Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the chairman for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I also thank Mr. Davis for his generous comments and his hard work on this bill. Over the past several months, Mr. Speaker, we have had good discussions in the House about earmarks and earmark reform. The House has committed to pass and will pass earmark reform to increase sunshine on the earmark process, yet there is another process in the Federal Government that, despite spending over $300 billion a year, has almost no disclosure. That is really the purpose of this bill. Each year the Federal Government gives out thousands of grants to various organizations and entities. All told, about 30,000 organizations a year receive grants, yet there is no central system available to the public or even to the Congress to determine who is receiving these taxpayer funds and how they are being spent. Chairman Davis and I have introduced H.R. 5060, the bill we are considering today, to correct this. This legislation requires the Office of Management and Budget to establish a searchable public Web site listing all recipients of Federal financial assistance, such as grants and loans. Within 30 days of a grant award, the following information would be available to the public through this single site on the Internet and should be and would be required by law to be easily searchable: There would be the name of the grantee and the subgrantees who have received the award; an itemized breakdown of that assistance by agency and program source; and all of the grants that the grantee has received in the past 10 years. This database will serve as an invaluable tool enabling Congress, the public, and the media to easily determine who is receiving taxpayer funds. This information will be critical in uncovering wasteful spending and ensuring compliance with existing Federal laws, including the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act. There are numerous examples of wasteful government grants, such as millions of dollars spent by the National Institute of Mental Health to study what makes a meaningful day for college students or to study how college students decorate their dorm rooms. I was a college president for 4 years, and I will tell you that is a study that is not only not worth having, but something that nobody wants to know about. Often such waste has been uncovered by the inspector general from the various agencies, such as an effort made by the inspector general in 2003 that resulted in an EPA grant from the 1990s, where $700,000 was spent, was granted, without any knowledge of what work the recipient was going to perform. Under this law, that information will become publicly and quickly available. This bill will empower everybody with access to the Internet to begin reviewing Federal grants and other forms of taxpayer assistance to look for such waste, fraud and abuse. This, in turn, will help us become better stewards of taxpayer funds. This legislation will also help to ensure that Federal laws are adhered to by those receiving Federal funds. Frequently, Federal law imposes various restrictions or requirements on Federal grantees. For example, Congress has required that entities receiving funds under our global AIDS programs have a firm policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Yet last year, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources uncovered that a USAID grantee was subgranting taxpayer funds to an organization that was pro-prostitution. This bill requires grantees to also disclose their subgrantees, thus making it easier to ensure compliance with important Federal policies like those that would be applicable to this and other funds. This legislation will also ensure compliance with existing lobbying restrictions. The 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act prohibits organizations that receive Federal grants from lobbying, even with their own funds. The restriction has been difficult to enforce. This access to information about who gets grants makes it easier to see that the lobbying bill itself is enforced. It is my belief that this bill will provide important information to all Americans and serve as a powerful to tool to improve how the government spends precious taxpayer funds. I want to thank Chairman Davis and ranking member Waxman for their assistance in moving this legislation forward. And in particular, I want to thank the staff of the Committee on Government Reform, particularly Ellen Brown, Mason Alinger, and Ed Puccarella for their tremendous efforts to help my staff with this bill and to improve the bill as it moved through the committee. I urge passage of this bill.

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

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for his comments, his support of the bill and his clear understanding that as we bring transparency to the process of spending, that to not have transparency where most of the money is really spent would be a huge, huge gap in our efforts to make it easier to see how government money is spent, to see that it is more accountable and that we have a real way to access that, and the public as well as the Congress has a way to access that. I thank the chairman and Mr. Waxman for the great work they have done to advance this bill.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank you for presiding over this important debate and for the opportunity to address the House as this debate nears its conclusion. Let's be clear about what is at stake today as we debate this issue. Whether or not we are successful in winning the global war on terror will define the future, and it will define this generation in the eyes of future historians. Our resolve is being tested by clever enemies with primitive philosophies of religion and government. When my colleagues cast their vote today, they are sending a message about what they believe America's capable of doing and about whether the global war on totalitarianism is worth fighting. Our actions here on the House floor are being watched not only by our enemies, but by our friends and allies as well. The message we send will be received by the coalition partners fighting with us, the people and leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Americans fighting for peace and freedom who believe in their mission. This vote, I know, is not being taken lightly, and believe me, it should not be taken lightly. The resolution we are considering is clear and unambiguous. We are declaring that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror. This war is not a war of choice, but one initiated and sustained by the action of terrorists. It is being fought in many parts of the world with all the diplomatic, cultural, financial and, when absolutely necessary, military resources available to us. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorists have chosen to make a stand. They understand the only way they can defeat the United States is not in battle with our soldiers, who are the best in the world, but in the battle of public opinion. Information is the key weapon in that battle. Over the week of Memorial Day, I was able to travel to both Afghanistan and Iraq to see again firsthand our Nation's efforts to combat terrorists and assist in the establishment of modern democracies. Universally in both countries, the people we talked to, including the leaders that we met with, told our delegation that withdrawing American troops before democracy has had a chance to take root would lead to disaster. In Afghanistan, President Karzai believes that the southern part of the country is keeping a lid on the Taliban precisely because of the presence of our troops. He believes his countrymen uniquely understand how important it is that our soldiers, American soldiers, maintain a visible role, even as the day-to-day operations are often turned over to our NATO allies. And while we were there, our ambassador was able to report to President Karzai that both the Canadians and the Dutch had been vigorously and successfully engaged the day before. But President Karzai was equally vigorous in his sense that the commitment of America was the commitment that the Afghan people were worried about. Today we will tell our friend, President Karzai, that America will not abandon our Afghan friends, that we will not close that embassy again and lock the door and walk away for 10 years. In Iraq, which al Qaeda has call the central front, and that is their quote, not mine, the central front in their war against the West, the sentiment for America to stay is even more pronounced. In Baghdad I spoke with Speaker Mashhadani, a Sunni politician, a leader who had been very opposed to the United States coming to Iraq, but now believes that the presence of the United States, again, until democracy takes root, is essential to the establishment of democracy in that country. And while visiting the newly formed Kurdish regional government in Erbil, I spoke with those leaders who have recently put aside generations of differences in favor of a unified Iraq. Officials from the new Iraqi Government I met with gave me additional reasons to be hopeful for the future. These elected leaders are committed to governing. Their predecessors had been committed to a political goal in each case, to write a Constitution, to conduct a temporary election, to conduct a permanent election. This government is the first democratically elected government in the history of not just the country of Iraq that has only been in existence since World War I, but the history of the people who live in this area have never before had a permanent democratically elected government. This government also happens to be a broad-based government that is committed to serve. I have said many times before, as many have said on this floor in the last 2 days, that only the Iraqis are ultimately capable of solving their problems. The only way to solve them is through increased transparency, economic reform, and democratic participation in government. None of this will be easy, and I have nothing but admiration for Iraqi leaders who are undertaking these tasks in the face of enormous personal risk. It is in the context of this personal risk that I appeal to my colleagues, who live peacefully and safely in the world's oldest constitutional democracy, the United States of America, not to turn their backs on the leaders of the world's newest democracy.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act that I hope we see on the floor during this Congress. Mr. Garrett from New Jersey and Mr. Bishop from Utah and other members of the Congressional Constitution Caucus are also speaking on behalf of this important legislation tonight. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who is the lead cosponsor of this legislation along with me. I am pleased to be the sponsor of the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act. I would like to start by explaining what it is not about. This bill is not about reining in an activist judiciary or about ending consent decrees. This legislation is about increasing the responsibility and accountability of elected officials. This is really focused on what elected officials are elected to do. Consent decrees are too often used by elected officials as an excuse not to solve the problems they have been elected to solve. The principal goal of this legislation is to return the responsibility for public policy-making and the governing of public institutions to elected officials. When a consent decree lasts for decades, as many of them do, many elected officials never have the opportunity to take responsibility for important public services. A politician can say, I would really like to do something about the transportation system in Los Angeles County, for example, but I cannot because of that consent decree. Or I would like to spend more on education in this State, but I really cannot because our budget is determined by these consent decrees on other issues or even on education itself. And their successors in that office can and often do say the same thing. Consent decrees, in my view, have become a hiding place for public officials, relieving them of responsibility in the area that the consent decree affects. So let me again repeat, this is a bill, an act, that would really make public officials take responsibility for the things they have been elected to do. This bill would create an obligation on the part of newly elected public officials that they would have an opportunity to look at every consent decree that their predecessors were part of and defend why the consent decree should continue or go to the courts and explain why the consent decree no longer applies. If the plaintiff can explain to the judge why it is important that the consent decree continue, then the decree stays in place. Our goal is to return public responsibility to public officials. Too many people in the country today, too many public officials who even try to take on these issues find that the consent decrees that were entered into decades before by their predecessors prevent them from doing the hard things that need to be done. The only consent decrees that could be dissolved under this action are those in which the plaintiff is incapable of proving a continued need for court supervision. If there is no longer a need for court supervision, would it not be undemocratic not to return the policy decisions to elected officials and in turn to the voters?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend. Little Charlie Blunt will appreciate your comments as well. Thank you.

Mr. BLUNT. An 18-month-old.

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me. I am pleased to stand in support of this legislation and also legislation that in such a significant way recognizes the great work that Mr. DeLay has done on behalf of foster children and on behalf of adoption. Everyone in this body understands the long-term commitment that the gentleman from Texas has had on this issue. I expect that few outside of this body appreciate the great work that he has done, the tremendous commitment that Mrs. DeLay has made to foster children and to adoptive children in this case. Here is a bill that once again looks at how much a year means in the life of a child that is going into a foster home, can't get placed in a foster home, can't get ready to be adopted. A year in life, if you are 3 or 5 or 15, is a long, long part of the life that you have lived. The average now for children who are going into foster adoptive families across State lines is an extra year. This legislation tries to eliminate that year. This legislation tries to make it more possible for children to be placed with families as soon as possible, rather than longer than absolutely necessary. This legislation is on the floor today, as many before it have been, because of Mr. DeLay's commitment and his family's commitment to the lives of children. The lives of children are dramatically changed when someone gets an opportunity to care about them. Fortunately for the laws of the country, Tom DeLay has always cared about children. For the individual children that will be impacted by this bill, their opportunity comes quicker. The love and attention comes quicker. I appreciate the comments that Mr. Stark has made. I appreciate the work that Mr. DeLay has done. I am sure our colleagues today will be eager to see us advance this important change in the law.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for bringing this legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank my other friends, Chairman Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, for their hard work on this bill. As many of my colleagues have already stated, the need for this bill could not be clearer. In January of this year, the people of the Palestinian Authority elected Hamas, a terrorist entity with decades of experience in killing and maiming Jews, to govern the Palestinian Authority. When we pass this bill, the United States House of Representatives will tell the world that no terrorist organization can expect any support from the American taxpayer. Some of my colleagues have complained that existing U.S. laws already provide the tools needed to combat Hamas effectively. But the fact is that none of us, during the process of passing those laws already on the books, believed that Hamas, one of the most dangerous groups in the world, would actually seize the reins of power in the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians must understand that American assistance to others is not an entitlement. I trust President Bush's instincts on his commitment to Israel. I view this bill as supporting those instincts. I believe, as the President does, that the Hamas government must either completely change its view of Israel and the existence of the Jewish state, or it must fail. Today, the House is acting to say this: Until Hamas changes or it is relieved of its authority to govern by the Palestinian people, American taxpayer dollars will not be used to support it either directly or indirectly. No general waiver authority is needed, in my opinion, to advance this goal. Of course none of us here want to see the Palestinian people suffer needlessly. This bill does not cut off the stream of humanitarian funding that some Palestinians unfortunately rely on to survive. But none of us here want to see the Israeli people suffer either. Hamas wants to and will take every opportunity to kill Israelis and Jews of other nationalities. It says so in their charter. And it was demonstrated just weeks ago in the bombing of a Tel Aviv restaurant, in which a close relative of my good friend Eric Cantor was murdered. Leading the world by example is not easy, Mr. Speaker. It requires hard choices, it requires moral courage, and it requires standing on principle. Some of our closest friends overseas may try to take the easy way out by offering incentives to an unreformed Hamas government. But today the House stands with Israel, as we always have, against terrorism. We encourage the Administration to stand firm; and today we give them legislation to help them do just that. I look forward to working with colleagues from the Senate to get this bill to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 4681.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, and I particularly want to join in thanking Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her efforts on this bill. The United States and the international community should hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior. We do need to encourage the Government of Iran to change. We need to focus on the danger of allowing the President of Iran, a man who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and is willing to support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and others, to be in control of the most dangerous weapons in the world. This is a serious test for the international community. Passing this bill alone will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, it will send a message that the United States considers any person or entity that helps Iran develop weapons of mass destruction to be an obstacle to peace and security. This bill also encourages the forces of democracy in Iran. Among all nations of the world, Iran has one of the longest and strongest national heritages, and many Iranian Americans join in these efforts to strengthen the potential for an Iran that proudly embraces freedom and proudly embraces the idea of the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is essential to the well-being and safety of our country, and the entire international community that the Iranian regime does not possess nuclear weapons to hold the world hostage, and that the Iranian people are allowed to move proudly toward freedom.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kenneth Johnson on his retirement from eight years of dedicated service as Mayor of Carthage, Missouri. Kenneth Johnson distinguished himself in Southwest Missouri by his commitment to improving the lives of the citizens in the City of Carthage. Kenneth Johnson served in the Army of Occupation in Korea in 1946 and returned to duty as a reservist in 1950 where he attained the rank of Master Sergeant. He worked for the Missouri Department of Transportation for 42 years and retired in 1989 as a Senior Construction Inspector. After being elected to the Carthage City Council in 1990 and 1992, he was elected Mayor of Carthage in 1998 and became the first mayor in 60 years elected to a second 4-year term. Mayor Johnson's public service also included serving as President of the Park and Recreation Board from 1977 to 1983 and President of the Board of Public Works from 1983 to 1988. I congratulate Mayor Johnson on his accomplishments during his tenure in public service and wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Neosho Daily News, which recently celebrated the One Hundredth Anniversary of the establishment of the newspaper. The Neosho Daily News began publishing its first edition as the Daily Democrat on January 23, 1905. In 1952, Howard Bush purchased the newspaper from the Anderson family and began publishing the newspaper under its current name. Publishers have included Howard Bush, Kenneth Cope, Randy Cope, and Rick Rogers. The Neosho Daily News provides information to parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. In two of the past three years, the Neosho Daily News has been awarded the Missouri Press Association General Excellence Award. The newspaper has consistently been an outstanding community leader, sponsoring such events as the Neosho Business and Industry Show, the Neosho Christmas Parade, and Share Your Christmas. The newspaper is currently part of the Liberty Publishing Group. Throughout its one-hundred years of existence, the Neosho Daily News has made a positive impact to the four-state area that it serves.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. We do have some suspensions for tomorrow, a few more suspensions. So we could have those before the report if it was not ready. I appreciate your comments also about the chairman's being away for his mother's memorial service. He did return this evening. I believe the current plan is for their committee to meet early in the morning to have as much work as possible done before the committee meets and then to have that to Rules by midday. Obviously, we may not make all of those deadlines. If we do, we could very well be having our first votes at 5. We would give 2 hours' notice before that. So the earliest I would expect Members to get a notice that we would have votes in 2 hours would be around 3 o'clock.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding. As you know, it is hard to predict how exactly everything is going to work out. It is a little difficult to predict these last days before an adjournment period or before we leave for a work period, either one. We will officially convene tomorrow at 1 p.m. I think it is highly unlikely that there would be any vote before around 5, and we would give 2-hour notice in any reasonable way that we could before the first votes would occur.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding, and that is my accurate view of what is almost certain to happen tomorrow.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding. You are right. The Appropriations Committee product, we have already discussed and we would expect, matter of fact, we are certain, as certain as you can be this time of year, of that for tomorrow. I think there is an excellent chance that we could get the budget reconciliation bill tomorrow, and we are still working to do what we can to bring Defense authorization to the floor.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding and for the question. We have certainly given every indication in every meeting, the Speaker has, I have today, that that would be our timetable, that we would finish, possibly some things could carry over into early Monday morning, but we would not be here on Monday for any official actions of that regard on Monday, though there may be some pro forma thing that has to be done that I am not aware of standing here.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have a brief announcement. The announcement is that we would also plan in our activities tomorrow to have a brief recognition of Helen Sewell, who has run the cloakroom here for a long period of time. Between she and her father, who started work here 87 years ago, they have been a continued presence in the cloakroom on this side. Tomorrow will be Helen's last official day before she retires.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for the incredible hard work he has done to bring this bill to the floor, both to help create this legislation 4 years ago, to review it time after time after time for the last 4 years and to extend it into the future with the safeguards that have been discussed here on the floor today. In terms of the review process, I think the Attorney General today in some information he put out suggested that there were at least 23 separate hearings last year of oversight, this is last year alone, of oversight on this act; witness after witness after witness called to testify about what was happening with the act. This oversight work that the chairman has been largely responsible for has made a difference in the way the law was implemented, has made a difference in the way we offer it to be extended today and has made a difference, frankly, in the safety and security of America. There is nothing in this law, nothing in the law the last 4 years, nothing in the law as we look to the future that was not available to law enforcement for organized crime. What crime could be more organized than terrorism? No one has come up with a single instance where someone's rights were impacted by the PATRIOT Act, because of the PATRIOT Act. There is no evidence that there are problems, and we all could easily be aware of a number of instances, where there is no concern about the fact that the PATRIOT Act made a difference in the safety and security of America. Another thing that the chairman worked hard to put in this act is some legislation that I originally introduced that deals with the problem of methamphetamine, and methamphetamine does become a security issue. It particularly becomes a bigger issue as our borders become more secure. People turn to this drug as the drug for funding of illicit activities, as the drug of choice when imported drugs are not available. That is an important addition to the bill today. But the PATRIOT Act with two provisions that need to be reviewed in 4 years, the PATRIOT Act with a Judiciary Committee and an oversight responsibility that will continue to be, as it has been, extensive in ensuring that the executive branch does what the PATRIOT Act intends it to do with the maximum protection for individual freedom and the maximum protection for the security of our Nation. We don't want to face 9/11 again, and we certainly don't want to face a 9/11 that could have been prevented. If the law enforcement techniques and tools that are available for organized crime continue to be available for terrorism, this allows that to happen. I come to praise the chairman and his committee and to seek a ``yes'' vote on this bill today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to remind my friend, as I am sure I do not need to, but the tax portion of this, also significant in terms of redeveloping the gulf coast, we did pass that bill this week as a stand-alone measure, so that no matter what happens this year in reconciliation we have an opportunity to move forward with Katrina tax relief. We also need to move forward with other kinds of relief. As you mentioned, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Melancon and other Members, our Members from Mississippi, Louisiana, east Texas, and Alabama have all been very interested in moving forward on relief for the families that are affected. I believe there is a broad understanding that we need to do this before the end of the year. I do think, Mr. Whip, it is likely that that relief package will be part of one of these last two appropriation measures to move across the floor. I believe that works best for ensuring that this happens on both sides of the Capitol, both this body and the other body. And I would expect to see that Katrina relief package, with significant elements of items that the gentleman mentioned and others are interested in, will be in either the Department of Defense appropriations bill, as part of that debate, discussion, and vote, or in the Labor-HHS vote at another time in the week.

Mr. BLUNT. Once we return on Tuesday, the Members should expect the House to be in session and voting every day until we adjourn. That could happen as early as next Thursday, but certainly by next Saturday or possibly Sunday, and we would not anticipate returning until we return after the first of the year.

Mr. BLUNT. We have not contemplated that because we do expect to pass both of those bills next week before we leave. I think we are absolutely committed to do that and expect to see both of those on the floor individually, and we will then have brought all of our appropriations work to the floor individually, though certainly one of those bills, probably the Department of Defense bill, will include whatever additional appropriations have to be handled before we leave this year. But we would expect to handle those under regular order and would only contemplate a CR if that became the absolute only resort left to us. I would not anticipate that.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding and would say that we expect those motions early in the week. I thought even today we might get one of those motions today as the work is done to try to work through some of the things that appear to be problems in the conference that need to be worked out, and I would expect to see that happen early in the week in both instances.