Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I do intend to request a recorded vote. However, I first want to make a point of order that the Chair just failed to properly announce the result of the question of passage by the requisite three-fifths pursuant to clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which requires a three-fifths vote to increase tax rates. Section 102 of H.R. 6 proposes to deny a deduction under section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for an income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas or primary products thereof. Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for up to a 9 percent deduction in the amount of corporate income that is taxable under section 11(b) of the Code. As described in the joint statement of managers accompanying H.R. 4520, which created section 199, when enacted section 199 effectively created a lower percentage rate of tax and therefore reduced the amount of tax proposed by such section. Once fully phased in in 2010, section 199 reduces the tax rate under section 11(b) by 3 points. Section 102 of the pending bill proposes to disallow this deduction for certain taxpayers, thus imposing a new, higher percentage of tax, and thereby increasing the amount of tax imposed on a taxpayer under section 11(b). The Joint Committee on Taxation has indicated that section 102 will increase tax receipts by $7.6 billion between 2007 and 2017. Therefore, Madam Speaker, since this bill increases taxes, and since that tax burden will ultimately be passed on to every American consumer who owns or operates an automobile, I insist on my point of order and demand that H.R. 6 not be considered as passed unless agreed to by three-fifths of those Members present and voting.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, but more than that, in support of prescription drug access that works for seniors. This has been a long, hard fight in this Congress to get this program to where it is today, and it is working for seniors. They think it is working for them, and I think it is working for them. The cornerstone of the Medicare prescription drug program is choice and satisfaction driven by competition. Competition is a good thing. And once again, today we are talking about whether or not we have competition in this system. Instead of a one-size-fits-all model, the prescription drug benefit provides choices for seniors so they can find the best plan for them. This competitive model works, and it is doing exactly what Congress intended: it is driving costs down and providing more options for seniors. The current system, as my friend from Louisiana has already said, the current system costs less than was anticipated, has more options for seniors than was expected, and has a tremendous level of user approval. With the competitive Medicare drug program, individual drug plans can decide not to sign a contract with a drug company if they can't reach a price that they can agree on. Then seniors analyzed what all of these competitors out there were able to do. They take the drugs they take to the plans available and find out which company was able to negotiate the best deal, not for all drugs, but for their drugs. That is why this plan has worked in a way that surprised so many people, including the seniors that now benefit from this plan. What are we really talking about today? Our friends on the other side seem to think that we need government to negotiate prices for seniors. Well, what does that really mean? When the government negotiates for you, it means you are cut out of the decision-making process. Government is almost never the best negotiator and wouldn't be the best negotiator here. Some of my colleagues claim that the change they are proposing today is merely minor. But I believe the change we are debating today is the major debate about the future of health care in the coming decades. Do we believe that government should make the decisions about your health care? Or do we believe that these decisions are so fundamentally personal that they can only best be made by the individual? Are Americans better served by a competitive model or by a government mandate that has less access and more cost? Opponents of adding prescription drugs to Medicare and the way we did it last January have never believed that competitive options for seniors were the way to go. They have said so many times. That is the reason that I think they are so determined today to take away these choices that seniors have. When the government negotiates prices, it fixes prices. This means a government bureaucrat will be empowered to determine what kind of drugs our seniors will have access to. If the government couldn't reach a deal with the drug company, seniors wouldn't have access to those drugs. That is what happens in the VA system that we are talking about. Actually, today, we ought to be talking about how we can provide more choices for veterans instead of fewer choices for other seniors. It is Economics 101. And if seniors only cared about price, the lowest plan available would be the plan all seniors were choosing. They are not choosing that plan. They are choosing the best plan for them. H.R. 4 will open the door to price fixing and health care rationing by the government. It is as simple as that. During the campaign, Democrats argued that this bill is needed to protect our seniors. But if any senior can point to anywhere in this bill where it points out that all the drugs available to seniors today would be available in the future, I would suggest not only is it not there, but one negotiator couldn't make that deal. I urge my colleagues to reject this change, to reject rationing, to keep choice out there for seniors, and to believe in competition.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the information he has provided. I would just again say this is not the place, I suppose, to have the debate on PAYGO for taxes or the PAYGO for spending or all the PAYGOs, but you do have the PAYGO rule. Maybe I was inarticulate suggesting not to debate the merits of the rule, but if you are going to have the rule, my view is you should apply the rule. Waiving the points of order on that rule as a routine of rules for the last week hopefully does not become any kind of routine item in this Congress. I am sure that is not the gentleman's intention; particularly, though, when the rules are waived, the points of order are waived for the majority, but on the one small attempt that the minority has to improve a piece of legislation, we have every point of order still against us. The balance of that seems even more out of balance. If you want to have PAYGO that is in our rules now, we need to have PAYGO, we need to have enough time to know what we are paying for, so we can really have that debate on the floor.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the information he has provided. It does raise a number of questions, and I will try to keep them in mind as you answer them a few at a time. One, I think it is only fair to say that while we did discuss these two issues, the last two bills you mentioned, it was only in moments before the colloquy, and I think our leader only received notice these things were coming up within a few minutes of coming to the floor. So more notice, as the former minority whip would know, more notice is always a good thing. Particularly, my good friend, on these issues, issues that affect Members and their families, notice, appropriate hearings, and we did pass similar legislation on the issue of the access to pensions for people who had committed a felony, we passed that in the last session. It did go to committee. It had a chance to be amended. We debated it on the floor, but this is a new Congress with many Members who were not part of that process. In the case of the last Congress, I believe that issue went to both House Administration and the Rules Committee and possibly the Committee on Government Reform before it came to the floor. I think you are telling me next week you anticipate only the Rules Committee would see and have a chance to look at this legislation before the floor, and even the Rules Committee ranking Republican is getting that notice as we are talking right now, that that important issue is coming up next week?

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that information. I share your sense this is an important issue. We dealt with it on our side of the building in what I expect will be a highly similar way in the last Congress. I say that not to defend the idea that it is not going through committees this time but to suggest it is not a new idea. It is something that we have dealt with. I expect there to be a significantly bipartisan debate here, depending on what the legislation says. I would say, however, to my friend that while we haven't been really passive about these first six bills that haven't had a chance to have amendments, haven't had a chance to have debate in committee, they were six things, some of which we had dealt with, but the six things that the majority talked about in the last election, and at some point the suggesting that this is such an important issue that we need to move forward without the regular progress begins to wear pretty thin on our side of the building and I think on the public generally. I would hope that we don't have many more of those instances. Apparently the House Administration Committee will not have a chance in this Congress to look at the intricacies of the pension issue. I know this week we brought a bill to the floor dealing with minimum wage and then find out that while this is supposed to be an expansive minimum wage proposal that includes everybody, whether they were ever included before or not, that American Samoa is somehow left out. I have a feeling that if that would have gone to committee, there is a great chance that would have been pointed out. I don't know if the majority intends to go back and put American Samoa in the minimum wage package or not. My friend who has been here longer than I have loves this institution and knows better than anybody the benefit of regular order. I hope we are nearing the end of us being asked to accept the fact that we can't do regular order on this issue for some extraordinary reason. Both the Page Board issue and any misconduct by Members are critically important issues, but so is the opportunity for every Member of the 110th Congress to be involved at their committee level and every other level. I might ask about that American Samoa question. Do we expect to see that oversight taken care of in upcoming legislation?

Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, I just make the point that if the committees had looked at this in advance, that oversight might have been eliminated. There is a reason for the committee process, which leads to my other question which is, what time does the majority believe that we will be organizing the committees in a way that the work of the committees of the Congress can get started?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that commitment to begin to move forward as quickly as possible. I look forward to the time when there is actually legislation on the floor that has gone through a committee and had a chance to be amended and discussed before it got here. I believe fewer than a handful of committees are actually organized at this point. None of the committees that had work on the floor this week have yet been organized to the point they have had a meeting. I would like to point that out. The other thing, in waiving points of order, another issue of the regular order of the House, on every bill that came to the floor this week, the majority waived points of order on anything that was in the bill but maintained points of order on the one chance we had to say anything at all about the bill in an official way which was the motion to recommit. Again, I hope we are getting to the point where the things that the majority has talked so much about, and PAYGO would be an example of that, won't continue to be waived in every rule waiving points of order on the bills that do come to the floor. I yield to my friend to respond.

Mr. BLUNT. I would say on the significant portions of those bills that we voted on in the last Congress and passed, virtually every Member of the majority then, the minority now, voted for 39 of the 41 9/11 provisions. We voted for increasing the minimum wage, though we thought with a more helpful balance, and we hope to continue to work for that balance so that the wage producer is not affected, the job creator, doesn't stop creating these important entry level jobs into the workforce. I would also say, on the PAYGO issue, I believe in the 9/11 bill and perhaps in the other bills, but in the 9/11 bill, I think the authorization was more often than not such sums as necessary. I don't know how that doesn't trigger some thought about cost in the future. I do know we were told it would be at least 3 weeks before we could get a score on what the bill would cost. So whether it violated a PAYGO provision or not, we are 2 weeks and 5 days from knowing the answer to that question. But I am expressing some of my concerns as we move forward. I do sympathize with the leader's job of having a schedule that works for Members, not only their events at home but their families at home. As the year progresses, I suspect the challenge of that will progress. I yield to the gentleman to make a response.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for a discussion of next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate our new Member for getting a bill passed in the first week. That is an incredible thing to get done. Then I would like to inquire of my good friend and new majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, about the schedule for next week.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the response. Seeing the legislation is obviously helpful. We are really regretful we don't have a chance to offer an alternative in the real-time. We will look at the legislation. We will see if we can find a suggestion that will help meet the goals that we agree with in a more effective way. That 24-hour notice from now on we would hope would be a pledge that the majority will be able to retain. My good friend Mr. Hoyer mentioned the 9/11 Commission report. One of the recommendations of that commission was a realignment of committees. We didn't make that realignment of committees in the rules package. I wonder if there is any plan for that kind of realignment, and I would yield to the leader for that response.

Mr. BLUNT. Certainly seeing the legislation is a step in the right direction. We believe another step in the right direction will be to be able to offer the amendments and go through the process that the majority assured us in the recent campaign will be part of their procedure. On the Tuesday schedule, I have had one Member come up to me during our discussion and wanted me to ask if there is any possibility that 3 to 4 votes could slip closer to 5 just because of a number of travel concerns that Members have, particularly west coast members.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my colleague for responding. As he mentioned, we have had a great working relationship as the whips of the two parties and look forward to working with him in his new job as the leader of the majority. I, too, thought yesterday was an historic day for the House, and a day that our Members all appreciated the historic nature of the day. Particularly on this side of the aisle, we appreciated the Speaker's comments about moving towards partnership as opposed to partisanship; and we, of course, are eager to see a little more of that partnership again. We paid close attention during the election and after the election to the commitments to the new majority to have bills available in an earlier way and to have committee and subcommittee markup. I assume the work next week is work the majority decided will not be able to go through the subcommittee process or the committee process, and I yield to my friend to respond to that.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, I would suggest to my good friend, having tried to put these schedules together for a while, that particularly for our west coast Members, if they get here on Monday to be here for a 3:30 vote on Tuesday and then find that that Tuesday vote doesn't occur until 5:30 or 6 o'clock, there is always real anxiety about the day that costs their families, and I know my good friend is going to try his very best to give us the best schedule. My only suggestion would be if you do see that it might slip into that later time that that will be helpful to Members who, frankly, are having to decide when to leave their districts and to come a day early just to be here for that 3:30 vote as opposed to a 5:30 vote or 5 o'clock vote that might have allowed them to leave that day. And with that, does my friend have any response to that?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for his response. I would say that there clearly will be days in this Congress when we just simply don't agree with the goal that we are trying to achieve on the two sides of the aisle, but I think we can find many more days when we do agree. We are optimistic about the concept of partnership as opposed to partisanship and look forward to having the bills today for next week and an extended debate in the future beyond the debate that we feel we will be allowed to have next week.

Mr. BLUNT. Do you expect them to be introduced all at once, or will some be available earlier than others?

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for the response. You may very well have said and I may not have heard, in terms of us seeing the bills for next week, would you expect that to happen by what time today?

Mr. BLUNT. As you know, most of our Members voted against the rule which brings these issues to the floor without the chance to offer an alternative. We believe there is a desire to create more opportunities for alternatives, but the sooner that can happen, I think the more effectively we will show to the American people that we are finding ways to work together. We had a pledge also of at least 24 hours of notice on the specifics of legislation. It doesn't seem to me that is quite as onerous a pledge to meet in the context of what my friend just said as going through a subcommittee, going through a committee. We didn't feel like we had that 24-hour access to information this week. We would hope next week to have the specifics of the legislation as early as possible. If in fact this is legislation that doesn't need to go through the committees because it has been so widely discussed and vetted, it would not seem to be unreasonable for everybody in the body, every Member to have a chance to see it even as early as Monday.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dr. Anson Elliott, head of the Department of Agriculture at Missouri State University in Springfield, MO, for being named the Agriculture Leader of the Year by the Agriculture Leaders of Tomorrow program. He has dedicated 38 years to not only being a leader himself, but mentoring many of today and tomorrow's agricultural leaders. As head of the MSU Department of Agriculture, Anson oversees seven undergraduate comprehensive degree programs and collaborates on the administration of three Masters Degree programs. Additionally, Anson is responsible for the budgets of three off campus agriculture centers and has budgetary responsibilities for various foundation accounts including oversight of private, public and foundation grants. Anson has several publications, including a chapter in an American Society of Agronomy book on the hybridization of crops. In addition to administrative responsibilities, Dr. Elliott teaches three classes on a yearly basis and serves as an advisor to student organizations. Anson Elliott is making a difference in America's agricultural community. As an advisor and a friend of mine, it gives me great pleasure to offer these words of congratulations to a true leader in Missouri agriculture.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, Albert Caswell wrote the following tribute to my constituent, Scott West, who was injured while serving the United States in Iraq. Go West Young Man Go West Young Man! Scott You are but The Very Best Young Man, as you are nothing less Young Man! As oh how our Nation You So Bless Young Man! A Brave Heart who went off to War . . . Who so walked through The Valley of Death, all so our Freedom could be insured! A Patriot who gave his most precious of all gifts, his legs! But came back home with far much more! A Heroes Hero . . . This Army Man . . . Such Strength In Honor . . . As such a Magnificent Hero, before us now so stands! Who can defeat terror and death, who with but only his courage left . . . to new heights so ran! For his new battle has just begun, From Sun-up to Sunset, as This Magnificent Heroes quest shall never be done! For there is no quit, for This Champion Is! Is the stuff of which movies are made of my son! Just look at His Heart, Just look into His Eyes! For in This Splendid Man of Courage and Faith, you'll find No Missouri Compromise! He's not giving up! He's not giving in! As before us, The True Fine Definition of Where Courage so Lies! And our time here upon this Earth, is but such a short time's worth! Most people lead such useless lives, for only those of such splendid faith . . . shall so to Heaven rise! As they teach us, as they so reach us . . . the ones in our Lord's Heart who so come first! For We All must Walk This Road of Life, Could we, in such dark moments in time . . . to somehow the courage find, as Scott to not think twice? With head up high, with no pity to find . . . how we love you Scott! As to our World You bring Your Light! Our Country Tis Thee, this our Sweet Land of Liberty . . . Where our fine Nation, was so built upon such Heroic Heroes all throughout her history! Go West Young Man, You Are America's Best Young Man . . . if I have a son, I pray like you he'd be! Dedicated to Scott West and his family, and all those like them. Who teach us so much! May our Lord Bless you, and he will!

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay honor to an institution celebrating its centennial milestone this month. College of the Ozarks is an institution of higher learning that for many years was known as ``The School that Runs on Faith.'' This small Christian college, located in the hills near Branson and Hollister, Missouri, has seen its share of struggle and triumphs. But central to the College is its mission of providing a Christian education to young people from the Ozarks who are deserving, yet financially unable to procure such training. Originally, the purpose of The School of the Ozarks, also known by its students and graduates as ``Hardwork U,'' was to provide an opportunity for a high school education. This mission was pursued without significant change until 1956, when The School of the Ozarks added 2 years of junior college to the 4-year high school program. This format continued until 1964 when the Board of Trustees and the faculty voted to expand the 2-year program into a 4-year liberal arts program. The 4-year college program of The School of the Ozarks began classes for juniors in September 1965. In 1990, the Board of Trustees approved changing the operating name of The School of the Ozarks to ``College of the Ozarks.'' The distinctive tradition of the work program and the College's commitment to its five-fold mission of academic, spiritual, cultural, vocational, and patriotic growth in its students has attracted and continues to attract famous guests, including U.S. Presidents and First Ladies, U.S. Commanding Generals, Prime Ministers, and other dignitaries who recognize its uniqueness. Today, the College offers degrees in 34 academic areas, and student enrollment is approximately 1,400. More than ever, our country needs young men and women with these values to serve as leaders. Dr. R. M. Good, who led the school during the Depression years once said, ``Investments in humanity bring substantial and sure dividends.'' This is why the College has a renewed commitment this centennial year to continue its worthy, distinct mission--a tradition that works. It is these things--a respect for and appreciation of our roots and work tradition, as well as the prospect of a promising future--that College of the Ozarks will celebrate throughout its centennial year. I want to wish College of the Ozarks another 100 years of service to the region, educating and inspiring students with a curriculum that emphasizes character, faith and excellence.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, for yielding. I am pleased to join you and join our friend Mr. Lantos in support of this bill. I think that Iran has more potential than any other country to destabilize the world today. President Bush should be given the tools necessary to work toward a diplomatic solution in the crisis that we now face with Iran and that Iran, frankly, presents to the world. I believe the solution to this problem is in this legislation. I think this does point us in a direction that can work. The mandatory sanctions for any entity that is assisting Iran to have the potential for weapons of mass destruction are important. They don't have to be targeted at a country, but those countries who are helping make that happen need to get the attention of this Congress and this government. This declares that we also intend as a Congress to avoid implementing agreements with countries that cooperate in this area with Iran. This provides new tools to the President to prevent money laundering that can be used to provide Iran and other dangerous countries with weapons that endanger our people. Passage of this bill today sends a powerful message to Iran and to those who would support that country's weapons development, a program that we need to be sure that we punish that behavior. I hope the President fully utilizes the new authority provided to him in this bill. I also urge not only that we approve this bill, but that our allies and our partners around the world work along with us to implement similar measures and convince Iran to peacefully abandon its efforts to destabilize the world. We encourage the President in this bill to work with those groups that have been mentioned that do support openness and democracy in Iran. I thank Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her great leadership in this effort and Tom Lantos for his leadership in this effort.