Roy Blunt

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. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation. H.R. 4481, the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004, will expand the park boundaries at the site of one of our Nation's most significant Civil War battles. H.R. 4481 has garnered the bipartisan support of the entire Missouri delegation and has received the bipartisan support of the entire House Resources Committee. On August 10, 1861, just 20 days after the first battle of Bull Run, about 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers met just west of Springfield, Missouri on the banks of Wilson's Creek. The fight that ensued became the second major engagement of the Civil War, the first major battle west of the Mississippi River, and the first battle where a Union general was killed. Most importantly, however, the battle of Wilson's Creek dealt a decisive blow to the secessionist movement in Missouri and preserved Union control of the State. When the National Park Service set aside 1,750 acres for the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield in 1960, not all of the land upon which the battle occurred was included nor was all the land that the Park Service recommended to be included put within the boundaries of the park. In fact, only about two-thirds of the battle site currently falls within the park's boundaries. At the time, the land surrounding the park had changed little since the battle took place and still has not had significant development around the park. Today, however, this land is becoming more attractive to developers. The southern portion of the park is located in the fastest growing county in Missouri and pressure to further develop the area will only increase. With this bill, we have the opportunity to protect an additional 615 acres of this important battle site by authorizing the National Park Service to acquire specific parcels of land surrounding Wilson's Creek through donation, through purchase or exchange with willing landowners. With the acquisition of these parcels, the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield will contain 99 percent of the battle site. H.R. 4481 will allow the National Park Service also to obtain one of the most valuable and distinctive Civil War collections ever assembled. General Sweeney's Museum of Civil War History, which is located on one of the parcels identified for acquisition, is a privately owned collection of artifacts related to the Civil War in Missouri and Arkansas, and the owners have indicated their eagerness to sell. By the way, those owners have been big supporters of the park in every way for a long time. This collection currently houses approximately 15,000 pieces, including Civil War documents, photographs, letters and diaries. The National Park Service's chief curator, the museum curator at Gettysburg National Park and the staff curator at Harper's Ferry Center have all visited the Sweeney museum. These experts have praised the nature of the collection and confirmed its historical significance. The acquisition of the Sweeney museum, along with the John K. and Ruth Hulston Civil War Research Library, which was established at the park in 1985, will truly make Wilson's Creek National Battlefield an essential spot for historians and others. H.R. 4481 will add priceless new assets to the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, preserve the battle site and allow future generations to experience the park just as Americans would have seen it more than 140 years ago. Madam Speaker, on behalf of our delegation and with appreciation to the Committee on Resources, I certainly ask the House to support this important legislation to protect the Wilson's Creek Battlefield and authorize the early addition of this property to the park.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding leaders dedicated to the education of our youth in southwest Missouri. At a time when many school systems are struggling to provide a quality education, these civil servants have settled for nothing less than excellence in preparing our students in southwest Missouri for the future. The Missouri School Boards' Association has selected the Nixa R-II Board of Education as the State of Missouri's Outstanding Board of Education for 2004. This decision was made by a committee of school board members from among 524 districts. It is the second time that Nixa's school board has received this honor, demonstrating their unwavering commitment to education in our community. The Nixa School Board, chaired by Peggy Taylor, has successfully lobbied local, state, and federal officials for continuing support of educational goals. Their leadership contributed to the lives of Nixa students in five general areas of significance: school district accreditation, community engagement, improved student achievement, success with school district goals and local board initiatives. Through their dedication and relentless pursuit of the goals placed before them, this school board has called attention to the strength of the education system in the Seventh Congressional District of Missouri. Additionally, the school board has built overall trust and encouraged effective communication between the Nixa RII School Administration and the community. The District Superintendent, Steven Kleinsmith, attributes much of the school district's success to the high expectation that the Board of Education placed on itself and sought from others. Success, such as a perfect score on Missouri's Annual Performance Review conducted by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and earning the State of Missouri's highest accreditation possible, ``Accredited with Distinction for Performance,'' demonstrate a demand for superior education and represents the quality of our public schools in southwest Missouri. Today is a great day for the city of Nixa, the Nixa RII School System, and its Board of Education. I am proud to salute their leadership as an example for us all.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a Southwest Missouri educator who each day stands before a class of fourth graders in a 110-year-old building to teach math, science, social studies and English. For Amelia ``Mamie'' Dody it has been a routine that began its 58th year on August 19. Forty years earlier, Ms. Dody agreed to be a substitute teacher for two weeks and ended up staying to teach in the same classroom at Rocky Comfort, Missouri. ``I only came for two weeks, to help out while they found somebody else. They haven't found anybody yet,'' she told me with a smile when I visited her classroom in Rocky Comfort on August 25th to wish Ms. Dody well and congratulate her on a lifetime of achievement. Ms. Dody began her teaching career at age 16 to save enough money to buy her first car. She told me, ``My dad asked `How are you going to buy gas?' so I kept teaching. I guess you could say I am still working to buy gas for the car.'' ``She lives to teach. She loves to teach,'' says Ms. Dody's daughter Donna Waters, who is a principal in the same McDonald County School District. Ms. Dody's teaching career began in 1946 at the one room school at Henneman in Barry County. She taught in Wheaton, North Kansas City, Fairview and Granby before landing at Rocky Comfort in 1966. After 58 years of teaching, Ms. Dody is not only a role model to her students and their parents, but to other teachers. She spends her summers in workshops and seminars to improve her skills and better deliver information to those young minds she nourishes each day. In addition, Ms. Dody also works on her 275-acre cattle farm near Stark City. While she confesses to no longer brush hogging, her daughter says she still mends fences and works cattle. Rocky Comfort Principal Shandra Stephens calls Ms. Dody ``A neat lady. She is a person I can go to, because she is such a good sounding board. She has credibility and lastability.'' Perhaps the greatest compliment to Ms. Dody's skills as a teacher are from parents and grandparents who want Ms. Dody to teach their children. Her career now spans three generations. Among the countless numbers of students who have passed through her classroom in Rocky Comfort are her two grandsons, her son-in-law, and two current members of the McDonald County School Board. There had been rumors that Ms. Dody would quit teaching last year, but voters in McDonald County approved the construction of a new elementary school in nearby Longview that will replace the Rocky Comfort Elementary School. That was too much for Ms. Dody to pass up. She returned to the classroom this year and will move into her new classroom when the Longview Elementary opens in January. Now, she is telling her colleagues she will try to stay in the classroom for two more years to reach her 60th year of teaching. Ms. Dody's spirit, dedication and love of teaching shows up every day in the classroom. She shares the joy of teaching with the children, fellow teachers and parents in her community. America owes much to Ms. Dody and teachers like her who have given a lifetime to educating our elementary school students in American values.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, as a former Secretary of State of Missouri, I am pleased to be able to speak today on behalf of the National Association of Secretaries of State. The National Association of Secretaries of State is the oldest association of public officials in the United States, created and established in September 1904 at the World's Fair in St. Louis, Missouri. This year marks the Centennial year of NASS and the Association is meeting in celebration of this very special milestone. In 1904, NASS was organized and approved for assembly at the World's Fair in the administration building of the Fair--Brookings Hall--which still stands today and is in constant use by Washington University. The year 2004 also marks the 150th anniversary of Washington University. I am pleased to honor this fine institution and recognize its importance in the history of NASS. Having left the organization as its president-elect, I continue to remember NASS as the most helpful and personally fulfilling professional organization I have been a member of. On behalf of myself and my colleagues in the United States Congress who also served as Secretaries of State--Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Katherine Harris of Florida, Jim Langevin of Rhode Island and Candice Miller of Michigan--I gratefully acknowledge the value of NASS to us personally and to the nation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, listening to today's dialogue on the floor, I have been encouraged by the strong bipartisan support for the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Passing this implementation bill today will pave the way for an even deeper economic relationship with one of our most important strategic allies. The Australian Government has not only sided with us, but committed valuable troops and resources to helping the United States in every major conflict in the last century, including the global war on terror. Notably, Prime Minister Howard has shown courage and dedication to the cause of freedom over the past two years with his steadfast commitment to the coalition in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, like our own economy, Australia's is a modern, well- developed, transparent economic system. A deep trade relationship already exists between the United States and Australia in the form of $28 billion per year. As with every well-negotiated trade agreement, both sides will benefit immediately upon the enactment of this free trade agreement. For the United States, this means that more than 99 percent of U.S. exports of manufactured goods to Australia will become tariff-free on day one, resulting in a possible $2 billion per year in increased manufacturing exports; U.S. agricultural exports, currently totaling $400 million, will receive immediate duty free access to the Australian market; and American services providers, including the telecommunications, financial services, energy, delivery, and entertainment industries, will be accorded substantial new access to a major developed market. The reasons I just listed, and there are many others, help explain why this agreement will receive such broad and deep support from the House of Representatives. I would like to thank my friend from New York, Mr. Crowley, for his help in generating support for the agreement on the other side of the aisle. I would also like to thank Ambassador Zoellick and his staff for their hard work in negotiating this agreement. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of expanding trade and investment opportunities for U.S. firms, creating jobs for American workers, and deepening an already strong relationship with the Australian Government and the people of Australia.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends both for supporting this bill and the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me to talk about it a few minutes. This is a bill, as the gentleman from California said, that the House has passed at an earlier time. It does seem occasionally that even in a very small, local issue that it takes an act of Congress to resolve a problem that one would think that common sense would be able to resolve, but in this case that is not the case and it takes this bill, Senate bill 1167, to provide a speedy resolution to really a boundary dispute affecting private property owners in my district. The historic boundary lines neighboring the Mark Twain National Forest and Table Rock Lake in Missouri's Barry County and Stone County were blurred when the U.S. Forest Service decided in the recent past to restore the mid-1800s Corners Program. The only problem with restoring this program is that nobody, including the Corps of Engineers, had paid any attention to it since the mid-1880s and land surveys conducted in the 1970s by and for the Corps of Engineers have found that major discrepancies would be the case if these old markers somehow became the rule of how property would be determined. Instead, property has been based on a 1950s survey when Table Rock Lake was built. A fight with the Federal Government over a boundary line can really be an uphill battle, as we all know or could imagine. Don Ayers of Shell Knob in my district tells me that the Forest Service showed up on his property and moved his boundary by 30 feet. When they did that they essentially repossessed his driveway, took part of his garage and an outbuilding on the land that he had every reason to believe he owned and clearly not only had paid taxes on but had made improvements, including those improvements that the Forest Service said now would belong to them once that boundary line was moved. Recognizable and verifiable boundary lines are essential to private property ownership. This bill, sponsored by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, sets a process for dealing with disputed boundaries in Barry and Stone Counties. As the gentleman from California said, we passed similar legislation in this body last November. This bill allows us to go ahead and get that job done. The Federal Government already owns one-third of the Nation's land, and inaccuracies in Federal surveys should never force landowners to forfeit their property. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his work in bringing this resolution to the floor. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to have a discussion with the new President of Iraq, President Yawar, about his vision of a stable, sovereign, and democratic Iraq. All of us who joined with him in this building that day were impressed by his resolve and, frankly, impressed by his courage, the courage of Prime Minister Illawi, and the courage of hundreds of others who have demonstrated great bravery and resolve by taking the reins of the Iraqi Governing Council in the aftermath of Izzedeen Salim's assassination in mid-May, in the face of daily attacks, and this desperate attempt of tyrants and tyranny to prevail in a part of the world that has experienced tyranny for far too long. Why, in the prime of their lives, are Iraq's new leaders risking everything, including their very lives, for such a cause? It is because, Mr. Speaker, they desire liberty. It is because they desire freedom. The men and women who will officially become Iraq's interim leaders June 30 all share a vision of their native land free at last of Saddam Hussein's brutal oppression. This vision respects the rule of law and will listen to the voice of the people. This government, of course, is one step toward elections and an elected government that we hope to see in Iraq in just a few months. We should not forget that our Nation was built on the backs and the minds and the hearts and the hands of the same kind of brave and heroic figures. Two hundred twenty-eight years ago, 56 Americans challenged the British crown by signing the Declaration of Independence, risking their families, their fortunes and their lives for the cause, again just like Iraqis today, the cause of liberty. Today, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the brave Iraqi leaders and the millions of Iraqi citizens who are standing up to the terrorists and insurgents for the cause of freedom for the Iraqi people, we recall the sacrifices made by brave Americans throughout history for our own freedom. We express our pride in the men and women of our Armed Forces who are making this day possible for the Iraqi people. Even after next week's handover, the cause of freedom in Iraq will continue to require sacrifices by the American people and by our brave soldiers. The American people must be prepared to help the fledgling government financially as it generates the type of infrastructure necessary to support a stable democracy. We must be prepared to encourage this government as it moves to free and fair elections. Iraq is still a dangerous place. Terrorists continue to target our troops as well as innocent men, women and children in an effort to ruin Iraq's attempt at democracy. But democratic institutions are forming and our soldiers and civilian advisers continue to train Iraqi police and other security forces. During today's deadly terrorist attacks, the reports of Iraqi soldiers fighting side by side with their American counterparts demonstrate just how determined Iraqis are to destroy this insurgency and live in peace for the first time in 30 years. Mr. Speaker, with today's resolution, the House reaffirms that the United States' motives in Iraq are founded on virtue. We do not desire any territory. We do not desire an empire. We seek stability both at home and in the Middle East. The President's decision to intervene in Iraq was made in the best interests of Americans and Iraqis. Saddam Hussein is in a jail cell, no longer able to pursue weapons of mass destruction or encourage global terrorism that threatens the lives of freedom-loving people. Most importantly in the context of today's debate, Iraqis at last have the chance to demonstrate to the world that democracy can spring forth in the cradle of civilization. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and even beyond that, I urge all of us and all Americans to support this great effort, this great experiment in freedom that we encourage today and in the days ahead.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is committed to Israel's defense as a sovereign, independent, Jewish state. Its democratically-elected leaders face enormous challenges defending Israeli citizens in the face of a terrorist threat. In this resolution, the House applauds the efforts of Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to further the peace process through a plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and to consider current realities in future negotiations on Israel's borders and the status of Palestinian refugees. It also credits the President of the United States with having the courage to support the Israeli government in this effort. Mr. Speaker, the President was absolutely right when he stated, on April 14th in a letter to Prime Minister Sharon, that ``it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.'' He was also correct in acknowledging that a final status agreement for Palestinian refugees will almost certainly not include their resettlement in the State of Israel. None of this precludes the establishment of a Palestinian state. The President stated two years ago his vision of two states living side by side and remains committed to the Road Map as the only widely accepted path to peace in the region. But, Mr. Speaker, as this resolution accurately states, terrorist elements within Palestinian society must be defeated and the rule of law must prevail in any newly created Palestinian entity. And, perhaps as importantly, Arab states must state clearly that they will live in peace with Israel and support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine. An end to the Israel-Palestinian conflict presents huge challenges and requires difficult decisions. Past leaders have opted for overly- simplified solutions that, I would argue, have made the problem worse. I strongly support the President's efforts to facilitate peace in the region, and to give his backing to Israel's democratically-elected leaders as they work to protect the citizens of Israel from terrorism.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the debate. Both my friend from Wisconsin who feels strongly about this and my friend from Maine who has come to the floor, we have had a good debate on part of this bill, but only a very small part of this bill. I would like to make a couple of points. Some of the things that my friend from Maine pointed out that we needed, we agree that we need many of those things. In fact, that is why we have the energy bill. We voted on it again today. We voted on it in both of the last two Congresses. We clearly do need energy policy. We encourage all those on this side of the building to work hard to try to get that done. We have voted on an energy conference report now, and now we voted on a bill today that was very much like it. This brings one significant, but not very complicated, issue to the floor. I think, in fact, the center focus of this bill is so unarguable that nobody really argued about it. We have got too many fuel blends. Refineries have needlessly become profit centers in the distribution because there are too many fuel blends out there. Nobody really challenged that concept. I heard a lot of discussion about one principle, the waiver principle, whether that was good or not. Let me tell the Members the waiver is very good if the refinery that services their area is somehow shut down. In fact, the waiver is desperately good, and we do not have that kind of ability now to just simply allow families and commerce to continue when one of these very unique fuels is suddenly unavailable anywhere. That is what the waiver is supposed to take care of. But really the more central focus of this bill I did not really hear any real debate on. I am encouraged by that. I hope as we move forward with all kinds of energy legislation that we take strong consensus that there are too many fuel blends. We need a study to determine how we get a smaller number, and then we need to look for ways to encourage that smaller number of blends to become the number of fuel blends that communities look at in the future. We can make this system much more efficient. We can make it work more effectively. This is not designed to solve all the energy problems in the world; but if we adopted this bill, it would reduce gas prices. That is what the title calls for. I think we moved this debate forward today, and I appreciate everybody's participation that was part of it.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the chairman for yielding and look forward to the discussion of this bill with my friends and others on the floor. Mr. Speaker, this is Energy Week, and I think most American families can tell us that what they really want to see is some common sense at the gas pump. Every summer we see wild spikes in the prices of gasoline at stations nationwide. This summer is one of the worst on record. Prices in some areas are peaking at $3.11 per gallon, according to my California colleagues. Communities across the country can use close to 45 different blends of gasoline. These so-called specialty boutique fuels are specially formulated as these fuel requirements are necessary to meet air quality standards in certain areas. To make matters even worse, even more special blends of these special blends are often required, depending upon the season. When supply cannot meet demand for one of these boutique blends, prices spike, sometimes overnight, and families and commerce suffers. States use numerous blends and grades of fuel to meet clean air standards. This approach results in islands within our country that use a gasoline used by no other community. These areas prohibit other blends of gasoline, even in times of shortage. In other words, if they run low they cannot run next door to borrow a little fuel that is easily available somewhere else. Instead, consumers see tight supply and rising prices. Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Missouri, a person can fill their gas tank in Springfield, where I am from, and drive 3\1/2\ hours to St. Louis. When they get there they would be filling their tank up again, but probably after they have burned all the gas that they bought somewhere else in that community. They would buy a different type of gasoline, but if St. Louis ever runs short of gasoline, they cannot go just right across the river to East St. Louis, Illinois. They cannot use the gasoline that is available 25 miles from downtown, outside of that attainment area, but of course the people that buy gas in those places can drive to St. Louis easily. The essential Balkanization of the country in terms of fuel prices just does not make any sense. So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and others and I have introduced the Gasoline Price Reduction Act to do something about this. Our legislation would assure a more reliable supply of gas nationwide. Essentially, we do four things. One is we create a waiver system if the refinery that serves a community for some reason is not able to produce gasoline. We cap the current number of fuel blends at a number around 45, and I say around 45 because there are so many blends out there one of the things we need to do is figure out exactly how many blends there are today and cap that number at that rate. We also encourage EPA to come up with three recommended blends that they would use in the country and, in the meantime, to have a study that would really determine the number of fuel blends that could be made available in a more efficient market, in a more efficient way. I hope our colleagues join us today, not only in the healthy discussion of this bill but also as we move to pass this legislation. Madam Speaker, I need to go off the floor for a second, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) be allowed to manage my time.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for yielding this time to me and leading this important recognition today. I also want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your special understanding of President Reagan from your work in the military serving alongside him in his days in the White House. What all of those that served with the President or watched him from afar were able to see was how his optimistic leadership reinvigorated the American spirit and how it redefined the politics of his time. Born in a small town near the middle of America, this son of a shoe salesman rose to heights of gigantic proportion and lifted his countrymen along with him. After facing his last great challenge with courage and patience, Ronald Reagan now takes his place where his vision is once again clear, his faith rewarded, and his storied sense of humor returned. He placed his faith in God along with economic and permanent freedom. And the world is a better place because of those beliefs. President Reagan helped raise individuals up and helped tear down the Berlin Wall. He inspired us, and he was inspired by us. President Reagan's leadership inspired more current members of our conference on my side of the aisle than any other political figure in the 20th century. When I became the majority whip in this Congress, I named the conference room in the whip's office the Reagan Room for the brief time I am privileged to make that designation. And I hope many of my colleagues come by that room during this week on the third floor of the Capitol and view the photographs there chronicling the life of this remarkable man from his days as a radio announcer to those that foreshadowed the end of the Soviet Union. President Reagan said, We are a powerful force for good. With faith and courage we can perform great deeds and take freedom's next step, and we will. America is taking freedom's next step, and we are doing so in large part because of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Today America's light shines a little dimmer because he is gone, but, Mr. Speaker, it shines much brighter than it would have if he had not been here. He made a difference in America. He made a difference in the world. Today people all over the world are remembering and recognizing that difference.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the few remaining World War I veterans living among us. Fred Elliot Robb is an American of exceptional character, having served in our Armed Services during three major conflicts of the twentieth century. Originally enlisting in the United States Marine Corps on July 18th, 1918, Fred served as an orderly to a Captain at Quantico, Virginia. He was discharged in February of 1919 and returned home to Sarcoxie, Missouri to complete high school and to make service his vocation by becoming a Presbyterian minister. When World War II broke out, Fred Robb once again offered his service to his country. He joined the United States Navy as a chaplain and remained in uniform through the first engagements of the War in Vietnam, retiring as a Lieutenant Commander. Patriotism runs deep in the Robb family. Fred's brother Jacob, also a veteran of World War I, passed away on February 29th of this year at age 105. At the age of 107, Fred, along with his wife Fern, are independent, contributing citizens of the Great State of Missouri. Throughout his remarkable life, Fred Elliot Robb has exemplified selfless devotion to duty. When his nation needed him, Fred Robb looked with resolve at the challenges facing our nation and accepted them with bravery, determination, and service. Throughout his life he has continued to live by those ideals. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that Fred Robb calls Springfield, Missouri, his home. As we approach Memorial Day, we honor this oldest living Marine for his sacrifice on behalf of our nation and for the example that he sets for generations of Americans to come.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, southwest Missouri learned early in the War on Terrorism of the sacrifices necessary to defend our way of life. Two men from the 7th Congressional District died in less than a week of hostilities in Afghanistan. Stanley L. Harriman, 34, a Chief Warrant Officer in the United States Army, was the first American killed in combat in Afghanistan on March 2, 2002. His death brought the harsh realities of war home to the Ozarks. Harriman was assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. While Harriman's hometown is Wade, North Carolina, he had family ties to Southwest Missouri. He attended and graduated from Strafford High School in 1985. ``Stanley died for you and you and you,'' his wife, Sheila Harriman, told reporters at Fort Bragg, N.C., ``and for your freedom. All Stanley ever wanted to do was be an American soldier.'' Two days later, Army Sergeant Philip Svitak of Joplin was killed in action. Svitak was killed by friendly fire while in combat with Taliban and al Qaeda forces in eastern Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda on March 4, 2002. Svitak was 31. He was assigned to the 160th Special Operations Group at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. His wife and two children survived him. He was the only son in a family of veterans. Both his mother and father served in Vietnam. Roseann Svitak said her son ``told me before he went, `Mom, the terrorists have to be stopped.' He said, `If they send me over there and anything happens to me . . . I'm proud to die for my country.' '' Daniel Kisling, Jr. of Neosho died of injuries suffered in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan on January 30, 2003. Kisling and three other servicemen were aboard a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter that crashed during a training exercise. Staff Sergeant Daniel Kisling, Jr. served in the U.S. Army for eight years. At the time of the fatal crash he was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division based at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. He was the crew chief aboard the Black Hawk helicopter. Daniel Kisling was survived by his parents Daniel Leon and Velinda Kisling of Neosho, Missouri, and his sister Lisa. Kisling was married to Georgie McNeill for 14 years. They have three children: Nathan, age 13; Jessie, age 10; and Riley, age 3. A fourth child was born to the couple after Sgt. Kisling's death. In early May, 2003, Private-First-Class Jess A. Givens was killed in a tank accident along the banks of the Euphrates River west of Baghdad, Iraq. Jesse Givens, son of Connie Givens of Springfield, Missouri, attended Springfield Glendale High School. He was 34 years old. His wife and five-year-old child, who live in Ft. Carson, Colorado, survive him. Givens was with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. His siblings live in Joplin and Springfield. Twenty-one-year-old Jonathan Paul Barnes from McDonald County was killed in a grenade attack July 26, 2003 in Iraq. Barnes was a member of the 4th Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment. He joined the Army in April, 2001. At the time of his death he was guarding a hospital with two fellow soldiers who were also killed. James Barnes, Jonathan's father, who lives in Anderson, Missouri, and pastors the Greenwood Community Church near Southwest City, Missouri, described his son as a ``strong boy, who loved God and his country. He wanted to go,'' his father said. ``He died doing what he wanted to do.'' Jonathan Barnes was survived by his wife Amanda and daughter Michelle of Goodman, Missouri. 1st Lt. Benjamin J. Colgan was killed on November 1, 2003 in Baghdad while responding to a rocket propelled grenade attack. His wife Jill Kathleen Asay of Aurora, Missouri, said, ``He loved his country and wanted to make a difference in the world, and he gave his life to make a better life for the people of Iraq and for all Americans.'' Colgan had been in the U.S. Army 12 years. He was in the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Armored Division. Jill Asay gave birth to the couple's third child in December 2003. Daughters Grace, age 2, and Paige, age 1, also survived their father. U.S. Army Staff Sergeant James `Doug' Douglas Mowris was among 7 U.S. servicemen killed January 29, 2004 in an explosion in Ghazni, Afghanistan, about sixty miles southwest of the country's capital city. ``My husband was proud to serve,'' Mrs. Mowris said. ``He gave the greatest sacrifice anyone can give; that was his life . . . . He was a good husband and wonderful father.'' Doug Mowris was a member of the 414th Military Police Company based in Joplin, Missouri. Mowris had been in the U.S. Army or Army Reserves since 1984. Mowris was 37 years old. He was survived by his wife of 15 years, Michelle, and children Craig, age 14, and McKenzie, age 9. These men died, leaving friends, family, and children to grieve and remember. We also remember another group of Americans who are civilian casualties of the War on Terror. John Willett and Craig Amundson were Ozarks natives who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. All of these brave men are the faces of this war. They remind me every day of what we are fighting for.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing this bill to the floor. As we look at our efforts to be more competitive as a society, we clearly have to look at the regulations imposed by government and be sure that any of those regulations, any of that paperwork, is justified. The cost of paperwork and regulatory constraints have been steadily increasing in America. America's small business owners are feeling the pinch; and they believe, along with those who support this bill, it is time to do something about it. Tax relief is not the problem; but we do need a simpler, fairer tax system because all of these things we put into law do require different levels of compliance. What this bill attempts to do is find out what those compliant costs are. Paperwork and regulatory burdens cost small business of fewer than 20 employees $6,975 per employee just to fill out the paperwork and comply with federally imposed regulatory burdens. That is nearly 60 percent more per employee than if they have more than 500 employees in their business. So the burden is disproportionate on small business though it is not insignificant on all of our businesses as we create jobs and make an effort to compete in a world economy. Mr. Chairman, we can loosen the chokehold of paperwork and regulation. To do so, we need to be fully informed on the true cost of these regulations. H.R. 2432 would require the Office of Management and Budget to seek agency input on the cost and benefits of agency regulatory programs when creating the annual regulatory accounting report. The bill offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) authorizes that the Office of Management and Budget designate not less than three agencies or offices within an agency to participate in a 2- year regulatory budgeting study and report the results to Congress. We can then use that information to determine if regulatory budgeting is a useful tool for managing regulatory burdens on the public. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the Ose bill, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act. It is an excellent and important first step in reducing the hidden job tax, levied on small businesses particularly, and consumers across the country.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I am pleased to follow my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to the floor to debate this issue. I am predicting that when we get to the vote on the bill that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has been talking about on the floor today that the vote will be overwhelming. I heard the word ``immoral'' used as it related to this proposal. I did not quite understand that; but however my colleagues want to characterize this proposal, in the final vote today, I think that the vote will be overwhelming, and we will make this 10 percent bracket a permanent part of the Tax Code. It is an important addition to the Tax Code. I personally am of the view that we make a mistake when we eliminate people totally from tax responsibility, and we should look for ways not to eliminate people from the tax rolls, but to make that tax burden for all Americans as small as we possibly can. It is better you value what you pay for. We have all been part of that talking about how we are going to eliminate people totally from the tax rolls. This really allows more people to pay taxes, but to pay at a lower level. When we reach the point in this country when we have more people who do not pay taxes than people who do pay taxes, and we are pretty close to that number right now, we really begin to change the debate on taxing and spending policies because not even a majority are paying taxes. I think it is a good idea to have this smaller bracket, to have it a permanent part of the introduction of the Tax Code. I would not even mind to see if we had a bracket just a little bit smaller than this one eventually, and so I do hope we make it permanent there.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, people who are working pay into those funds, that is a good point; and I am pleased that my friend made it. At the same time, it does not minimize my point that those people who only pay into the Social Security fund do not have the same stake in the income tax system and how it works than people who do not. I am glad to see us making it more possible for people to have a smaller tax burden at the lower levels of people who pay taxes in the country. I think that is a good thing. I think the 10 percent bracket and making this 10 percent bracket a permanent part of the tax structure is not only what we should do but what the House will vote to do today. I would like to see that happen on the other side of the building as well, and we will encourage that by sending this legislation over. The 10 percent bracket in the substitute does have conditions still in it and because of those conditions is not as permanent as the proposal that we have before us in the main bill. Because of this 10 percent bracket, if we did away with the 10 percent bracket, 73 million working Americans would pay higher taxes next year than they paid this year because we would not have the 10 percent bracket available then next year. Seventy-three million Americans would pay higher taxes because of that. Unless the House acts, 22 million lower-income workers would be pushed from the 10 percent bracket into the 15 percent bracket. We do not want to see that happen. This is an important step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues not only to defeat the substitute, which does not accept the permanency of this important addition to our tax policies, but to vote for the bill.

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today directly confronts what may become a clear and present threat to American security. For 18 years, the government of Iran has hidden information on its nuclear program from international inspectors. Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a regime which is effective only as long as its signatories are fully committed to full and complete disclosure of any nuclear program for any purpose. The international community has already given Iran the benefit of the doubt. With its rich natural resources, the country does not even need the atomic energy it claims to be producing for peaceful purposes. Why in the world would a country soaked in oil require a nuclear fuel cycle and the enriched uranium that goes along with it? Mr. Speaker, it does not take a detective to smell a rat on this one. This is very serious business. There is no greater nightmare for this generation of Americans that the idea of a 9/11-style attack involving weapons of mass destruction. Ongoing research into Libya's weapons program, which appears to be a model for compliance and disarmament among all rogue states, demonstrates that the shadowy network of nuclear proliferation is even deeper and more frightening than we had previously suspected. Putting our trust in Iran's undemocratic, fundamentalist leadership to voluntarily safeguard this technology of terror is not an option. With this resolution, we demand that Iran honor its stated commitments and obligations. The Iranian regime must grant the IAEA inspectors full unrestricted access and cooperate fully with the investigation of its nuclear activities. And our efforts to secure cooperation must be in concert with our European allies and other responsible members of the international community. As we learned on March 11th of this year, no one in the civilized world is safe from terrorism. And we must be diligent, earnest, and serious in our message. This means that, in the short term, the IAEA must report that Iran is in noncompliance with its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty; the European Union and other allies in the war on terror must be active partners in sanctioning the Iranian regime economically; and the President should act to enforce the appropriate provisions of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. Mr. Speaker, American troops have already deposed a regime whose cooperation on WMD disclosure was not sufficient. No one should doubt our resolve in keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. We cannot trust the ayatollabs in Tehran to responsibly handle technology that could be used against American civilians. If the Nonproliferation regime is broken, it must be fixed. Quickly. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the efforts of Dr. DeLois Weekes in ensuring quality cancer care in southwest Missouri and our Nation. Her unflagging commitment to improving cancer treatment should serve as a model, worthy of our admiration and appreciation. Cancer is a complex, multifaceted disease that can often best be treated by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. As a two- time cancer survivor, I have firsthand knowledge of the clinical, psychosocial, and supportive care oncology nurses provide to patients and their families. For the past three years, Dr. Weekes has served as President of the Cox College of Nursing and Health Sciences in Springfield, Missouri. In the course of her work in pediatric oncology nursing, she has been a teacher, administrator, speaker, advocate, researcher and author. Dr. Weekes' role as an educator and administrator has provided her with a unique opportunity to train these intelligent, highly skilled individuals, like the ones who helped me wage my own battle with cancer. The impact of Dr. Weekes' work, however, is not limited to southwest Missouri. She has helped advance the nursing profession by serving on the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Board of Directors and developing grassroots programs that educate elementary school students about the meaningful and rewarding nursing profession. Her leadership within ONS, the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, has allowed her to help cancer patients around the globe. Since 1975, ONS has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. Dr. Weekes' position as a Director-at-Large on the ONS Board of Directors has enabled her to advance programs and policies that help ensure that America is has a well trained oncology nursing workforce. In Missouri alone, ONS has four chapters that serve the oncology nurses in the state and help them provide quality care to cancer patients and their families. Dr. Weekes' service and the ONS mission have never been more essential. This year alone, 1.3 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer. An additional 556,000 will lose their battle with this terrible disease. Today, more than two-thirds of cancer victims are over the age of 65, and the number of cancer cases diagnosed among senior citizens is projected to double by 2030. At the same time, many of our community-based cancer centers are facing significant barriers to hiring the specialized oncology nurses they need to treat their patients. It is estimated that there will be a shortage of 1.1 million nurses by the year 2015. As this date steadily approaches, Dr. Weekes' efforts to educate and prepare America's caregivers for positions in nursing, both in her work at Cox College and ONS, are ever more important. I commend Dr. DeLois Weekes for her commitment to providing and improving cancer care, and I urge all of my colleagues to support oncology nurses across the country.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for recognizing me and for the hard work that he has done on this bill. I also want to say sitting here and listening to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), talk about this bill shows the heartfelt thought that has gone into this. This is a circumstance that we would all hope and pray that we would never have to exercise, whatever we do today or may do in the future. It is a moment that deserves some time and consideration. As we talk about lofty constitutional principles, I am reminded, though I would have to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, who, after the Constitutional Convention said that he had had other ideas when he came to Philadelphia. And while he was not totally satisfied with the product yet, he was not sure that he would not sometime come to believe that it was not the best possible thing that could be done and should be done. That is the spirit of the debate we need to have here today. I certainly appreciate the work the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has done, the willingness he has to go beyond this and look at constitutional solutions as they are presented. I appreciate our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), and his immediate approach to me back shortly after September 11 on the floor and his immediate concern for this issue. I am more than happy to see a constitutional debate occur on an amendment at a later time. I do not know that there is an amendment out there that satisfies my concerns. In fact, I personally have become persuaded as I thought about this by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and others who have taken a scholarly look at this that the elected character of the House is the unique and vibrant thing about the House. And if it is at all possible to come up with a solution that maintains that character of this as the only body that the only way you can get here is to be elected, we should try to do that. But we can continue to have that discussion. I would suggest to my good friends on the other side of this debate that even if that happened, the proposal before us today could be seen as an appropriate interim step. Even if we were to find an amendment to the Constitution that would satisfy the broad concerns and the character of the institution, to have that on the floor, to have two- thirds of the Members of both Houses supportive of it, to then go to the States and have the States ratify would take a considerable amount of time. I hope we have a considerable amount of time before this ever matters. I, in fact, hope that the work we do here today is never tested one way or another. But if we do not have a considerable amount of time to come up with an approach that solves the immediate problem with a solution that is clearly workable and brought to this floor in good faith that would reconstitute the body that would allow us to continue to have that greater discussion, in the interim we have at least taken a step to do what we could to see that the House was reconstituted as soon as possible. I also hope that our friends will work with us, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I have talked about that, this is the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); and I have to look at the rules and see if another interim thing in the rules themselves can be done on the issue of capacity. It is certainly possible that we would have Members who did not vacate their seats because of death, but were not able to serve for some period of time in the kind of circumstance we are anticipating today. Is there some way, again, either as a short or a final solution, we can deal with that at some point between now and the beginning of the next Congress in terms of the rules? Mr. Chairman, I am for this bill. I think it is a great step in the right direction. It may be the final step, it may be an interim step, but it is a step that this body needs to take; and I encourage our colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be working with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), to bring this amendment to the floor. It does allow additional time for those who are serving in the military or those who are overseas to receive their ballot and be allowed to return their ballot. It does not prevent the States from certifying a winner, but only allows extra time if needed for those overseas ballots to be counted. As a former Secretary of State and chief election official of our State, there would be many occasions when you might still have a ballot out, but it is clear to the State election official that the ballot out would make no difference in the outcome and consequently no particular reason to slow down the process of certifying in the circumstances we are talking about. At the same time, if those ballots that had not been returned would make a difference, they would have to be counted, have to be part of the process, and would assure that all those who could have made a difference in the outcome of the election had a chance to do this. In all likelihood, we would see State election officials doing everything they could to expedite this process. We give them in the language here certainly authority to use electronic means to transmit ballots to people overseas or in the military. Also we require that, if practical, election officials have a ballot ready to send out within 15 days of the starting of that original 45-day clock. I think in these circumstances that is certainly a time that election officials could meet. But because the way this is worded, if they cannot meet that language, there is no penalty. There is just a clear encouragement here to move this process along, get those ballots in the mail, and take time then, as necessary, for those ballots to return. I particularly appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the great commitment he has on this and to those who serve us. It is a privilege for me to stand here in support of this amendment that he and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and I have jointly recommended be included in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment, though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, for too long seniors have been paying extraordinary high prescription drug costs with no relief measures in sight. But thanks to the recently signed Medicare and Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, Medicare will now provide drug cards to all seniors who need them at a cost ranging from a $30 maximum each year to free. These cards, even for those who would get them for free, are completely voluntary. They will be made available to seniors beginning June 1 of this year. Low-income seniors will have a $600 annual credit on their card. Seniors can sign up for a Medicare-endorsed discount card as early as May 3. Seniors are encouraged to find out what card is best for them by calling 1-800-MEDICARE and asking about drug savings. Seniors and their families can visit www.medicare.gov to find out more about which card is best for them where they live. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all seniors and people who care about them to inquire about enrollment, to see if this is a better plan for them, and to begin immediately saving on their drug costs.