Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we are continuing to do work on getting ready for that conference. I would hope that that conference would occur at any time. I am confident that we will appoint conferees and have that conference completed before the law expires. So I think that in itself sets a fairly short deadline but would expect to see that happen in the near future as we thought it might even happen this week.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and would say that it is still our goal to get out of here, to get the session completed by the Thanksgiving recess. In that case we would have all the bills completed. The Senate seems to have really gotten their appropriations process energized in a way that means a number of bills will soon be ready for conference. As the gentleman knows, three of the bills have already been signed into law by the President. It is possible that we would have other additional conference reports next week. I am not trying to anticipate too much here, but I think the most likely conference that might be completed next week would be the conference that we just appointed conferees to, the agriculture conference, and have that bill as a fourth bill that was completed. But the Senate work that allows us to address these bills one at a time, which I know we all believe is the best way to do this work, has finally reached a point that bears some likelihood that all of that could happen and hopefully will happen by November 18.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think I announced earlier that I did expect that bill to be on the floor next week. And in addition, the change in the approach to that measure would be that it would include not only a higher goal for savings in the mandatory programs, an issue we do not take up very often in the House. I think this would be the second time in 10 years we have looked at mandatory savings, but also to include a commitment to revisit the discretionary part of the budget sometime between now and the end of the process and to work with the administration on reconciliation as well as looking at the authority for programs that we did not fund in this Congress and in several cases have not funded for some time and eliminate the authority for perhaps as many as 95 or more programs that are receiving no funding. All four of those items would be in the budget resolution that the Committee on the Budget would bring to the floor.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. We still are hopeful that November 18 could be the date. Our friends in the other body did indicate this week that they had work on schedule that would allow them to keep that date. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of the work we have to do jointly will stretch out to meet the time frame that they are here rather than the time frame that we are here, and we need to be aware of that. We are still hoping for November 18. The week after Thanksgiving, the week that starts on November 28 and ends on December 2, if we are still in session at the end of the month of November, we would not plan to work that week. Clearly, we do not plan to work Thanksgiving or the day after. If, in finishing this process up, November 19, November 20, November 21 would finish the process up, I would hate to suggest that we would not finish and get our work done, but certainly the November 28 to December 2 would be a date that I think he and I could right now announce to the Members that if they are planning family activities after Thanksgiving that even if we are still in session, we would not intend for that week to be a workweek.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and would say that we intend to convene the House next Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any vote called on these measures on Tuesday will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. For Wednesday and the balance of the week, the House will consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as several measures under a rule. One will be the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 that has just been discussed; two, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005. The third bill that we would expect to see under a rule would be House Joint Resolution 65, which would be a resolution necessary under the Defense Base Closure Commission for the House to have a disapproval vote on the work of that commission, a vote that is required by the structure itself. In addition to that we plan to consider an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution that would outline plans for budgeting for the expenses associated with Hurricane Katrina. I would also like to announce at this time that the following Monday, while we have scheduled that as a workday, the following Monday, October 31, will be a day that we will not be in session. That allows Members to spend that day with their families, and for Members who want to take their children or their grandchildren trick or treating, that day is available for them to do that.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding to me. I listened particularly carefully to the gentleman from Texas' answer after the gentleman from Maryland said he might ask me the same question. I am not sure I can improve on his answer to any extent. I think that is the purpose for the Committee on Rules hearing to make that case. I believe there will be amendments allowed. I know there is a wide discussion that this new fund, a fund we have never had before, if we do create that fund, can be part of the solution to the impact of Hurricane Katrina and Rita and maybe even Wilma. So, assuming that Wilma creates a housing problem as well, for that to be included there would have to be some amendment, as the gentleman suggested, even though the bill, when it came out of the Committee on Financial Services weeks, I believe now even perhaps months ago, with a large vote, does need some adjustment because of circumstances that have occurred since then that both the ranking member and the chairman would be supporting. But that is the purpose of that hearing, and I thought that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) made the case well, that the Committee on Rules will listen to those arguments and make that determination.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Jay Scribner, who distinguished himself by his 28 years of service and commitment to the people of Southwest Missouri. After receiving his Master of Divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1977, Reverend Scribner began his service at the First Baptist Church in Branson, Missouri. This year, Jay and his wife Kay leave a much larger church at a different location and with an outreach around the world after 28 years of dedicated service. During this time, Reverend Scribner has acted as a Guest Chaplain for this body, participated in the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, and was honored with an Honorary Doctorate of Theology. Pastor Scribner has not only touched lives in Southwest Missouri, but has also served as President of the Missouri Baptist Convention and has been a leader in religious broadcasting and Christian education. His work has taken both he and his ministry to places such as Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Australia, Taiwan, and Iraq. The contributions of Reverend Jay Scribner during his years of service have impacted thousands of people in Southwest Missouri and throughout the world.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding to me, and while I am the temporary majority leader, I am still the whip and always am glad to be called the whip and to refer to the gentleman as the whip. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene Thursday at 10 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules, and a final list of those bills will be sent to Members by the end of this week. We will also consider two measures under a rule, H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006, and the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.

Mr. BLUNT. I think the gentleman did have extensive discussion on this last week. I know this week really created a number of challenges for us because of those religious holidays. I believe we have accommodated those in the best way we can and still get Members out of here at a reasonable hour on Friday. And for that reason I think those votes that could be as early as 2 are important in our efforts to get Members on the road Friday. And, again, our California Members always have so many of the challenges in travel, but I think this plan accommodates that. I certainly wish we could have perhaps not even come in for these days, but I think the work we have to do on these 2 days is so significant that we do need to come back. And if we do not get started early on Thursday, we will have another problem on Friday with Members who want to get back for what turns out to be a holiday weekend for many of them.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss it further. At the same time, I do think that this particular week and the way the holidays fell in this week have created a unique set of circumstances, and our planning for those have been a challenge, there is no question about that.

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate the question. In fact, I serve on that committee and that committee was voting until after midnight last night. The bill is available and will be available for Members to look at during the week. In terms of the rule, we will have to defer that, I think, to the Committee on Rules, and I expect they will go through their normal evaluation of the bill and determine the rule at that time. In terms of Friday, we are really trying to move to the earliest possible conclusion on Friday, which is one of the reasons, again, to try to be sure we are getting our work done on Thursday. Another reason for Thursday, not only the 10 a.m. start but the effort for Members to return, is I know a number of chairmen are hoping to take advantage of that day in their committees as well. And our friends from the west coast would want to be and I hope are able to be part of that.

Mr. BLUNT. We have not finalized our plan for the week of October 17 yet, Mr. Speaker, but there are a number of litigation reform bills coming out of the Judiciary Committee. I think those are likely candidates for that week, and there may be some other legislation develop. But those bills from the Committee on the Judiciary are likely to be ready and be coming to the floor that week.

Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is accurate at this point. We have not finalized the absolute sequence of bills, but that is our plan at this time. And the one reason we are starting at 10 a.m. on Thursday is to try to finish our work, even though it is an abbreviated workweek, in a reasonable amount of time.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We are dealing with perhaps the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history. Residents of the Gulf Coast States affected by the hurricane have lost loved ones, have lost homes, have been displaced from their communities, not just by the thousands or the tens of thousands in terms of displacement but by the hundreds of thousands and by the millions. I am committed and I hope we all are to making sure that we have the full support of the Federal Government, that they have the full support of the Federal Government to get the responses they need to begin to recover and rebuild from this catastrophe. I also understand that the Federal Government is only part of the answer. The severity of this tragedy demands something from each of us. We must answer the call to personally give to those in most need of our help. The American people are generous, and we know that Americans will come to the aid of those in need. While our thoughts go out to those who are suffering in the loss of this catastrophe, it is critical that we respond to this in an organized manner, addressing the most urgent needs first. It has been said in the last few minutes that we should have had this session earlier this week. But being here yesterday, I believe at 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon, the number that we decided we needed today was bigger than it was at 12 o'clock yesterday. We were hopeful that of course we could go until Tuesday based on funding that was available and come back and deal with these problems as they need to be dealt with. That is why, Mr. Speaker, you and others have directed the committee chairmen to do everything they can to move forward on every front, to look at where their committee might make the best recommendations to this body. That is why today we are passing this supplemental to get FEMA through the process of next week. We all need to be committed to making sure that the people affected will have the full support of the Federal Government. We need to look at what has happened to States whose revenue base has been decimated. We need to look at what is happening to our economy. We need to do our job. We need to do it in a manner that is not partisan, and we need to move forward to take this first step today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, after some late nights and a lot of hard work, I am pleased we have a conference report on the energy bill today. The House of Representatives has passed energy legislation five times, only to have the bills die. Keeping the lights on should not be a partisan issue. Filling up a gas tank should not be a partisan issue. Today we are finally voting to send this comprehensive plan to the President's desk. With gas prices soaring, I want to thank Chairman Joe Barton for his hard work on this much needed legislation and for working with me to include a provision in this bill to curb the production of boutique fuel blends and address this issue head-on. The current gasoline supply includes specially formulated boutique fuels which are required by law in certain communities. When supplies are limited, gas prices rise quickly--sometimes overnight. For example: Missourians can fill their gas tanks up in Springfield and drive 3\1/2\ hours to St. Louis. When they get there, they'll be filling their tanks up with a completely different type of gasoline. But if St. Louis ever runs short on their boutique fuel, gas stations there can't sell what consumers could buy back in Springfield. This conference report caps the number of these special fuel blends and allows communities faced with a shortage due to unforeseen circumstances, such as a refinery fire, a waiver to use conventional gasoline. This plan relies on simple economics: If we create a larger market for a greater amount of gasoline, we'll help drive prices down. This proposal moves the country one step closer to lowering the sky- high price of gas for consumers.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mickey Owen, who distinguished himself in southwest Missouri by his 16 years of public service and his commitment to improving the lives of young people. Mickey Owen began his Major League Baseball career in 1937 when he was drafted by the St. Louis Cardinals. Mickey Owen went on to play 13 seasons as a catcher with the Cardinals, Dodgers, Cubs and Red Sox and was named to the all-star team four times. After Mickey Owen retired from professional baseball in 1954, he started the Mickey Owen Baseball School in Miller, Missouri. Mickey Owen created an environment for young players, focused on improving their skills and enhancing their appreciation for the game he loved. Owen promoted the idea that young players showed more improvement when relaxed and would excel if a non- threatening atmosphere was present. Mickey Owen Baseball School has instructed thousands of young players from around the world since its inception in 1959. Mickey Owen became the sheriff of Greene County, Missouri in 1965, where he honorably served for 16 years. Mickey Owen's contributions throughout his life and the impact he had on thousands of young lives will not be forgotten.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers. I look forward to this amendment being included in the legislation, and I am certainly grateful to our good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it opposes the creation of any international or global tax by the U.N. or its affiliate agencies. Global taxes imposed by leaders of foreign governments on United States citizens are clearly at odds with the Constitution and the tradition of our country. The Constitution says: ``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.'' It is our responsibility as the elected representatives of the people to ensure that no outside entity can ever collect revenue directly from U.S. citizens. This concept of global taxation is not as unimaginable as it may seem. In fact, it is being actively advocated now. A new book, ``Innovative Sources of Development Finance,'' which is widely cited by U.N. bureaucrats, raises the specter of such taxes. Some estimates suggest that if fully implemented, the taxes could levy as much as $13 trillion a year. According to the book I just cited and the staffers at the U.N., the global taxation project is being coordinated by the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the U.N. University's World Institute for Development Economics. Even a figure as prominent as George Soros supports global taxation on the American people, stating support recently for an international tax ``not only on currency transactions, but also on all financial transactions.'' Let me just give my colleagues a few examples, Mr. Chairman. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the United States Senate has wisely refused to ratify for 25 years, contains provisions requiring U.S. companies that would eventually engage in deep sea mineral extraction within our own coastal waters to pay a ``mandatory royalty'' to an international entity. Shortly before this year's G-8 Summit in Scotland, several European leaders, including President Jacques Chirac of France, suggested the creation of an ``international airline tax'' that would raise revenue from airline passengers to help finance global development projects. In the most disturbing effort of all, this September the U.N. plans to hold a plenary meeting to close a $65 billion annual gap in its budget. A senior U.N. staffer to Kofi Annan recently suggested the most effective way to close this gap would be to generate revenue through a global tax. As these examples clearly show, the international community through the U.N. could very easily move in this direction. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, just says that no one representing our country, no one spending money on behalf of our country could advocate or support in any way taxes levied in these ways, and I think it is an important addition to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with concern and in opposition to the partisan attacks on Karl Rove. I think we see too many efforts now where people quickly rush to judgment, rush to call for the most bizarre solutions to problems that are problems which are often just created in their own minds. Karl Rove has fully cooperated in any investigation and, for more than a year now, has permitted investigators to talk to him. I think The Wall Street Journal put it best today when, in an editorial that I will submit as part of my remarks, and to quote directly from that editorial, the editors summed up this episode by stating: ``In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.'' Mr. Speaker, I will submit The Wall Street Journal editorial for the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2005] Karl Rove, Whistleblower Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the ``Truth- Telling'' award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud. For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real ``whistleblower'' in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove. Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists. On the ``no underlying crime'' point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail. ``While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place,'' the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either. The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first ``outed'' himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous ``16 words'' on the subject in that year's State of the Union address. Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair. But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. ``Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip,'' said the report. The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger. About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: ``We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that `The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well- founded.'' In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know. If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a ``special counsel'' probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue. As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution. I also think I rise in support of four of the Supreme Court Justices who agreed with the spirit of the resolution, four of those Justices disagreeing with the other five in a principle of long-term property rights. This ruling effectively rewrote the fifth amendment to the Constitution which says that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The Bill of Rights clearly intended that the government's power to take someone's property was limited by two conditions: first, that just compensation be provided; and, second, that the property be taken and used for public use. Five of the Supreme Court Justices have decided that that second condition would no longer apply. That second condition applied for 218 years without a problem, and suddenly it is gone. I think Justice O'Connor in her dissent said it better than I might when she said: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property, nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz- Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.'' When the Supreme Court decides that the public good benefits only by the best taxpayer, the highest tax use benefits the public, that is a hugely wrong step. I look forward to not only supporting this resolution, but I understand that the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary intend to move legislation that will do what we can do in the Congress of the United States to see that the four members of the Court who upheld a long constitutional provision ultimately prevail.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to have been yielded time to speak. I am grateful that we got this time extended without objection, and I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) in supporting the gentlewoman's amendment, without some of his reservations, but these are the kinds of things that grow as they move. The idea of a United Nations Democracy Fund is so critically important. There are so many things happening in the world today where we need to encourage those democracies, whether they be in Lebanon or the Ukraine or many other places around the world where democracy is beginning to grow, beginning to flourish, and to do those things that encourage the institutions to grow and perpetuate and maintain and sustain democracy. A free press, the rule of law, civil society that works in a democratic way, the protection of minority rights are all the kinds of things that the gentlewoman's fund and the concept would promote around the world. It is a critical element. Sustaining democracy, sustaining peace is more than just having the instruments of war, which are important to have, but also having the instruments of peace, the instruments of democracy. Democracy is more than just the absence of war. Democracy is the kind of society that the United Nations needs to encourage, needs to encourage in a greater way, and through all its institutions I think we need to be prejudiced towards the democracies of the world. One of the ways we can do that is to grow those democracies. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this concept in this bill, and later perhaps in other versions and other ideas, and I encourage our colleagues really not only to vote for it today, but to sustain this thought as we talk about our position in international agencies.