Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank our friends for accepting this important amendment that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has brought forward to the bill. Certainly today United States troops are deployed around the world as they defend our freedoms and as they assist others in defending their freedom. In Iraq and Afghanistan they are working tirelessly to create a secure environment for fledgling democracies. On the Korean Peninsula, they face a brutal dictator. In Kosovo they observe an uneasy peace among old adversaries, and in Japan and Europe they stand to react to any national crisis. In addition, our naval personnel operate in dozens of bases worldwide to protect global trade routes, prevent nuclear proliferation, and many other important tasks. And even as they perform these actions in defense of liberty in other nations, our troops serve the United States of America, not the United Nations or any other foreign power. Their mission may send them abroad, but we must never allow a foreign court to interfere in U.S. military affairs. Examples already exist of the dangers of the International Criminal Court. During the most notable example recently, European opponents of the Iraq War suggest that senior U.S. officials including the Secretary of Defense and top military commanders should be tried by that Court. The United States of America has a long history of fair and firm military justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is understood and respected by our military personnel that serves our Armed Forces well. Under no circumstances should our men and women in uniform fear retribution in the form of prosecution by a foreign court of justice. I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) understands this as well as any Member of this body. I appreciate his bringing this amendment to the floor, and I am pleased to see it included in a bill that I hope is heartily responded to by support today.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support and appreciation really of both of our leaders on this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I am particularly pleased to see this bill named in appreciation and recognition of the great leadership of our Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I think we all know on both sides of the aisle that the United Nations has not lived up to its expectations. It unfortunately has come way too close to mirroring the ineffective activities of the organization it replaced, the League of Nations. This year, the U.N.'s budget increased to $1.8 billion. Of that $1.8 billion, we pay a substantial part of the cost of the U.N. These reforms are necessary. Moving the programs that this bill suggests be moved to voluntary programs only increases the willingness of people to support those programs, the transparency of those programs. I strongly urge support for this bill. I strongly urge support for the penalties that it contains. I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and also our great Ranking Member of this committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate what the whip has said and would only say that we could vote on this and solve it that way, but I assume that would not present the right solution as well.

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and also for the cooperation of those on the appropriations bills this week as we move to an early conclusion of this week's work. Next Monday, the House will convene 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' office by the end of this week. Any votes called on those measures that Members are given notice of will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. on Monday. On Tuesday and the balance of the week, the House will consider several bills under a rule. First of all, the Science and Departments of Commerce, State and Justice Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2006. Following that, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006; and then, finally, H.R. 2745, the United Nations Reform Act. I yield back to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. BLUNT. Certainly based on the experience we have had for the last three Fridays, the cooperation of both the ranking member and the leadership of the chairman and the subcommittee chairmen on the appropriations committee, we have been seeing this work go a little faster than we had anticipated. That could happen again next Friday. The experience again of the last three Fridays would lead one to believe that, but next week we will adopt the same approach. We will get this work done early if we can but would advise Members to plan to be here on Friday because we will want to complete the entire agenda that we have laid out for next week's schedule.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I believe we will do those in the order that they appeared starting on Tuesday. So I would expect Tuesday's work to include the Science, Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Act, and then move on to defense appropriations on Wednesday if we are completed with the previous bill, and then to bring the bill to the floor on United Nations reform after that.

Mr. BLUNT. I would say, in response, that, interestingly, the discussion on that bill, it is an important discussion, is largely between the new Director of National Intelligence and the Armed Services chairman because of some commitments that seemed to have been made and I think were made during the adoption of the 9/11 bill of things that would be included in this bill. That discussion is going on. We are going to work hard to do everything we can to facilitate a final and complete understanding between the administration and the House on the issues that they are discussing right now. It involves military intelligence and some commitments and discussions that were conducted last year before we moved forward with what was called at that time the 9/11 bill that created the National Intelligence Director's job and did a number of other things to achieve those goals that the whip just mentioned in terms of securing our country in every way that we can.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could comment, I would say that we are eager to reach a final understanding on this. But, also, we are eager to be sure that whatever commitments were made and were reached between the administration and the chairman of a significant committee in the House are fully understood and fully complied with. You know, there can be misunderstandings in these kind of discussions, certainly, but we want to be sure that any commitments made by the administration to the Congress and the chairman of its significant committees are fulfilled and, if there are misunderstandings, to be sure that those misunderstandings are worked out before we move forward. I assure the gentleman that we will be encouraging in that discussion and facilitating it in every way that we can so that it moves forward at the quickest possible time.

Mr. BLUNT. I do not know what their position on that is. Again, I am most concerned that we be sure that we understood our positions when commitments were made when that bill was passed that created the National Intelligence Director's position.

Mr. BLUNT. I would say it would be hard to be more disappointed than I am that this committee has only met once because of continuing concerns. From the point of view of the majority, I am sure it is our view that we removed what we thought were the obstacles of this committee moving forward with its work, only to find that there is another obstacle. And we do need this committee to work, but all sides need to be looking for ways to make the committee work, not to just find the reasons that the committee does not work, which is my view of this. And we clearly want this committee to work, need this committee to work, and I think the majority has made substantial efforts both publicly and privately to create an opportunity where this committee could do its job.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the gentleman from Texas' (Chairman Bonilla) efforts on the underlying bill. I also in my remarks today want to urge my colleagues to retain the chairman's language on mandatory country-of-origin labeling, more commonly known as COOL, C-O-O-L. This is clearly a marketing issue, not a food safety issue, and puts an unnecessary burden on producers, processors, and consumers if not handled in exactly the right way. The Agriculture Department has estimated the costs of the current mandatory country-of-origin labeling program could be as much as $4 billion in the first year alone. Assuming that producers figure out a way to pass along that $4 billion, that $4 billion is $4 billion added at grocery stores to shopping-cart prices, and then they talk about a cost of several hundred million dollars a year in the years after the first year. With so many unanswered questions, now is not the time for this mandate. For example, when COOL goes into effect beginning on September 30, 2006, how will we treat the cattle, hogs and lambs and sheep that were born before that date? Is there any legal market for these hundreds of thousands of animals that are out there on farms and in farming facilities right now? Until we find out the answer to problems like this, there is no reason to move forward with this costly mandate that puts a disproportionate share of the cost on the producer. A much better approach is for Congress to approve a voluntary program and place control in the hands of consumers at the marketplace. It is for this reason that I have joined the fight with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is our Committee on Agriculture authorizing chairman, on our voluntary country-of-origin legislation that would permanently make the country-of-origin legislation a voluntary program for meat and meat products, not, Mr. Speaker, for vegetables, for fruit, for other products, but for meat and meat products, products that have a longer life, products that are more mobile, and products that in many cases are going to be already in the hands of producers, on the farms of producers before September 30, 2006, with potentially no legal way to sell those products. Voluntary labeling, on the other hand, would give producers added market value rather than a costly Federal mandate. Voluntary COOL would ultimately give consumers, not the Federal Government, control of country- of-origin labeling for products. The voluntary labeling program would add value throughout the food chain, including the producer as well as the consumer. Voluntary COOL would also create a brand for products of the United States and encourage consumers to buy American meats where they shop. The label would add value to American agricultural products. Voluntarily labeling beef, pork, lamb and other meat products is a better way to need the needs of consumers and promote American agricultural products without the enormous costs and burdens of a mandatory law. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work product, the bill which has been brought to the floor, and the hard work he has done on this issue and urge my colleagues to support the chairman's efforts.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I am pleased to be here on the floor as she brings this amendment to this bill. I am also pleased to be part of the debate that is joined by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and to listen a moment ago when the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) gave such a great sense of what scouting has meant to America and to so many American lives. At one time I know the military academy applications had the question on there, ``Were you an Eagle Scout?'' It mattered if you were, just as it matters now if people realize you received that kind of recognition, had that kind of dedication to scouting, the value of scouting to our country, the value of scouting to individuals, the memories like the one that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) just mentioned, which are important. But the values of scouting are also important, and as we evaluate those values, you have to ask yourselves based on the reason to have this debate today, what is next? What other core value of America would begin to stand in the way of institutions that have been so much part of what we are? Extremist groups want to remove God from the national symbols, attack the Pledge of Allegiance, and now even the Boy Scouts. There is no more American symbol of our Scouts than the understanding that the Scouts represent the values of America. Some groups well outside the mainstream of our society have wanted to penalize the Scouts for representing those mainstream values by isolating them, by not allowing them to use some public facilities, some public forums, to really see a fundamental change in these programs that should not be changed because they are based on fundamentals. So as we bring this amendment today, obviously our goal is to support the Scouts, support their commitment to God and country, support the Jo Ann Davis of Virginia amendment, and ensure that our Scouts have access to Department of Defense facilities, and the support and encouragement of this Congress.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for yielding me this time and for the work he has done on this bill. In the en bloc amendment, really several of the provisions of a bill that I introduced recently, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and others, to try to address the concerns that we have and, I think, concerns that are shared by not only the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Ranking Member Skelton), but many of the Members of this Congress, on people who serve in the National Guard and Reserves. We see declining recruitment numbers. Clearly, the service, and the Guard and Reserves is a service where people who often have already served full-time in the military are willing to be available to the country in time of crisis, in times of imminent need; but people who were joining the Guard and Reserve, until recent years, until the last decade, at least, did not expect to be joining the Guard and Reserve to effectively be serving in the full-time force. I believe in an integrated armed service. I believe in the importance of a full-time force that is no bigger than it needs to be, to be supplemented in times of crisis by the great skills of people who either have served in the full-time force or who have received their training in the Guard and the Reserve. The Army is more than halfway through its fiscal year with only 33,000 soldiers signed up, and is certainly likely to miss the target of 80,000 for 2005. That sort of recruiting puts more pressure on the Guard and Reserve. For 3 consecutive months, the Army has been short of its goal; and the Marines, that traditionally meet their goals, have not met their monthly goal this entire year. So we need to be concerned about the use of the full- time force and, obviously, the impact that has on the Guard and Reserve that are available. Legislation from our bill will be included in this en bloc amendment. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is joining me in proposing this amendment, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert) will bring other amendments from our bill to the floor. In the amendment that I am speaking in favor of, this is an amendment that just simply would allow and encourage the Department of Defense to take into account National Guard and Reserve personnel as one of the items that they would look at when they evaluate a bid for DOD work. I had a specific instance in my district in the last year where a business that had a government repair contract, that had a significant number of Guardsmen, in fact, those Guardsmen had been called up; and while those Guardsmen were called up, the work that they had been doing was given, in competitive bidding, no doubt, but given in competitive bidding to a Canadian company. Nobody in that Canadian company was serving in Iraq at the time for reasons we all understand. We would like to see that taken into account as these contracts are evaluated and look for other ways that the military can do things to further support our Guardsmen and Reservists.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I really appreciate the chairman's understanding of this problem and his commitment to this problem. The other thing that we need to be doing is to ensure that Guardsmen and Reservists do have jobs when they come back; and if that job is a government contract, we should be doing everything we can to ensure that their service is noted in awarding the extension of that contract.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his leadership and the leadership of others on this debate today. This debate is defined in so many ways by the conscience of each Member; and as each Member comes to the floor, as each Member speaks, I think my colleagues can see that this debate uniquely is based on their own view of this and their deeply founded view of this. In fact, the whip's office is not real busy today, because we are not whipping this vote. I do not think my friends on the other side are whipping this vote either. Why would that be? Why would we have a vote on a bill like this that, based on the debate, is so important that we would not be trying to persuade Members? Because we feel on both sides of this aisle, apparently, today that this is a matter of real conscience. This is a matter where people can deeply disagree. This is a matter about the very definition of life itself. Because of that, I am firmly on the side of those who believe it is not time yet to federally fund this particular kind of research. There is private sector funding available. Some States like the State of California recently decided they would fund this in a significant way. Other States have decided they would totally outlaw research. So this is clearly an issue where the country is divided. The ethics of this issue, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) suggested earlier, are not as clear as they should be. The future ownership and use of this research is not as clear as it needs to be. The first principle of bioethics should be: first, do no harm. We are not at the point in this issue where we can firmly say we are not doing harm. We are at the point when we can say that all of those concerns that this research is not possible if we do not fund it with Federal funding are just not right. This research is possible. I do not agree with it myself, but I particularly do not agree that we should take the tax money of millions and millions of taxpayers who believe this is absolutely wrong and pay for this research in that way. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to defer on the rules to the Committee on Rules chairman. He will have some announcements regarding rules on those bills when he speaks.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under the suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to the Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on measures will be rolled until 6:30 on Tuesday. On Wednesday and the balance of the week, the House will convene at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and we may consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules, as well as two bills under a rule, H.R. 1279, Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005; and H.R. 1544, Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005.

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

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise, of course, in support of this supplemental. I also want to rise to really express my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the tremendous job he has done in limiting the scope of this supplemental and getting this work done in a quick way, and moving forward on the rest of our appropriations process at the same time. These measures can often become reasons not to move forward with the normal work of the House, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and his committee and their staff have really accepted double responsibility and double duty by doing these things at the same time. This bill does include, as my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned, the embassy compound in Baghdad. He and I visited the current embassy together in December, and I think we disagree on the need to go ahead and get this project started now. The project is 10 percent below the amount of money that the administration asked for. It is a substantial amount of money. It is a difficult environment, but bidding and starting these projects simply cannot happen if we have a little piece of that money to start with; you have to have the money available so that this embassy can be built and that our people representing us there in the embassy can be secure. We had two people killed in the current embassy compound in recent weeks from a missile that was fired there, and we need to move forward. In addition to providing vital funding for our troops in fighting the war, this bill also addresses some of the border vulnerabilities identified by the 9/11 Commission. This legislation does not create a national ID card or a national database, but it does move forward in securing our borders and making our asylum process work better to protect Americans, both young and old. This legislation tightens the asylum system because of that. Finally, this legislation provides $635 million for increased border security and enforcement. That includes $176 million to hire, train, equip, and support 500 border patrol agents and relieve current facility overcrowding. It includes almost half a billion dollars for Immigration and Customs enforcement, which includes $97.5 million to hire and train additional criminal investigators and immigration enforcement agents. This bill works to protect our fighting forces abroad, to help secure our borders at home, to move us forward in the war against terror. I appreciate the committee's work on it, and I encourage its approval today.