Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that observation. I would just say that we actually might have had more open rules in the last Congress if it occurred to us that we could use the suspension calendar as one of our opportunities to do that. Under the rules of the Congress in the Congressional Budget Act, the Budget Act calls for us to have adopted a budget by April 15. Do you have any sense of when the budget will be submitted by the Budget chairman, and whether or not we are working toward that statutory deadline and can possibly make that deadline.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, on the bills the gentleman mentioned, I know this week we had a second open rule of the Congress. It was an open rule for the second time on a bill that in the last Congress passed unanimously. I wonder if the gentleman has a sense of the rules on these upcoming bills and what they might look like.

Mr. BLUNT. With the 3-day rule, I suppose it could be available as early as tomorrow for a Monday/Tuesday effort before the committee.

Mr. BLUNT. And do we know when the draft of that might be available?

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Does the gentleman know, would we expect to see the supplemental in the Appropriations Committee next week and on the floor at some time after that?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I appreciate having the time. I appreciate the leadership that my good friend from California has shown on this issue. Madam Chairman, Members, many of us in this Chamber have been reminded over the years, some of us more frequently than others, that elections don't always yield the most convenient results. But as unpredictable and, at times, disappointing as their outcomes can be, for some reason we keep holding them, and we go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that basic conditions of privacy and integrity are properly observed and protected. The reason we do that is not that we are gluttons for punishment, that we want to go back facing the disappointment of not being successful on election day. It is that, in our democracy, secret ballot elections represent an essential mechanism for establishing legitimacy. We recognize elections as the fabric that holds our democracy together. Lose an election, and you tend to ask yourselves plenty of questions. Most of us, though, after all the soul searching we do, don't decide that one of those questions is answered by the idea that next time we just simply fail to hold the election. We understand that that is not one of the options we have. The advocates of the underlying bill say we should suspend a worker's right to register his or her choice by a secret ballot and replace it with a system in which workers would be forced to publicly declare their preference to friends and to co-workers through a series of cards that would be collected. Mr. McKeon's amendment, before that, the bill introduced in previous Congresses by our friend, Mr. Norwood, says that we must have, in all instances, a secret ballot election. Which system is more vulnerable to peer pressure and intimidation? An anonymous secret ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, or a public declaration of whether you want a union or not. There was a time in this country when you had to publicly go to every polling place in America and cast your ballot publicly, audibly or visually, so that everybody in the polling place knew how you voted. But over a century ago, one of the great reforms in this country was that that system would never be allowed to happen again. And one by one the States adopted secret ballot elections as one of the great reforms that has protected our democracy. We have already heard, probably more times in this debate than anybody would want, the lead sponsor and his comments about secret ballot elections in Mexico just a few years ago. There was a day when labor advocates like Senator Robert LaFollette and the AFL founder, Samuel Gompers, toured the country in a push for more open, more voluntary standards for joining a union. And in every case, they fought for the right of a secret ballot, the very privileges the sponsors of this bill say today are no longer needed. The former chairman, the ranking member's amendment, says let's defend the secret ballot, let's protect the workers' right to cast their vote in privacy. Support this amendment. Oppose the bill. Stand up for democracy as we vote today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I thank the gentleman for the time, and I am particularly pleased to follow my good friend, Mr. Crowley, at this moment in the debate. I want to recognize others later, but he and others, as he just said, made this a real bipartisan effort for many of us in the Chamber. September 11 fundamentally changed the way we looked at the world. It also changed a number of important and substantive ways the way we defend against and react to things that could happen that would be unthinkable. It was really within the context of that change of rural view that Americans expressed the outrage they did over the Dubai Ports World deal last year. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a previously obscure government agency, known to some and referred to in some debate, often referred to as CFIUS, approved that acquisition, and it didn't take long for the committee to attract all sorts of critical attention. The reason for all the concern is that the CFIUS decision brought to light some very serious national security issues with equally serious implications for the safety and protection of vital points of the American infrastructure. Thankfully, as the Congress set last year to consider ways to shore up security protocols over at CFIUS, we found ourselves agreeing that any reform of CFIUS ought to take great care to both encourage foreign investment in the future of America while balancing the need to maintain a strong program of national security. We can, as this bill does, protect America's families physically while protecting their jobs, their investments, and their pension plans. Congress has no more important responsibility than to ensure the security of the Nation. But I don't believe that wholesale protectionism either protects our vital national security interest or advances our economic interest in the world. During the last Congress, Congresswoman Pryce, Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman Crowley and I crafted a responsible bipartisan bill that addressed the problems exposed in the CFIUS process during the Dubai Ports World incident. Congressman Frank and Congressman Bachus helped to see that we got that debate on the floor and have done so much to see that we bring that debate back. While the bill we passed didn't have a single dissenting vote, even though we asked for and had a roll call, we weren't able to resolve our differences with the other body before the end of the Congress, and so we didn't get that bill done. Today we come back with essentially an identical bill, I think slightly improved, that Congresswoman Maloney was the principal sponsor of. Our goal is to strike the right balance here between securing the country and open engagement in a global economy. The bill before us today accomplishes these objectives while dealing with the main issues the Dubai Ports World incident exposed. It does this in a couple of ways. First, it reaffirms congressional intent relating to the so-called Byrd rule, which mandates a 45-day investigation for companies controlled by foreign governments. Any state-owned enterprise that poses any type of security risk will trigger an automatic CFIUS investigation. Secondly, it increases accountability in the CFIUS process by establishing CFIUS in statute and adding the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce as vice chairs of the committee. Third, our bill greatly expands congressional oversight and includes important language protecting proprietary business information. The administration has raised some concerns regarding how these things will impact the process operationally. I look forward to working with the administration as we move forward to achieve our shared goal of creating a reasonable framework for approving foreign investments in the United States, while at the same time protecting our national security and ensuring that the mistakes of the Dubai Ports situation are not repeated. The other thing we don't want to do also is make it so hard to invest in this country that American businesses aren't able to invest in other countries. We don't want to start an investment war, and this bill clearly is headed in the right direction to do the things it needs to do. We are fortunate to have the bill on the floor. Congresswomen Pryce and Maloney, Congressmen Frank, Bachus, Crowley, King, Hoekstra and Barton have all been instrumental in coming with a bill that doesn't just respond to the excitement of the moment, but reaches a long-term conclusion that protects Americans and also protects the value of American companies. I am pleased to support it. Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Barrow

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for the time. Madam Speaker, I rise again today, as I did at the beginning of this debate, to urge a ``no'' vote on this nonbinding resolution. We have spent the week discussing the situation in Iraq and trying to find out what the resolution may really mean. As I said at the start of this debate, it is hard to imagine a less qualified group prepared to determine tactics on the ground than 535 Members of Congress, or 535 members of anything else; how many troops to deploy, where to deploy them, which car to stop. Where does it end? There is a disagreement on how we should fight this war on Islamic totalitarianism, but this fight is the challenge of our generation. Madam Speaker, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle supported this mission at the beginning. Now they are ready to give up in the middle of the fight. Those who join me in opposing this nonbinding resolution have been saying all week, while this resolution will have no impact because it is nonbinding, it is still the first step toward cutting funding for our troops. Yesterday, we were told that this is the first step toward pulling the rug out from under our troops in the field. This week, one of the veterans on our side of the aisle was accused of being dishonest in her representation when she said that this resolution we will vote on today did not support those who are deploying. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, said just yesterday, during the unveiling of his strategy to pull the rug out from under our troops, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment. They don't have the training, and they won't be able to do the work.'' He also said, ``I think, first of all, we have to be careful that people don't think this is the vote. The real vote will come on the legislation we are putting together. This nonbinding legislation is just an opinion.'' I would say this resolution says just enough not to say anything at all. We have already heard the Democrats calling the debate this week the ``bark before the bite.'' Their so-called slow-bleed approach is the bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America's flag overseas. This nonbinding resolution is the first step in an all-too-binding spiral toward defeat in a fight that we cannot afford to lose. I am not pleased to vote ``no'' today, but I will vote ``no,'' knowing that the ``no'' vote is the right vote.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank all of my colleagues for the comments they have made today. The job of the whip in the House is supposed to be the job of organizing the Members, and many people think it is the job of convincing Members they should do something they don't really want to do. I will tell you that the Member that it would have been the most impossible to convince to do anything he didn't want to do was Charlie Norwood. He was here to do what he thought was the right thing to do. It wasn't always what I thought was the right thing, but it was what he thought was the right thing and he was going to do it. The toughness, the courage, the determination of Charlie Norwood was extraordinary among an extraordinary group of people. Just this struggle that we have witnessed with Charlie's health, a struggle that he faced uncomplainingly as he sat day after day over in that corner recovering from massive surgery, but, as Chairman Barton showed in the letter he got in recent days, never giving up on the job he was doing for the people he served. The people that sent him here should be proud, the people who worked with him should be proud. The people of the United States would be proud if they knew the great and tireless job that Charlie Norwood did for them every day. And I am honored to have had a chance to serve with him and call him my friend.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution. General Petraeus said a resolution like this would discourage the troops. The Secretary of Defense said a resolution like this would embolden the enemy. This Congress should be doing neither of those things. What this resolution will not do is take a position on what we should do as we face the challenge of our generation. President Johnson was criticized a generation ago and still today for choosing bombing sites in Vietnam. He was the Commander in Chief; yet he should have left those tactical choices to the military. But his actions made imminently more sense than this. It is hard to imagine a group less capable of making tactical decisions about specific troop deployments than 535 Members of Congress. The resolution today is about the exact number of troops. Will the one tomorrow or next week be a vote on which block in Baghdad to target or which car to stop? And, of course, today what we debate is a tactic in the greater fight we are in. The new commanding general determined this surge is the right course of action. The Iraq Study Group was supportive of ``a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such a step would be effective.'' Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the current situation in Iraq cannot continue. That is why the President has advanced a new way forward. Actions do have consequences, and this resolution the Democrats advance today is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for the current strategy because it is a vote not to change that strategy. The current strategy is not working, and as a southwest Missourian told me yesterday, We are there. He went on to say, It really doesn't matter how we got there or what we thought. We are in a fight that won't stop if we leave. The fact of the matter is that Congress does have the power to end the war if it has the political will to do so. Almost 24 years ago, in November of 1983, the Congress voted to withdraw from Lebanon by March of 1984. Many of the proponents of this resolution voted then, who were Members of Congress then, voted to leave. They lost 153-274, but the message was sent, and we left anyway, and when we left, the myth of American weakness began to take hold in al Qaeda. The language of this nonbinding resolution does not tackle the tough issues of war. It tries to have it both ways: disapproving the tactics but supporting the troops. It does not say we will fund the troops in the future or not fund the troops. It does not say we will supply the troops in the future or not supply the troops. This resolution just says enough not to say anything at all. America should see this move for what it really is, a political first step to cutting off funding to the dangerous mission our troops face. The truth is, we are in a war against a hostile and ferocious enemy that will stop at nothing. Imagine how this debate this week bolsters those radical terrorists whose sole goal is to destroy America because we disprove, as no society ever has, the dogma of religious totalitarianism that they use every day to recruit followers and funders and suicide bombers. Our diversity, our ability to live together, and the prosperity and vitality that are the result have produced the enemies we face today. As long as we live as we do, they must be wrong. This week, the Congress will send the signal to those enemies and to those who fight to protect us from them that America has the will and indeed the courage to continue fighting these Islamic totalitarians or that we do not take the consequences of failure seriously

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I would.

Mr. BLUNT. That very well could be. I am sure that those Members will be able to explain that fully in that way. I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. BLUNT. I would yield.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate those comments. And, of course, after the 6 weeks that we have had of no opportunity to express our views, we were eager to express those, and we were grateful for the open rule. And, frankly, we were able to, I think, bring some good debate to the floor. The re-voting issue surprised me because when we re-voted those amendments that had been passed in the House, on one amendment, 57 people changed their mind between the vote and the re-vote. And on another one, 25 people changed their mind. I had always assumed there was more consistency in the voting than that, but I guess 30 minutes can make a big difference in how that goes.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. I would assume that fairly early in the week, it is likely, it is possible, at least, that having to deal with that CR question will appear to be likely rather than not. I will be glad to join with you in watching that closely early in the week. We look forward to the debate.

Mr. BLUNT. Of course, I hope that as you grapple with this, you will grapple toward the determination of input into this important debate. I believe, as you do, it is a critically important debate. This is an important issue. You and I have been together to Iraq twice. We both have taken this issue very seriously. We watched and the American people have watched the debate on the other side of this building this week, where the whole process has come to a halt because of the unwillingness of that body to move forward without having options on the table; and even in that debate, the majority offered at least one alternative opportunity to the minority. And that was not acceptable to that minority on that side of the building. I would hope on this side of the building that at least we would get the offer that if you are working on the other side of the building, you walked away from, which would be one opportunity to express another view. We are going to have 3 full days of debate. The gentleman said some of them could very well last as long as midnight. That is enough time to consider more than one point of view and have at least two points of view heard. And I heard the gentleman early in the week; I heard him say today, you are still grappling with that. And I would just encourage you to do your best to try to create the opportunity for this issue to be debated in the fullest possible way at this moment and move on with that. I would also like to ask, with February 15 being the last day for the current continuing resolution to be in effect, it seems to me possible at least that the Senate is not going to deal with the bill by the end of the week. Do we have any plans as to how to deal with that issue? Or do you have any information that I don't have that would suggest that it is likely that the Senate will have agreed to a bill that we can agree to? One option, obviously, would be agree to the bill that the House sent over. But I am interested in what happens on Friday, and between now and Friday that might settle that also, that important issue as well. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, would we have at least the opportunity for a recommittal with instructions? At one time I thought you had announced the likelihood that we would have a substitute on Tuesday of this week or sometime earlier this week. Am I hearing now you do not any longer believe we will have that, and will we at least have the recommittal opportunity?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, another question: What about the Republican leaders and Members? Will we have a chance to have amendments to this bill? Will we get a chance to have a substitute? Will there be more than one substitute? What kinds of things are you thinking about in terms of the structure of the debate?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information. This resolution I guess we have never had a hearing on. But the resolution is going to be put before the body by the leaders. Is that what you anticipate happening, Mr. Leader?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would also ask, will we see that resolution go through the Armed Services Committee and be marked up there? Or what will be the process for the resolution? I yield.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information. I would like to yield again to him to ask when on our side we might be able to see the resolution in its completed form, or in any form for that matter.

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Those amendments that passed in the Committee of the Whole in the first degree would all be subject to be revoted?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the chairman.