Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Well, it is a good thing I clarified that in my mind.

Mr. BLUNT. Next week. And on the floor the week of the 19th.

Mr. BLUNT. So you are anticipating, if I could refresh my mind here to the gentleman's comments, that both the supplemental appropriations bill and the budget will be marked up during the week of the 19th.

Mr. BLUNT. I might be for whatever it took to return the voting rights for the Member of Congress to a State that is represented by two Senators which, of course, would be, I would assume, your State. I don't know that I would be for an amendment that would allow somebody to be represented uniquely that doesn't have Senatorial representation, and, of course, you are assuming that it would be inside the Constitution. I do think that would be the way to do it. And while the population of the District may allow it to have a population similar to the districts that are represented by the average Member in terms of population, the Constitution, to me, appears to be very explicit on the question of Representatives of a State. Half of the original District of Columbia, as the gentleman knows, was returned to the State of Virginia in, I believe, the 1840s. They are represented by a Member of Congress, and maybe more than one, and they are represented by two Senators, the Senators from Virginia. That appears to me to be a remedy that would be well within the Constitution. But this proposal that Mr. Davis and others have made, I think, will have a significant constitutional hurdle to overcome. The other question I would direct to the gentleman is on the budget itself. When does the majority expect that we will see a markup in committee of the budget resolution, and when would that resolution be on the floor?

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I would caution the gentleman on that theory. As high a regard as I have for Mr. Davis, and it is high, I have certainly never considered him to be the ultimate authority on the Constitution. And, of course, when you allow States to enter the Union, as the Constitution provides for, you have the requisite number of Members of the House and two Members of the Senate. And the major question I am sure I will have during that debate and later will be exactly what State is Washington, D.C. part of, since the Constitution specifically says that Members of the House are selected by the various States. I think there is a constitutional question here, and that is one of the reasons that, when we were in the majority, that Mr. Davis' bill didn't come to the floor. And I think there will be, should be, a constitutional remedy, if there is a remedy.

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. In our Constitution, as the gentleman knows, the District was established differently than most capitals and, I am sure, has developed in a different way than was anticipated at the time. But when Presidential voting rights were extended to the District, the Constitution had to be amended to do that. Would the gentleman anticipate that this would also require a constitutional amendment since the District is not part of any State?

Mr. BLUNT. Does the gentleman know when that legislation was designed to take effect? After the next election? I am not familiar with the specifics of that legislation. Certainly I do know that Mr. Davis was the sponsor.

Mr. BLUNT. I yield.

Mr. BLUNT. And as an appropriations bill, does the gentleman anticipate that we will have opportunities to amend that bill on the floor?

Mr. BLUNT. That would be the week of the 19th.

Mr. BLUNT. You expect it to be on the floor the following week?

Mr. BLUNT. And the gentleman then would expect it to be on the floor the following week?

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman's view of that, and he is right. I do share it. I would ask the gentleman, on the supplemental that has been described in concept this week, when would we expect to see language on the supplemental?

Mr. BLUNT. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for sticking with his earlier decision on next Friday, in spite of what I am sure must have been the incredible pressure for us to be here next Friday; and we will try to get our work done.

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank the subcommittee chairman and the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. The language we are discussing today is designed to authorize a study by the National Park Service to determine the feasibility of creating a new Civil War battlefield at Newtonia, Missouri, or bringing those battlefield lands under the management of the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield near Springfield and also near the Newtonia battlefield site. This measure is a necessary first step to determine if this battlefield, as I believe it will, fits the criteria necessary for being preserved as part of the National Park System. I believe the study will find that the two Civil War battles at Newtonia, like the Manassas Battlefield south of where we are now, hold a unique place in American history and are worthy of protection in the National Park Service system. Two important battles were fought at Newtonia during the Civil War, one in 1862, where large numbers of American Indian troops on the Confederate side and the Union side, actually fought each other in battle. It was the largest of the rare engagements where native Americans fought on both sides in the Civil War. My understanding is that this is the place where those troops actually fought each other. Two years later, in 1864, the last battle of the Civil War west of the Mississippi was fought at Newtonia as Confederate forces withdrew from Missouri after their defeat at Westport. Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia had the most battles in the Civil War, and this was the final battle in our State. This legislation has really been strongly supported by the local community, as has the idea of preserving this battlefield. The Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association has spearheaded preservation efforts at Newtonia. In 2002, the association acquired 11 acres of the battlefield, along with the Ritchey Mansion, which is on the National Register of Historic Places for around $300,000. A year later, I delivered a ceremonial check for about half of that from the American Battlefield Protection Program to reimburse the local group that had put this association together. The National Park Service rated the 1864 battlefield as a Priority I for preservation and the 1862 site as a Priority II. These sites are largely similar. They overlap in some places, but they are right next to each other. A review by the National Park Service found the 1964 battlefield faced a greater threat from development. The not-for-profit Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association was formed in 1994 to work on funding to preserve the battlefields. In addition, the National Park Service has provided archaeological and historical surveys and assessments of the battlefield. I think this study will answer the questions that need to be answered before any further steps are taken. I am grateful to the committee for bringing this legislation to the floor today. If this study is agreed to by both bodies, it might even be funded in this year's appropriation process.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rudy Farber, who recently celebrated his 50th year of service at the Community Bank and Trust in Neosho, Missouri. At the age of 16, as soon as he could drive, Rudy began working in the bookkeeping department of the Bank of Neosho. Over the course of his career he has watched the bank go from figuring interest by hand to the automated process that it is today. Rudy became president of the bank in 1979, taking over for his father who had served as president since 1942. Rudy's father was dedicated to the community and Rudy has followed in his footsteps by believing that community bankers should be involved in community improvement. In 1987, Rudy introduced an employee stock ownership program for the bank. The employees currently own half of the bank and Rudy plans that in the future the employees will purchase his interest and keep the bank employee owned. Before becoming president, Rudy worked as an assistant cashier, assistant vice- president and served in the United States Navy from 1963-1967. The bank changed its name to the Community Bank and Trust in 1993 and now operates branches throughout Southwest Missouri. Rudy continues to serve as president and chairman of the Community Bank and Trust. Rudy and his wife Dorothy have two children, Aaron and Nori Vial. I am proud to congratulate Rudy Farber on his 50 years of service as a community leader in Neosho.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, I would say that it is a challenge, the budget is a challenge. We look forward to the solutions that the chairman brings forward and having that debate on the budget, having that debate on the size of the debt. We hope we can get to a budget that is balanced in 5 years without a tax increase. I am sure that will be one of the many topics that we will be discussing over the next few weeks as the budget progresses. As I said earlier, the earliest possible access to at least a draft of the supplemental will be helpful to us. And we hope that the majority will work with us to get that supplemental draft to us as soon as possible so that we can begin that important debate that will be on the floor I don't think next week, because clearly, the time would not allow that, but hopefully as soon as the week after that, and we look forward to that debate.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. Also, as we look back into the recent history of the House, I had actually never heard the rule referred to as anything before but the Gephardt rule. But the Gephardt rule, or the Hastert, whatever rule you want to call it, only applies if you actually have an agreed-to budget. And so on more than one occasion in the 12 years we were in the majority, we didn't have, and a couple of times, didn't produce an agreed-to budget by both bodies. And I don't remember anybody on your side of the aisle helping increase the debt limit either. So this is an area where both parties have played over the years a role of you didn't help us, we're not going to help you.

Mr. BLUNT. That is helpful. On the issue of the rules of the House, Mr. Leader, as I understand the rule that sometimes we were able to frankly use and sometimes we weren't, on the rule that we always referred to as the Gephardt rule that was initially put in the rules by Mr. Gephardt when he was the majority leader, if there is a budget resolution adopted by both Houses, that budget resolution vote on the conference becomes the vote on raising the debt limit. I wonder what the majority's plan is on that. Do we intend for that to continue to be the case, or will we expect a vote on the debt limit at some time?

Mr. BLUNT. And to meet that deadline, I assume Chairman Spratt must be working on a draft budget to be submitted in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. BLUNT. Actually, we made the deadline one time in 12 years, and two times in the 30 years of the budget rule.