what it looks like, even by the time the amendment you had in mind might be offered, that amendment may no longer be appropriate or valid. If, for instance, all of the money you were hoping to use for your so-called ``paid for'' is gone, your pre-printing requirement meant nothing because your source on how to pay for your better idea is gone. I think we are hearing each other. I hope we continue to discuss this. I would also suggest to my friend who often, and I understand how hard it is to resist this, has pointed out last year's work wasn't done and all that stuff. I will tell my friend that last year the House, under our leadership, passed 11 bills by the 4th of July. Now if at the end of this process, if our friends on the other side of this building, you are as challenged as we were to get it all done, I hope you are prepared to hear for months and months and months how the work was not done. We met the standard that you are setting for yourself. The previous year of that Congress, the first half of that Congress, we passed all 12 bills by the 4th of July. I assume your sensitivity on this issue will only grow if you run into a similar situation, and I am sure we will be glad to remind you of it. But the work of the House was done. Let me tell you one other thing that we did last year that we are developing great concern about and that is on this topic of where the Member-directed projects, the so-called earmarks, go into the process. Our process, more often than not, included that work being done in the bill with, obviously, a lack of control over the final negotiation with our friends on the other side of the building. But, last year, we had a point of order against a list that wasn't complete. Maybe there is some problem if there is no list, your list doesn't have to be complete, but a bigger problem is this idea that we are at least starting with the first four bills, if it is appropriate for them to have these projects, that the project could not possibly occur until you go to conference. I would say to my good friend that I believe our Members and some of yours share real concern that this removes almost all of the transparency from the process, and I hope we can work together to find a better solution than to put all of these earmarks in at the last possible minute so they can't possibly be looked at to any extent. You want a pre-printing requirement for every amendment and would expect the highly volatile topic of earmarks to be handled in a conference that the Members possibly barely have time to look at and the media has even less time to look at it. It is a huge problem, and I hope we can continue to talk about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. BLUNT. I would say to my friend that I am sure we do think that undermines a right, and that would be a major problem as we look at this. Let me give you an example why it undermines a right. First of all, this has been the procedure of the House for a long time. In the 12 years of the leadership by my side, we allowed this process to happen for 12 years on virtually all of the bills. One reason you want to do that is in this process where, first of all, the Member is obligated to present a way to, within the structure of that appropriation bill, shift money around, if that Member is successful, you don't know that in advance. I am pausing here because I think it is a very important point. You don't know that in advance. And on the floor under the rules we have used for well over a decade, probably into two decades, another Member could then stand up and say, the cut just made, the adjustment just made, I would like to propose that we restore part of that by taking money from somewhere else previously unmentioned in that debate. And you don't know that as part of a pre-printing requirement. It is a substantial limiting of the minority or the majority, and I suspect that a number of these amendments will come from both sides of the aisle. It is a substantial limiting of the Members' ability to react to what happens during the response to these amendments. I am sure that we want to talk about this in more detail and in more length. Because I believe the Members on our side of the aisle and, frankly, I think the Members on your side of the aisle who have used this process in the past, some with the same amendment every single year, some with the same positive result every single year, will see this as a substantial change if that pre-printing requirement was a requirement.

Mr. BLUNT. The open rule we have used in the past has been truly an open rule where Members would come to the floor and, as long as they were, under the appropriations process, finding a way to pay for their proposal, would offer that proposal on the floor. There was no pre- printing requirement. I hope that continues to be the same. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for that. The calendar is one thing. I hope that the calendar doesn't suggest that we are rushing through these bills in any way. Of course, for the time I have been in the House, and I believe the time my good friend from Maryland has been in the House, the appropriations bills have come to the floor under an open rule. The general exception for that has been, again, under both sides of the leadership, the Legislative Branch bill, which, for its own reasons, often has a structured rule. Does the gentleman anticipate that we will still have the open rules that have been the tradition of the House on these bills?

Mr. BLUNT. June 29. And however many days it takes to get that done, that is your intention?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland for an update on next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT. I am glad to have that information.

Mr. BLUNT. I would tell my friend that I believe in the last five Congresses, the only Congresses I really have that kind of sense of, it was seldom done, if ever, and both in scheduling the floor and trying to do the job of the whip for the floor, both of which I did some of, that our appropriators were almost totally unwilling to have an appropriations bill on the floor while the Appropriations Committee members were tied up dealing with difficult and complicated bills, which all of these bills are. I don't think that's regular at all, though you were on the Appropriations Committee. I just suggest to my friend, maybe your memory of that is stronger from the previous decade than the last decade, because our appropriators were very resistant to doing that, and I'm sure our appropriators still will be resistant, though they don't call the meeting or schedule the markup. I would yield for whatever information my friend has on that.

Mr. BLUNT. I hear my friend, and we look forward to this process next week. I would ask, also, it has occurred to me that we've only got four of these bills, I believe, through the markup process. We're going to be asking the appropriators to mark up bills on the other topics while we've got appropriations bills on the floor?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield my time back to the gentleman from Ohio. I think that our panel was available before that, but he is the one that would know more about the specifics of that than I do. I do know that going forward is important. And in fact, if we could set a standard of moving forward we would probably all be better off, but it is awfully hard in any political environment to not keep looking backwards. We do need to move forward. We need a resolution of this. And it doesn't have to go hand in hand with the resolution of legal matters, it needs to go hand in hand with the code of conduct of the House and what happens there.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased that the body will move forward this evening to approve this resolution that the Republican leaders offered. The majority leader indicated in the last Congress that the Ethics Committee didn't meet for a year. I think that is because the Members of the minority at that time, now the majority, wouldn't meet for a year. And now we are in the sixth month of this Congress, and only today is there a group of Members made available by the majority to choose a panel from to investigate this case. Now, maybe that was just an accident. Maybe that's just starting a new majority. Maybe that's not remembering that this investigation was stopped at the end of the last Congress and couldn't start in this Congress unless there was a new panel put in place. Those of us in the minority, I suppose, have less to worry about, so we put our panel of Members out immediately at the beginning of Congress, as we have in the past. We put our panel out there immediately. And now, in June, the sixth month of the Congress, the majority makes Members available suddenly to investigate this case as if it just occurred today, or as if we were just aware of it today. That is almost too big a coincidence to overlook. We are going to start looking at this case. I am pleased that our friends on the other side are going to join us in that effort. This case has been known to Members of Congress for some time now. It rises to a level of accusations and an indictment that has seldom been met in the history of the Congress. A 94-page indictment that alleges conspiracies on this and at least one other continent that could result in 230 something years of prison time if the Member is found guilty. Mr. Speaker, even if all of those things did not turn out to produce guilt at the end of this pathway, the standards that have been referred to here on the floor are clearly standards that the Ethics Committee should have been looking at. Those standards that violate the official conduct of the House, you don't have to necessarily have violated a law to violate those standards. You certainly don't have to have violated a law to have brought disrepute on the House, or whatever language is used in the code of conduct we attempt to hold each other to. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think it's high time that we did start this investigation. I think it is unfortunate that we had the time this entire Congress where nothing has been done to look at this case. And because of that, I hope that we not only ask the Ethics Committee to look at the case, but do everything we can to encourage them to not decide necessarily the legal matters, they will be decided somewhere else, but to decide whether or not this Member has violated the ethical code of the House; and if that is the case, what should the action of the House be in the future. So not only do I stand as the majority leader just did to join the Republican leader in supporting this resolution, but also in encouraging all of our Members to. Mr. Speaker, if my friend has a quick response, I would be glad to just yield 1 minute to him for that purpose.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a man from my district recognized the world over for his contributions to popular culture and society. For the last 35 years, Robert William Barker has been a familiar face in a world of ever-changing television personalities as the indefatigable host of ``The Price is Right.'' His extraordinary television career began in 1956 with the show ``Truth or Consequences,'' which broke records by remaining on daytime television for a remarkable 18 years. With his career in the national spotlight, he brought the program back home to Missouri, airing it live from Springfield on April 14, 1972. That same year, he also began hosting ``The Price is Right.'' For 3 years, Bob hosted both shows concurrently--making it look effortless to his growing audience of friends and admirers. His work would yield extraordinary results. Not only has ``The Price is Right'' become the longest running game show in television history, it has earned the distinction of being named the highest-rated game show of all time--a product of Bob's singular talent and tireless work ethic. Among his other notable credits, he hosted the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants and the Rose Parade for 21 years; won 17 Emmys and was nominated for two more; was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame in 2004; and was named by the Guinness Book of World Records as ``The Most Generous Game Show Host'' and ``The Most Durable Performer'' in television history. Always a man whose popularity cut across ethnic, social, and generational boundaries, Bob's popularity soared even higher with young people after his appearance in Adam Sandler's hit movie ``Happy Gilmore,'' for which he won the MTV Movie Award in 2000. Another milestone in Bob's career occurred 2 years later when CBS named part of its Los Angeles headquarters ``the Bob Barker Promenade'' to commemorate the show's 30th anniversary. Stage 33 at CBS Television City, which is one of the most historic sites in the industry, was re- dedicated as the ``Bob Barker Studio,'' making Bob the first performer to whom CBS had ever dedicated a stage. It was from Stage 33 that Elvis Presley made his legendary first appearance on ``The Ed Sullivan Show,'' and it has been the staging grounds for ``The Price is Right'' during its entire 35-year run on the network. But long before he met fame, Bob met his future wife Dorothy Jo Gideon after graduating from Springfield Senior High. Barker would go on to pursue his studies at Drury College in Springfield, and was voted class president during his sophomore and senior years. Like so many of his generation, the events of World War II would interrupt his studies. He trained as a Navy Air Corps fighter pilot, and returned to Drury College to graduate summa cum laude in 1947. He later served on the school's board of trustees from 1977 to 1980. Bob Barker also started his entertainment career in Springfield, hosting a radio program on KTTS Radio, where he developed his clear, reverberating voice and his instant rapport with audiences. For the past 30 years, Bob has devoted a significant portion of his time and resources to helping improve the lives of animals, appealing daily to viewers to have their pets spayed and neutered. In 1994, he established his DJ&T Foundation, which is named in memory of his wife and his mother. The mission of the foundation is to fund low-cost spay/ neuter clinics. In addition, Bob has given millions to establish endowments promoting animal protection law at some of the Nation's top law schools, including Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, Northwestern, Duke, Georgetown and Columbia. His work has also influenced other law schools to offer similar courses. Bob Barker is a reflection of the character of southwest Missouri, where he learned early on the importance of self-discipline, an unrelenting work ethic, commitment to family and respect for others. It's also apparent from watching ``The Price is Right'' that Bob enjoys people, places and having fun. Through his contributions to the causes important to him, he has set an example for people committed to changing the circumstances of those less fortunate. And he has done it with dignity and style. In his retirement, I wish Robert William Barker continued success.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the 30 seconds. And I would say in response to those questions, first of all, by definition the last Congress must not have been a rubber stamp, or it wouldn't have taken the time that you suggest this Congress sees as so important to do the job. And what the last Congress was doing was, one, trying to get a bill the President would sign in circumstances that the Defense Department said was dramatically different than this; and, two, eliminating $14.5 billion of spending that we didn't want and the President didn't want. We didn't do that part of this job.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lewis for yielding. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that it is about time that we got this job done. Three and a half months to respond to our troops and to their families is too long. Frankly, I think if we had been interested in getting this job done, most of us could have taken out a yellow legal pad and written 30 or 60 or maybe even as much as 90 days ago what the House would finally vote on that would solve this impasse in supporting our troops. While we have let this process drag on, the military has had to cancel noncritical contracts, defer home station unit training activities, defer any nonabsolutely critical orders for spare parts, defer maintenance, put off summer programs that have affected spouses and families while military personnel were assigned to Iraq, and that is unfortunate. What is fortunate is that we have come up with a bill that funds the needs of the troops and sets benchmarks for the Iraqis. House Republicans have been saying since January this bill needs to include benchmarks for the Iraqis. I have been saying almost since that time those benchmarks need to have consequences. We have done that in this bill, and that is a good thing. We are requiring the Iraqis to step up and do their part of the job. Equitable distribution of oil resources is something that needs to happen if this country is going to achieve stability. Establishing a High Electoral Commission and establishing a deadline for regional elections is something that we have been talking about since January that tonight we are going to say the Iraqis have to do or there are consequences. Militia disarmament is important here, as it is also important, as you deal with the military, not to undermine the military or change military leadership if they are doing the job that needs to be done in ending sectarian violence. Protecting minority political parties in Iraq is something that we are going to be monitoring. The Iraqis have to come up with the brigades that they need to be part of the operation that General Petraeus is leading. The President has to certify these items. All these are things that many in this House have been talking about for most of the 109 days this debate has been dragging on. It is time to bring this debate to an end. It is time to support the troops. It is time to support their families and do the job that the Congress needs to do rather than trying to figure out the job that the commanders in the field need to do. They need to do what is necessary to be successful. This is a step in giving them the tools to do that and giving the Iraqi Government the incentive to be who they are supposed to be.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his hard work on these issues, and I also appreciate my colleagues from the committee. But I am here to say to my friends that, as we look at this bill, I don't know what this bill does because the bill is so unclear. It didn't go through our committee. Like the other legislation we passed in this Congress, it is not likely to become law. I believe we have put around 21 bills on the President's desk so far this year, a dozen of them to name post offices. And the reason for that is all of the bills we passed in the House don't create a result, they don't create law. Let me just refer to one thing. It says you can't sell fuel in an emergency situation at a price that is, (a), ``unconscionably excessive.'' Of course you shouldn't do that. We shouldn't allow that. But we should define what that means. One of the supporters of the bill has told me, well, every court will decide what that means. I have got to tell you, the mom-and-pop grocery and gasoline station owner can't wonder what every court is going to decide. This bill is unclear. It needs work. It puts an undue hardship on people that are trying to make a living running a service station, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman also for putting this time together today so that we could talk about the incredible, remarkable life of Rev. Jerry Falwell, a man who never apologized for his spiritual beliefs, who never wavered in his commitment to furthering the dialogue of faith and family in America. Jerry Falwell was a native son of Virginia, the senior pastor of one of its most prominent and well-attended churches, and the founder of a Christian college in Lynchburg that started its enrollment with 154 students in 1971 and today has over 20,000 students. Along the way, Rev. Falwell honed his leadership skills and pursued his academic study. In Springfield, Missouri, the town I live in now and I am pleased to represent it in Congress, he transferred there as a sophomore to Baptist Bible College. He later graduated from that school in 1956 with a degree in theology. And the first time I met Rev. Falwell was when he returned to Springfield. I was a county official at the time, and I had begun to watch him on television. And unlike so many other television pastors, watching Rev. Falwell was like you were right there in the church service because it was a church service. And I remember the growth of the church as you could watch it on that late Sunday night broadcast that I happened to watch on Sunday evening. I remember when they started moving the church, they had a song that was something like ``I Want That Mountain,'' the site on which Rev. Falwell and the church had decided they wanted to grow the church and eventually the school. And watching his incredible faith and what he was doing, his unflagging determination to spread the Gospel, his ability to use the communication tools available to him in ways that others hadn't, but in ways that his growing congregation were totally comfortable with, in ways, in fact, that didn't compete with what he was doing every Sunday morning and every Sunday night at the Thomas Road Baptist Church. He left Missouri in the mid-1950s with a renewed commitment to the power of ideas, ideas about the importance of spirituality and public life, ideas that promoted the family, ideas about the protection of human life at all stages of development. And for 50 years, for half a century, his mission was a mission of defending those ideas. It would give rise to a movement of citizen activists in evangelical Christianity that, frankly, for the previous 50 years in many ways had been intentionally removing itself from the civic and political process, with a focus on what was going to happen after we were here, rather than also being focused on the world we live in. He never lost sight of his mission. He was a man of purpose, not a man of things, it appeared to me. Whenever he applied that purpose to improve the conditions of the world around him, it made a difference. The time and energy he devoted to his once small college, in fact, once just his idea of a college, became one of our larger universities. It's a great example. The church he started, the Thomas Road Baptist Church, which he started in 1956 in a bottling plant with a congregation of 35 people, now is a church of nearly 25,000 members. But his achievements weren't only building a church and building a school, he was deeply concerned about the moral direction of this country, and worked hard to ensure that people of faith were part of the national dialogue, part of a way of changing who we were for the better. His lifelong pursuit of truth was not a casual affair nor was his commitment to a way of life and learning that acknowledged the lessons of the past and applied those experiences to building a better future. Earlier this afternoon, parishioners of the Thomas Road Baptist Church and people from all over the country and all over the world gathered in Lynchburg to pay a final tribute to their pastor, their friend, a leader that they respected. Tonight, I would like to join my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, and others and use this opportunity to pay my final respects to a person who clearly was a leader. He was a teacher, he was a father and a husband, and above all other things, he was an untiring messenger of the good news and the eternal hope of our Lord. I want to thank my friend for organizing this time tonight and for giving me the time to join you.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman. Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Feeney

Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman would further yield. Our Members, I think, in agreement with the gentleman's view on this, said we'd prefer to stay until this supplemental is done. And is that your inclination at this time?