Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, at this moment we are scheduled to work on Friday. If we determine that is not necessary, we will announce that as soon in the week as possible. But at this point we are scheduled to work next Friday.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations is moving their work along at an extraordinary pace, particularly based on the fact that they also were able to get this supplemental done today in a way that has not slowed down the progress we are seeing this year. We are hopeful to get many, if not all, of these bills done by the early part of July and expect to have some of these bills on the floor the week of May 16. The two bills that I think are the furthest along are Interior and Homeland Security, and it is likely that they would be first. As has been our process for a while, we would intend to move to the appropriations bills whenever they are available. In many ways the rest of the calendar will respond to the work coming out of the Committee on Appropriations and ready for the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague and good friend, our conference chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), in recognizing Kathryn Lehman as she leaves her work here after 15 years. We are dramatically benefited by the people who help us do these jobs, and no one has been more involved in more places over those 15 years than Kathryn has, working, as has already been said, in the Speaker's office, in the Conference office, in the whip's office. During the 4 years that I was the chief deputy whip, it was never quite clear to me whether Kathryn was working for me or I was working for her, but I always knew that we were all working to get our job done. She is leaving now to go to Holland. We recently lost a great former Member of the Congress, our good friend Tiller Fowler, and Tillie would be pleased, I think, that Kathryn is filling some of the gap that is left there by Tillie's passing. I am sure that our conference chairman will miss Kathryn. I know that our conference will miss Kathryn on a daily basis. I really do deeply and truly know that we will miss Kathryn's wise counsel, her good judgment and, maybe most of all, her reliable sense of humor. When things are the toughest and the challenges are the greatest, Kathryn always had an understanding of how fortunate we all really were to be involved in that challenging moment, to be making those decisions on the House Floor, to be part of this great process in the greatest country in the world. Kathryn, we will miss you.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I also want to congratulate him on the great work he has done on this budget. The budget is always a hard thing for us to do because you can always find something in the budget that is not exactly what you would have wanted there. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Iowa and his committee and the conference committee have done a great job of bringing a budget that really reflects the values of our country. We provide the resources for our men and women in uniform and for homeland security to protect America at this dangerous time. We do the things that grow the economy and create jobs by ensuring that taxes on job creation and on American families are not automatically raised over the next 5 years. We restrain government spending, and we reduce the deficit with the first reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending since Reagan was President, and the first proposal for mandatory savings in 8 years. This budget sets the framework for the spending and tax policies we pursue this year. For our friends on the other side who oppose this budget, really, what is the plan that they would have? Do we want fewer funds for the armed services and homeland security? Do we want tax increases on businesses and families, particularly on small businesses and families who have that 10 percent bracket, and other things we have added? Do we want even more government spending that will only increase the deficit? This is a good budget, I say to my colleagues, for our country. We need to adopt this budget and set these priorities for America: create jobs, control spending, and support our Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, I encourage support of this conference report.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, when George W. Bush was running for president six years ago, he said that our country had been without a comprehensive energy policy for a decade. We are now going on sixteen years with no energy plan for America, and it is not for lack of trying. The House of Representatives has passed Energy legislation four times, only to have the bills die in the Senate because of partisan politicking. Keeping the lights on should not be a partisan issue. Filling up a gas tank should not be a partisan issue. Madam Chairman, gas prices are at an all-time high. I want to thank Chairman Joe Barton 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 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. The energy bill we will vote on tomorrow 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. By including this proposal in the energy bill, the House is moving the country one step closer to lowering the sky-high price of gas for consumers. Madam Chairman, it's time to see some common sense at the gas pump. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support the underlying bill, and vote for lower gas prices and increased energy independence for America.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time to speak in favor of this bill, and I thank him for his great leadership to bring this bill to the floor. For 6 years now, the President of the United States has been saying that one of our primary failings as a country was to have an energy policy that moved forward. For three Congresses, our body has responded to that, first with the leadership of the gentleman from Texas as chairman of the subcommittee, and now with his leadership as chairman of the full committee, bringing an energy bill to the House floor for three straight Congresses. What we do here today and tomorrow can be extremely important to solve the problems that we see at the gas pumps today, to solve the problems that we see if you try to buy fertilizer today, to solve the natural gas problems. Now, it will not solve these problems next week or next month, or even maybe the month after that. If, however, we had passed the bill my colleague had brought to the floor 4 years ago, these problems we see today would not be the large problems that we see today. And for the leadership of this chairman, the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Resources, I am grateful. I am also grateful to our friends on the other side, led by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). They did the hard work they did in the markup. While they may not have agreed with all of the final product, certainly many parts of this product benefited from the work they did on this committee. One of the things we have done is illustrated here by a map that just shows how many kinds of fuel there are all over the United States. We have tried to limit the numbers of those fuels in this bill, and even asked the EPA to look to the future and see what that right number is. Every time you make gasoline less of a commodity and make it more of a specialty item, you increase the cost, reduce the reliability, and the access to gasoline. We hope to move away from that. We hope to do more things to use conservation and use renewable fuels. This is the right step. It is after the right time. I wish I could say it is the right step at the right time, but, Mr. Chairman, it is not the fault of our committee or our body. We need to move forward now. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), for yielding to me and for the great work he has done on this issue from the day we came to Congress 8 years ago. I rise in support of the bill that would repeal this tax. The House and Senate are already both on record for repealing the tax. We just did not repeal it permanently. By not repealing the tax permanently, we created an incredible situation for those people who would have an estate that was not taxable at all in 2010, but is highly taxable in 2011. The alternatives that the other side of the aisle have discovered during the hard work to achieve the goal of this bill are certainly a long way from where they were a few years ago. In fact, we have all heard about the impact on small businesses and family farms, but it bears repeating as we consider this legislation today. More than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation because of the estate tax. The idea that you give your son $2 million overlooks the vast numbers of family members in this country who actually are working side by side with their son or daughter. It is hard to tell who made the money and who did not, but on the day that the original member of the family passes away, suddenly the side-by- side partner has a big problem. Family farms and businesses are among the hardest hit. In fact, $2 million is quite a bit below the alternative that the gentleman will vote for and suggests that amount somehow would be okay to give in his vote, but not okay to give in his speech. Add in the value of farm equipment and business inventory, suddenly there is a lot more money than you thought you could accumulate. When we started this debate a few years ago, I saw some statistics that the highest percentage of estates paying at that time were estates that were only slightly above the estate tax amount, but I am sure none of the principals involved had any idea that they had accumulated over their lifetime an estate that would be taxed as a taxable estate. On Friday of this week, I am going to visit with Mark and Kim Larson who own a family farm right outside of Joplin in my district. Mark tells me he and his family spend a lot of money, money which would otherwise go into continuing to grow their family business, simply trying to comply with a Tax Code that says if somebody dies in 2010, your family deals with one set of circumstances; but if they die the next year, you are impacted by the return of the death tax. Medium-to-large farms like the Larsons' produce more than 80 percent of agricultural products in America. Let us put some certainty in the future for those kinds of families. Let us do the right thing and abolish this tax that penalizes savings and hard work.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me time to speak on this important issue. As has been said many times on the floor today, we celebrate the life of a man who truly changed the world. If I were going to start a list of people who freed other people in the 20th century, I would put the names of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and John Paul II at the beginning of that list. This is a man whose life defied all logic and reason, because his life was about something bigger than logic and reason. His life was about faith, and faith is bigger than those things. If you wrote this individual's story in a book as a novel, it would seem too unreasonable to be the subject of that novel. Born in an obscure part of Poland, he resisted the Nazi occupation of his country and led a resistance that exceeded anything we could imagine as the leader of the Church in Poland under the Soviet Union. All of us who were thinking about world events or even were just amazed at what was happening in the world have to remember that first trip back behind the Iron Curtain in 1980, and seeing tens and hundreds of thousands of people come to see this individual, defying their government as he defied their government, and the sudden realization to most of us in the West that there was something going on behind the Iron Curtain and in the Soviet Union and particularly in Eastern Europe that we really had not realized to be as big as it was. This is an individual who, to my amazement, was seen by more people than any other person who has ever lived. As you think about the quarter of a century of his leadership of the Church, the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands and even millions of people that would see John Paul II at one time, more people saw him than ever saw anybody else in the history of the world. His impact was great. His leadership was strong, his reaching out to people of all faiths, particularly his ecumenical reach to all Christians. As a Baptist, I appreciate the leadership of this Pope. He reached out to all Christian faiths, but he also reached beyond Christian faiths to people of all faiths as no Pope ever had before. We celebrate his life. He stood for something bigger than the tangible things that we so often think about and deal with. It is a great honor to be able to stand here on the floor of the House where people reflect on freedom every day, and reflect on the life of this man who did so much to extend freedom of all kinds, with the freedom of religion being the most important of those, to so many people around the world.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the Speaker for the difficult decision to call the Members back, though the difficult decision maybe was made less difficult by the circumstances. The hard work of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) over the last few days; of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader; the work of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who may not be on the same side as I am when we take the vote tonight, but who has certainly worked hard to see what we could do to make this work in the best possible way for the Members, who were called back. Terri Schiavo is in a terrible situation tonight. She has been in a terrible situation for a long time, a situation none of us would want to be in, a situation we would not want our loved ones in, a situation we would not have to decide about, but when this happens we do have to decide. And there is clearly a conflict between members of Terri's family about what she would want to happen. Someone observed earlier that when one is her age they probably have not written that down yet, and of course that is right. When one is my age they probably should have written that down, and sometime in the next few days I am going to check to see what I wrote 10 years ago and if I still agree with what I wrote 10 years ago, as I suspect many of us will. But she had not written it down. Some people seem to think she would feel much differently about this than others. And what this legislation would do is let a judge come in and look at all the facts one more time and determine if what is happening should continue to happen. I know others have said there is no real difference in just giving someone food and water and putting someone on incredible life support systems. I see a difference. I think most Americans see a difference. We will see if a judge sees a difference, if in fact we are able to give a judge that opportunity. We are not deciding tonight anything that a family should be deciding. We are asking a judge to come in and decide what a family among themselves could not decide. I have heard other people here talk about family members getting together and making this tough decision. But nobody has talked about family members getting together and fighting over that decision and what they would want to happen if that fight happened in their family. The vote tonight will be a bipartisan vote. This is not about Democrats or Republicans. I hope this is not about politics. I hope this is about Terri Schiavo. This bill also has a study that would require us to look at other circumstances and see if we should have the broader legislation that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and others, Democrats and Republicans, introduced last week. Mr. Speaker, I urge that this legislation pass, that we get this done as quickly as possible.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of America's Blood Centers. At this moment, someone in America is in vital need of a life-saving blood transfusion. Donated blood is needed every two seconds across the nation. Today, American's will use thirty thousand units of donated blood. One out of seven hospital patients will require blood transfusions. One out of three people in this chamber will need donated blood at least once in their lifetime. Technological and scientific advancements in the medical field continue to rapidly develop, but there remains no substitution for the blood transfusion. Blood cannot be manufactured nor reproduced. This life sustaining substance can only be transfused from one person to another. Life- saving blood remains a gift from one person to the rest of society. Through blood donations we help each other to survive and overcome medical hardships. Blood donations connect and unify us as a people who care. Today I stand to recognize America's Blood Centers, our nation's largest not-for-profit, community-based network of blood centers that keep on giving the gift of life. America's Blood Centers, founded in 1962, has grown to include seventy-two independent, community owned blood centers, which collect nearly half of the nation's blood supply. This June marks 10 years that Southwest Missouri's own Community Blood Center of the Ozarks has been providing blood to all Seventh District hospitals under the national guidance of America's Blood Centers. America's Blood Centers operate more than 600 collection sites that give the gift of blood to more than 150 million people and more than 3,300 U.S. hospitals. Not only do America's Blood Centers give blood, but they also ensure that their gift is safe and adequate by developing new tests and technologies as well as actively engaging in biomedical research in the area of transfusion medicine. Members of America's Blood Centers ardently work together to share resources and best practices, rising to meet increased national blood supply needs in times of peace, in times of war and in times of disaster. America's Blood Centers were the first to respond to the Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine shootings, and 9/11, and have since worked with the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to ensure adequate blood supply and rapid response in times of national disaster or acts of terrorism. Additionally, America's Blood Centers continue to support U.S. military operations around the globe. Together the centers promote donor recruitment and societal awareness of blood donations as a top priority, working to guarantee that America will have the blood it needs to continue to live and thrive. I recognize and commend America's Blood Centers on transfusing life into our nation whenever and wherever needed.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his hard work on this budget and for yielding me this time to talk about his budget and this alternative. Certainly his committee and he under his leadership have worked hard to bring us a fiscally responsible budget. The base bill we are debating today is the most fiscally conservative budget resolution we have considered since we joined the Congress. The cuts we are hearing about in Medicaid are really a reduction of the growth. The cut in Medicaid, as I read the base budget, is a cut in the growth rate of 7.5 percent to a growth rate of 7.3 percent. Where I live, and I suspect where most of us live, 7.3 percent growth would not be seen as a cut. The committee's budget permits us to extend recently enacted tax relief so that American families will not see a tax increase. What we have found is that if we trust the American people and American families, our economy grows again and it is growing. Passage of the committee's budget will provide for a real reduction of nearly 1 percent in nonsecurity discretionary spending. After holding the line on that category of spending at almost no growth in the last budget year, we hope to do even better this year and actually have a reduction of 1 percent below last year's spending. Furthermore, the budget calls for a reduction in the rate of growth of mandatory spending. In addition to reducing spending, this bill will ultimately save taxpayers almost $69 billion over the next 5 years. Only rarely has the Congress even been willing to discuss looking at mandatory spending. Almost all of our debate about spending is about the increasingly declining percentage of the budget that is discretionary. We are increasingly losing our control over the budget because we have not been willing to tackle mandatory spending. The chairman's budget, the committee's budget, says that mandatory spending can be, must be, and will be dealt with. It sets the targets for the authorizing committees to do their work and find the places to make this process more efficient and cut the growth in spending in those mandatory categories that the chairman's budget, the committee's budget, sets out. That does put us on a path to cutting the deficit in half within 5 years. The chairman's budget, the committee's budget, Mr. Chairman, is a good budget. I am proud of the work the Budget Committee and the chairman have done. I urge we move this budget forward today, we do the tough things in discretionary spending and mandatory spending it asks us to do, that we defeat the substitute and get on with our work.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Presbyterian Congregation in Georgetown, which is celebrating 225 years of distinguished history on March 16, 2005. On the Sundays when I'm in Washington, I often attend this church and I'm always reminded of its unique heritage. The church's history is deeply connected with the history of the Nation. It started with a small group of worshipers in 1760 who were organized into a church in 1780 under the eminent Stephen Bloomer Balch, pupil of religious leader John Witherspoon and soldier of the Revolution. It is the first Presbyterian Church in what is now modern- day Washington, DC, and remains the oldest church in the city of any denomination with an unbroken ministry. Men and women of every denomination worshiped there, including many leaders of the young republic. The first, and for many years the only, Protestant church building in Georgetown was erected by its congregation in 1782. Additions were made in 1794 with Thomas Jefferson listed among the contributors. A rare charter, still in effect, was granted in 1806 to ``the Presbyterian Congregation in George Town'' by an act of Congress signed by President Jefferson. In 1810, the church's seal, with its seven stars and Bible, was given to the church by the superintendent of the United States Mint. In 1821, President Monroe laid the cornerstone for the beautiful Bridge Street building which was moved fifty years later to its present site, with President Grant laying the cornerstone at that location. This is the same building in which the congregation now worships. The Presbyterian Congregation in Georgetown has always been a pioneer in the religious and cultural life of the community. In 1781, Dr. Balch became headmaster of the Columbian Academy to which George Washington sent his nephews and wards. Later, a school for girls was founded. The first book published in the District of Columbia was written by Dr. Balch, and he helped to found the first public library. As an outgrowth of the church's ministry, Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches were established in Washington and Maryland. The church's bell tolled all day when President Washington died. George Washington Parke Custis, the grandson of Martha Washington and father-in-law of Robert E. Lee, delivered an oration on the defeat of Napoleon from the church's pulpit. Memorial services for President William Henry Harrison were conducted there. During the Civil War, its building was used as a hospital for both Union and Confederate soldiers, including casualties after the Second Battle of Manassas and the Battle of Fredericksburg. In these and many ways, the church has been identified with the history of the nation it has sought to serve. The church's ministry remains vibrant today. The congregation is thankful for the recent arrival of its new pastor, the Reverend Doctor Richard L. Sheffield. Under his dynamic leadership and with God's grace, I'm certain that the church will continue to play an important role in the Washington community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in honoring the Presbyterian Congregation in Georgetown on its 225th anniversary. It is both an honor and a pleasure to salute such a long-standing institution that has played such an important role in the history of our Nation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague from Missouri for his work on this important issue. Even well-intentioned laws do not always make good sense and this is one of those times. Find me an American who believes that a driver who rents a car and causes an accident is not in the wrong, and the rental company is. You might be able to find that on the Floor of the House. I do not think you can find that out there where this passes the commonsense test with Americans. Holding rental and leasing companies responsible for the actions of their renters drives up the cost of renting a vehicle for all consumers. As was just pointed out, this insurance that is added to protect the company is added to every single person that rents a car, those very same people that the gentleman from Missouri pointed out already have to show proof of their own insurance. This arbitrary regulation costs small and large companies more than $100 million each year. In turn, small companies are getting run out of this business, and also this limits choices and competition for the customers when that happens. The gentleman from Missouri's amendment will establish a fair national standard for liability: A rental or leasing company will only be liable in instances where the company is negligent or at fault. I think we can all agree, Mr. Chairman, that it makes good sense and will help limit the cost of renting cars to consumers. I ask my colleagues to support this important reform.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about the remarkable life of Rosemary Kennedy, who passed away at age 86 on January 7. She was not the most famous member of her family. Hers was a more private life than those of her siblings. But it was not a life without public consequences and enormous benefit to those around her. The example of her perseverance and her dignity helped to raise awareness about people living with mental disabilities--not just about their problems, but about their potential. That example inspired her sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, to establish the Special Olympics. It has been going strong now for 37 years. Last year, it was my honor to co-author an historic Congressional authorization for Special Olympics with my good friend Steny Hoyer. It is our hope that the authorization will help this successful program to grow even more. I am pleased that the United States Congress is now counted among those who enthusiastically support Special Olympics and recognize its unique importance in improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. Through the Special Olympics, Rosemary Kennedy has brought hope to millions of people around the world who either have disabilities or love someone who does. In her eulogy for her sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver said, ``Today, in villages and cities all over the world, Rosemary's name may be little known, but her love is making a huge difference--to a mother of a special child, she is a success story. To a person struggling against misunderstanding and prejudice, she is a model of courage. To a family wondering how to stay hopeful, she is a symbol of the ultimate gift that sustains us all: love itself.'' Timothy Shriver, Rosemary Kennedy's nephew and the chairman of Special Olympics, said, ``All of the Shrivers and all of the Special Olympics family around the world will miss Rosemary's love and her influence on the world. Her life and her example will continue to be our daily inspiration.'' That's a sentiment that I believe all of us can second.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Harold McCoy on the day of his retirement from 46 years of dedicated service to the City of Joplin. Harold McCoy distinguished himself in Southwest Missouri by his commitment to improving the lives of the citizens in the City of Joplin. Harold McCoy began his career almost five decades ago as a draftsman in the Engineering Department. He quickly moved on to become the Assistant Director of Public Works and then Director, and Deputy City Manager. During this time of public service Harold McCoy was responsible for the completion of countless projects, which have greatly impacted the prosperity of the region. He expanded, maintained and developed over 430 miles of city streets. Along with other community leaders, he had the vision 36 years ago to maintain the traffic flow through the center of Joplin with the 1-49 Rangeline Bypass. As Director of Public Works, Harold built and expanded three waste water treatment facilities. He was also instrumental in the construction and development of the Joplin Airport, which is vital to the economy of Joplin and Southwest Missouri. Harold has significantly influenced the economic development of this growing district. He was instrumental in bringing businesses and financial opportunities to the City of Joplin, and in supporting the infrastructures of these companies once they arrived. Harold McCoy's contributions throughout his tenure in public service will not be forgotten. The impact he made on the City of Joplin will continue to serve as a monument to all his hard work and sacrifices.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay honor to an institution that celebrates its 100th birthday this month--Southwest Missouri State University at Springfield, Missouri with campuses in West Plains and Mountain Grove. During that century, Southwest Missouri State University, or SMSU as its students and alumni know it, has left its lasting mark of service and academic achievement on the region, the state, the nation and parts of the world. Southwest Missouri State University was founded March 17, 1905, in Springfield as Missouri State Normal School, Fourth District. With a faculty of 8, and 173 students in a single building on 38 acres of farmland, the school has evolved into the state's second largest institution of higher learning with 61 buildings and a student population of more than 20,800. The faculty has changed too. The 700- member faculty represents a diverse group of researchers, educators, public servants and mentors in 192 fields of study and offers more than 3,300 classes each year. The school's budget exceeds $200 million and its economic impact is an estimated $2 million per day. Its library, named after former President Duane Meyer, is a shining example of the growth and sophistication of SMSU. The number of books in the library has increased from 600 borrowed books in 1906 to 842,000 books, 928,000 government documents, 1,040,000 microforms, 35,000 audio-visual items, and 180,000 maps today. This year, the library will add its collection of union archives to its offerings available over the Internet. SMSU has ``opened the door of opportunity'' for students who have dared to excel for the past century and distinguished themselves in academics, in research, in public service, and in co-curricular activities and sports. In 1995, SMSU gained further distinction by adopting a statewide public affairs mission. SMSU has had a profound effect on improving the quality of life for citizens in Springfield, the region, and the state. March 17,2005 is ``Southwest Missouri State University Founders Day.'' It is part of a year-long celebration of the school's 100 years of service to Missouri. It is an appropriate celebration to mark the significant contributions the institution has made to the citizens of Missouri and the nation over the past 100 years. The future looks bright for Springfield campus. It has strong, principled leadership, a dedicated faculty that is actively involved in many communities. The school's research goals are expanding and its student body comes from nearly every county in the state. The evolution of SMSU followed its name. In its 100 years, the institution has had four names--Missouri State Normal School, Fourth District; Southwest Missouri State Teachers College; Southwest Missouri State College; and Southwest Missouri State University--each name changed to more accurately reflect what the institution had become. Nowhere is that more evident than in the growing ranks of its alumni that include governors, members of Congress, members of the state general assembly, countless local and municipal officials, teachers, civic leaders and business owners. I am proud to be among the 80,000 living SMSU alumni today. This school has earned the honor of being called Missouri State University. It is a fitting new name for this institution that has provided excellence in higher education, research and public service across the state and continues to expand its service and reach into more communities. I want to wish Missouri's second largest university at Springfield another 100 years of service to, not only the region, but also the entire State of Missouri. Go Bears!

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the vote in this House we will take within the hour will leave only one more step, the President's signature, in this first major attack on lawsuit abuse. I oppose the substitute and support the bill. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and his committee and all the Members, in fact, who have been willing to take on this tough fight, but particularly to the chairman for working hard to find a way to get this bill on the floor and to the President this early in this Congress. Frivolous lawsuits are clogging America's judicial system, endangering America's small businesses, jeopardizing jobs, and driving up prices for consumers. The bill we are debating today will reduce these junk lawsuits through tougher sanctions and increased commonsense protections. The past few years have witnessed an explosion of interstate class actions being filed in State courts, particularly in certain magnet jurisdictions. These magnet courts are filled with class action abuses. They routinely approve settlements in which the lawyers receive large fees and the class members receive virtually nothing. The Class Action Fairness Act is a commonsense bipartisan plan that addresses this serious problem by allowing larger interstate class action cases, cases that truly do involve multiple States, to be filed in Federal court. In addition to unclogging certain overused courts, this bill ends the harassment of local businesses through forum shopping. Lawyers who now manipulate this system often do anything to stay out of Federal court. They sometimes name a local pharmacy or a local convenience store in a nationwide product liability suit simply because they believe that court, and that court often has created a reputation as the place to go to get unjust settlements. Sometimes they wait and amend their complaint and add millions of dollars of claims after the deadline for removal to Federal court. This bill stops this unfair practice as well. This bill also establishes a much-needed class action rights bill. Several provisions are specifically designed to ensure that class members, not their attorneys, are the primary beneficiaries of the class action process. Six years ago on this floor we really began the process of attacking this system. The stories go on and on and on, to the point that by the time we passed legislation like this in the last Congress for the third Congress straight, Members were eager to just simply get a couple of minutes to talk about one of the classes where the people in the class get a dollar-off coupon, the people in the class get the smallest possible box of Cheerios, the people in the class get a 31-cent check, or the people in the class even wind up having to pay the lawyers of the class additional money because there really was no money for the people in the class that was being determined. This bill requires that judges carefully review settlements and limits attorneys fees when the value of the settlement received by the class members is minor in comparison or when there is a net loss settlement where the class members actually end up losing money. This bill bans settlements that award some class members a large recovery simply because they live closer to the court that the lawyers shopped for to get that case in that judge's court. It allows Federal courts to maximize the benefit of class action settlements by requiring that unclaimed settlement funds be donated to charitable organizations. The Class Action Fairness Act is good for small business and good for consumers. I urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and his committee for their hard work on this effort.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, free democratic elections in the Middle East are vital to our security and to the security of our democratic allies. Later today we will take up a resolution on the remarkable exercise in democracy in Iraq last Sunday. In fact January was a strong month for democracy in the region. On January 9, the Palestinian people went to the polls to select a new president. This election, in which Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, occurred in the wake of an ongoing violent intifada against Israel; violence whose direct cause of was a vacuum of credible leadership willing to confront terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza. In December I traveled to Jerusalem and Ramallah to discuss preparations for the Palestinian presidential election. I found those Palestinian leaders I met to be eager to demonstrate to the world that their presidential election would be free and fair. And today we congratulate the Palestinian people for conducting a presidential election that has been widely regarded as both free and fair. During the voting, Israel's efforts to balance the security of its people with easing the ability of Palestinians to vote in the West Bank and Gaza were vital to the success of the Palestinian election and Israel should be commended for its efforts. The presidential election on January 9 represented a real opportunity for the Palestinian people to make a statement about their own future by rejecting violent and extremist leaders in favor of those who favor a moderate approach to lasting peace with Israel. Today we commend President Mahmoud Abbas for his victory in the Palestinian presidential election. For many years the Palestinians have been without a leader committed to good faith negotiations toward peace with Israel. It is my sincere hope that the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas may finally change that. The news today that the Israeli and Palestinian senior leaderships will hold a summit in Egypt is encouraging. We should all encourage this effort and hope that trust can be built among the region's leaders. However, as we have learned the hard way during this conflict, peace will not be achieved through words spoken at a table. A lasting peace will require patience, strong leadership, and above all a realistic approach to the underlying issues. Few of these qualities existed in the previous leader of the Palestinian Authority. It is not clear that they exist in Mahmoud Abbas, but we are hopeful. While Mahmoud Abbas once renounced the use of terrorism during his premiership in 2003, his message to Israel and to the international community during his election campaign was mixed. Now that he has taken office, results are to be expected in the form of a clear policy that terrorism and terrorist incitement in any form will not be tolerated within those territories under the control of the Palestinian Authority. I am hopeful, but only to the point of realistic expectation, that Mahmoud Abbas will take advantage of this opportunity and that a lasting peace will emerge.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I am here to support the rule and encourage this body to move forward with legislation that we have already debated many times in the last Congress and legislation that really solves a problem. I do suggest that using terms like ``immigrant hater'' does not help this debate. This is about border security. It is not about those of us who reach out to help immigrants, particularly those immigrants who are here legally and lawfully all the time. It is not even about whether they are disadvantaged by people who are here illegally. This is about three significant border security issues. One is ID and clearly ID issued by States is important and significant. The bipartisan commission that looked into 9/11 dealt specifically with this issue, something that has been overlooked in much of our debate now, the almost-sanctified 9/11 Commission. That commission said travel documents are as important as weapons and urged the Congress to do something about travel documents that did not reflect the true status of individuals. In fact, on September 11, driver's licenses became weapons of mass destruction. In the United States today, a driver's license is all it takes to transfer money to a bank account, to enter a Federal building or other vulnerable facility, to board a train or an airplane. Lax standards and loopholes in the current issuance processes allow terrorists to obtain driver's licenses, often multiple licenses from different States. In southwest Missouri, where I am from and right in the middle of the country, of the 1,387 people who were detained by the office there who were illegally in the country in the year that ended September 30, 50 percent of those people had a state-issued driver's license or state- issued ID card, not at all difficult to get. Of the 19 terrorists on 9/11, they had five dozen driver's licenses between them and used those driver's licenses to get on the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. This act would require identity documents to expire at the same time a visa expires, so that someone who is here on an appropriate 6-month visa, as, in fact, much to our amazement, some of the 9/11 terrorists were, are not given a 6-years' driver's license when the documents they do produce say they can legally be here for 6 months. This bill also tightens the process of applying for asylum in the United States to close loopholes in the system that have been taken advantage of by terrorists. This issue was widely debated on the floor last year. The example I gave was the terrorist who was here from Jordan who had bombed an international school in Jordan full of American kids. Well, that terrorist had not committed a crime in this country and under the current law was allowed to stay here unsupervised in a country full of American kids. Certainly that is not acceptable. That person should have had to have a hearing. This legislation requires that. I urge that we adopt the rule and the legislation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk for a minute about the importance of maintaining America's all-volunteer military in order to fight and win the global war on terror. That military is very dependent on the integrated Armed Forces, our guardsmen and Reserves who are available to us at what I think should be times of crisis or need. I would like to place before the House today six guidelines that I intend to use as we move forward toward looking at our decisions on military preparedness. The first of those points is simply to maintain our commitment to a fully integrated force. Number two, to challenge the administration to allocate resources in a manner that ensures that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are well-equipped and well-funded. Number three, achieve the right size of force. Number four, establish the right mix of force. Number five, retain the force by doing those things necessary for relieving the burden on soldiers and their families. Number six, preserve the long-term dominance of America's fighting force. Mr. Speaker, we have no greater responsibility than to provide for our national defense. The Founders of our government stated this very clearly in the Preamble to our Constitution. We must continue to maintain that constitutional commitment.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the gentleman from Vermont make his remarks, I assume that means that he will be voting with me to accept the results from Ohio since he agrees that the President won. That has just been verified for me. So the whole purpose of this discussion, at least from that perspective of understanding that there are still challenges in our election system in the country, should be handled at a different time. But let us talk about what we are doing here today. First of all, every Member of this body was elected to this body. It distinguishes us from almost any other institution, certainly in the Federal Government and in many other institutions. We also were all elected under the same rules and regulations that we are discussing today. I do not know that we help the process by casting doubt on what all of those people that work in elections all over America do. I know in Missouri when I was the chief election official for 8 years and an election official for 20 years that no Republican did anything on Election Day by themselves. I think it is the same in Ohio. Every single thing that is done is done by a Republican. It is also done at the same time by a Democrat. I do not think the people that stepped forward to accept that significant public responsibility are saying there was a problem with the election on Election Day. In fact, I think they are all saying we did exactly what we should have done on Election Day: We tested the equipment; we verified the ballots; we counted, as we should, with bipartisan teams there to do that; and we have certified these results. If we were taking this important time today to talk about a difference of 118 votes, that might be justifiable in my mind. To take this time on this day to challenge all of those Democrats and Republicans who gave of themselves and their time to make this process work in Ohio and in Missouri and everywhere else where people voted the November Election Day with a difference in this State of 118,000 seems to me to be the wrong time, the wrong place, and maybe even the wrong job for the Federal Government. These are great discussions to have in Ohio. That is where they are ultimately going to solve the problem of how they conduct elections in Ohio, and this apparently is more about that than anything about the result. The purpose of our work here today is to certify the result unquestioned by the country, unquestioned by the Democratic nominee, unquestioned by anybody involved in this process who certified the election, our job today was to count the electoral votes, get on with our business of doing the work that can only be done here in this city by the Federal Government to move the country in a new and positive and better direction. We need to continue to do that. We need to be committed to that. We also need to understand that every time we attack the process, we cast that doubt on that fabric of democracy that is so important. People do have to have, as I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, confidence that the process works in a proper way. They do not need to believe that it is absolutely perfect because, after all, it is the greatest democracy in the history of the world and it is run by people who step forward and make a system work in ways that nobody would believe until they see it to produce the result of what people want to have happen on Election Day. This was not a closely decided election. The President's margin is significant. No President elected since 1988 has had a majority of the vote, let alone a 3 percentage point majority of the vote with a direction clearly to move the country forward. We need to get on with our job. We need to honor the election process by working in the proper time and the proper way at the proper place to make it better, but not to suggest that because there were problems that somehow those problems affected a result in ways that every one of us knows is not the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller). (Mr. KELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I just wanted to stand up today and talk about what a great job I think this committee has done, given the tough assignment before the election to come back after our break and to bring these remaining bills into place at the budget number that the House had worked with, without a budget agreed to with the Senate. I think it is a remarkable accomplishment that both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) should be praised for. The committee has worked hard. I certainly join in the remarks that I have heard on the floor this morning about the great leadership that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has brought to the committee for the last 6 years, the challenges, the lines of people that want to talk to him that, in the case of a bill like this, just want one more thing in the bill that maybe was not an issue that the appropriators should be dealing with. So I rise in tremendous admiration, respect and appreciation for Mr. Young, for his leadership of this committee, and also for this product that is on the floor today and give my appreciation to both he and Mr. Obey for that job.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time. Because of the strange conflict in current law, terrorists and criminals who are not citizens of our country but for some reason get here are, in fact, being released into our society. There are three amendments, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) pointed out. I think it is better to debate them one at a time. That is why we do that. We are going to vote on them one at a time. This amendment is an important amendment because it deals with that specific problem. I cannot believe anyone in this House would want violent criminals from other countries who somehow get here to be able to be released in our country. This amendment allows that those criminals would be detained. There is a great example of a Jordanian who was convicted in Jordan of conspiracy to bomb a Jordanian school for American children. He is convicted of a conspiracy where his goal, his target, was to kill American children. He somehow got to this country. Under the current interpretation of the courts, we cannot send him back to Jordan because he might be tortured, but we also cannot detain him. So in that interpretation this person is likely to be set free in some community in the United States, a person who is conspiring to kill American children in Jordan. So we would put him in a community of the United States that is full of American children, nobody but American children, to kill in that community? That cannot be allowed. What the gentleman from Indiana's (Mr. Hostettler) amendment does is address the concern that we all would have about sending anybody into a place where they would be punished in a way that we would think was not appropriate. I have got to tell my colleagues the appropriateness to this body and anywhere else and even as we would talk personally of a punishment for some whose target was to kill American children, it is hard to imagine how that punishment could be too difficult, but that is not what we are about in this society. So this amendment would allow that person to be detained. If one catches a rattlesnake on one's farm, they do not look at it and say, this is definitely a rattlesnake, let us go up and release it in the front yard. What this amendment does is say, if they catch that rattlesnake and they say we are going to be able detain this rattlesnake, even though he did not commit his crime in the United States. We are not going to let this criminal who was, in this case, targeting American children, in other cases might be a murderer, in other cases might be a rapist, in other cases might be a pedophile, we are not going to let this person go and release him in our community simply because we have no place to send him back to and he did not commit the crimes that there was an agreement that he committed in the United States. This is a good amendment. It improves this bill. But the underlying bill was designed to deal with the concern that we could not find an adequate way to deal with until the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) worked hard to come up with this amendment. I urge support for this amendment. We are debating these and voting on them one at a time. I urge that this amendment be adopted.