Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I am certainly in no position to predict that. I think there is a discussion with the leaders on both sides of the building. We want to adjourn, of course, in conjunction with our friends on the other side of the building. I would anticipate that the continuing resolution next week will go through the 11th; and hopefully by the time we get into that period, we will have either resolved some of the appropriations concerns, or we will be looking at the time between now and the election in a more definite way.

Mr. BLUNT. We are working Tuesday, not Monday.

Mr. BLUNT. I think there very likely will be votes next Friday; and certainly if we are able to move on the Iraq resolution, there will definitely be votes on Friday.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize James B. Wigle, who died Monday September 9, 2002. His family, friends, community and industry have suffered a significant loss. Jim Wigle was an extraordinary man in many ways and has permanently left his mark. Today, I would like to honor James B. Wigle's career as a pioneer in the insurance industry, a philanthropic community leader, and his extraordinary efforts with the Morgan Horse Association and Institute. Jim Wigle graduated from the University of Toronto in 1936 with a degree in Business Administration and later received his degree as a Chartered Life Underwriter from American University. He spent his entire career in the insurance industry, except for five years when he served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Artillery during World War II. In 1946 Mr. Wigle came to California while working for the Occidental Life Company and later at The Travelers Insurance Company where he recognized the opportunities in the insurance distribution sector. After becoming an insurance representative, he wrote his first association group case in 1951 and began to specialize in this segment of the market, thus becoming one of the country's pioneers in insurance mass marketing through associations such as the American Legion Insurance Trust. To this end, in 1956 he formed Association Group Insurance Administrators. Today, AGIA has offices in California, Arizona, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C. AGIA ranks at the forefront of the independently-owned association group insurance broker- administrators in the United States. Mr. Wigle served as President and Chief Executive Officer until January 1, 1986, and then continued to be actively involved in the business as Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer. AGIA is a significant employer in the Santa Barbara and Carpinteria communities and participated in the funding of several community events over the years. Jim Wigle was always known as a loving, generous, and thoughtful person. Jim participated in numerous local association programs over the years and served nationally as the President of both the American Morgan Horse Association and the American Morgan Horse Institute. He was responsible for raising the funds necessary to establish the Morgan Horse Museum and new permanent home for the AMHA in Shelburne, Vermont. His efforts were recognized, when he was named the 1978 Morgan Horse Man of the year honoree and 1990 Morgan Horse Hall of Fame honoree. His determination, vitality, boundless energy and dedication will be missed, but despite his absence, Jim Wigle will continue to serve as an inspiration and as a role model to the many people who knew his indomitable spirit.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the work and amazing accomplishment of a Franciscan nun who has left a lasting mark on Springfield, Missouri. She has overcome adversity and criticism to win the respect of many of her peers by creating important social services that have helped the less fortunate people of Springfield, Missouri. In 1983, Sister Lorraine Biebel took on the temporary assignment of opening a soup kitchen in Springfield. Since then, Sister Lorraine has remained at the helm of what has become known as the Kitchen Ministry. Today the ministry that Sister Lorraine started has a $3.5 million budget, nine buildings, a small army of volunteers and a reputation for helping anyone with a legitimate need. Sister Lorraine has been a vigilant visionary and leader to meet the demands of those less fortunate. It has been a labor of love and faith. Biebel's holistic approach has seen the conversion of an old hotel into a 90-room shelter with three dormitories and transitional housing. The Family Nurturing Center offers childcare for infants and pre-schoolers, as well as after school programs. There are also counseling services, walk-in medical services, dental clinics, and mental health counseling. In addition, it offers referral services, job programs, out reach programs for at-risk youth, literacy and GED training. Sister Lorraine helped to create a free store for residents and a thrift store for the community that offers free household items, clothing, and food for those people trying to improve their family unit or get back on their feet. In praise of the God she serves, Sister Lorraine's faith is what has driven her to these accomplishments. Sister Lorraine has been a tireless servant of God's compassion for the disadvantaged, the homeless, and the countless volunteers who have rallied to support the programs. With the naming of her successor, Tobias Meeker, Sister Lorraine is retiring but her work will not end. She hopes to reactivate the Little Portion Retreat Center where she lives in Republic, Missouri. There she promises to continue to nurture the spiritual health of others in a less stressful environment. Sister Lorraine Biebel and the Kitchen Ministry are a wonderful example of the substantial social changes faith based initiatives can bring to a community's less fortunate population. Working with the federal and state government, local charities, churches of many denominations, and generous donors, Sister Lorraine has molded a multifaceted ministry that provides shelter, clothing, health care, counseling, education, job skill training, and spiritual guidance. The Kitchen Ministries have professionally and cost-effectively provided these services and care in a manner in which the federal government could not. The ministry is the work of many caring people, led by a woman of great faith whose work has touched thousands of lives. We wish Sister Lorraine good health and best wishes in her retirement.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a lifetime of work and accomplishments by Robert E. Roundtree. A Florida native, Bob Roundtree has spent the last 18 years in Springfield, Missouri, where he has been the General Manager of Springfield City Utilities. Bob Roundtree has risen to the top of his profession in the management of public utility companies. His utility career began more than half a century ago. He started in 1948 as the ``oiler'' for the power plants in his hometown of Gainesville, Florida. Roundtree says an ``oiler'' is a glorified name for janitor. During the next 30 years, Roundtree moved through the ranks of the utility company, retiring in 1978 from the position of general manager. Roundtree moved on to manage utility companies in Brownsville, Texas and Dalton, Georgia before arriving in Springfield in 1984. He transformed the corporate culture of Springfield City Utilities, which provides electricity, natural gas, water and bus services to a community of more than 150,000 people. Roundtree put the utility on sound financial ground, held utility rates stable, improved the reliability of the electric system, instituted safety programs to improve gas line safety, and promoted creation of a water pipeline that ensures adequate water resources for the community for the next 30 years. He also placed the utility company at the forefront of economic development by directing the creation of a major industrial park that is the source of hundreds of new jobs. His leadership won him the ``Springfieldian of the Year Award'' in 1995. He has also been recognized by the Hawthorn Chapter of the Professional Secretaries International with their ``Executive of the Year Award'' in 1991. The American Public Power Association named him their recipient of the ``Alex Radin Distinguished Service Award for Individual Achievement.'' Roundtree is a past president of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce and is a past president of the American Public Power Association. He has also given his time and energy to Junior Achievement, the Safety Council of the Ozarks and serves on the boards of several organizations. His favorite non-profit organization is ``Project SHARE,'' a program through City Utilities to pay utility bills for those in need. Bob Roundtree's big smile and deep voice are reassuring and project his confidence and vision. Bob says he is ready to retire to enjoy more time with his wife Alice Ruth, his three children, and four grandchildren. The community he adopted 18 years ago is a better place because of his vision, work and diligence. The people of Springfield, Missouri and the customers of City Utilities offer Bob their best wishes for a bountiful retirement.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and for her work on the Select Committee, along with all other Members who served on the committee, and certainly the majority leader who led the committee, which allowed all of the other committees to make recommendations. This rule, a rule brought to the Committee on Rules by the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), let all of those issues be discussed again on the floor. This has been a speedy but thorough process led by our Speaker, high cooperation from the minority leader, and certainly the committee itself led by the majority leader to get this bill to the floor. I just heard a suggestion that somehow this would confuse administrative lines of control and decisionmaking. I think just the opposite. The whole idea of a homeland security agency is to do away with that confusion. At a time when people need to respond, they need to know who makes the decision to respond. When there are people on the ground, they need to know the exact chain of command. We do not need people from six agencies all trying to respond in the same time in the least effective way. We need the Federal Government responding at the same time in the most effective way. This agency ensures that. We will have debate on the future of FEMA. FEMA should be part of a homeland security agency. Whether it is a natural disaster or a terrorist-created disaster, much of the response would be the same. We would hope that FEMA would get its practice responding to natural disasters, but it will get that experience and that ability to respond so if we do have a terrorist disaster, we have an agency that is well prepared to respond to disasters. FEMA needs to be in this agency. The rule allows a vote on that very question. We need to have great flexibility with personnel so that Federal personnel is used where, when and how it is needed, and those decisions can be made in the way that least impacts the disaster, and best responds to solving that disaster. The deadlines that have been created for airports, we get a chance in this rule to discuss that, but deadlines that cannot possibly be met need to be viewed in a way that allows us to responsibly do our job. Many Members after September 11 thought that we needed to think long and hard before we decided to create a new agency like this. Well, we have thought long. We have thought hard. The President has set the mark by saying we need this agency so we can respond in an appropriate way, we can plan in an appropriate way, and the decisions are made in a way that people know who makes that decision. Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge the support of this rule, support of the bill, and we need to get on with this business and get this job done so we can begin to organize the Federal Government in a way that best meets the challenges we face.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the amendment he has brought to the floor, but I rise to disagree with the amendment and to point out that the Bush administration said they will veto this bill, or at least they are likely to, and I will give the specific language in a second, but that they are likely to veto this appropriations bill if the language comes through that limits the embargo. A statement from the administration said that the administration understands that an amendment may be offered on the House floor that would weaken current sanctions against the Cuban government. The administration believes it is vitally important to maintain these sanctions. The function of the travel sanctions is to prevent unlicensed tourism to Cuba that provides economic resources to the Castro regime, while doing nothing to help the Cuban people, and these sanctions should not be removed. It goes on to say, as noted in the July 11 letter from Secretaries Powell and O'Neill, the President's senior advisor recommended he veto a bill that contains such changes. This bill, the Treasury-Postal bill is, for 2003, a homeland security bill. The committee provides over $4 billion in support of the homeland security effort. It establishes a separate appropriation for the Office of Homeland Security. This bill is our bill for homeland security. The President and the administration make the point that this weakens the bill. Cuba is a known harborer of international terrorists, has strong ties to other terrorist states. Castro said in a meeting last year with the Iranian leader that Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can destroy America. Quote: ``The United States regime is very weak and we are witnessing this weakness from close up,'' end the Castro quote there. Ending the embargo would assist terrorists in using Cuba as a forward operating base miles off our shore. According to Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill in a recent letter to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), they said that the Cuban government has refused to cooperate with the global coalition's efforts to combat terrorism, refusing to provide information about al Qaeda. On November 13, 2002, the Cuban Foreign Minister delivered a speech at the United Nations in which he accused the United States of war atrocities in Afghanistan. And on June 8, Castro compared President Bush's terrorism policies to Nazi Germany's efforts to assert world hegemony, suggesting that the administration permitted the 9/11 attacks in order to ``reshape the world as they wish.'' This is not a regime to send money to. This is not a regime to open the sanctions up with. It is clear at this time where our administration thinks we need to be in this regard. This is not a time to reevaluate this policy, and I urge that we defeat the amendment.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, the great job she has done on the floor tonight and the great job that she and the committee have done with this bill. This is a tremendous step forward. It provides so many things that seniors need. The amount of money allocated to this bill is possible. It is within budget. Health care providers and hospitals support this bill. The AARP in a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said, ``We are pleased that your bill makes the voluntary prescription drug benefit permanent and maintains the entitlement nature of the Medicare program.'' This is something that can actually be done. It is within a real budget. It is an amount of money that can be spent for this purpose and can start immediately. It makes a difference in the lives of seniors. Certainly health care delivery has changed dramatically since Medicare was created. This benefit needs to be added to Medicare. It needs to be an entitlement, not an experiment. It needs to be something that we do now, not come up with an amount of money that is impossible to do for years to come. The amount of money allocated to this bill far exceeds the amount of money that our friends on the other side of the aisle said was necessary just 2 years ago. New drugs and devices would not be a result of a government-run health care program. They will be a result of a program that maintains incentives but guarantees lower cost, guarantees access, makes this an entitlement. It is supported by health care providers for a reason. The AARP says it has great merit for a reason. We need to do this. We need to do it now. We need to make this a reality this year.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the conference on our energy bill passed in this House almost 1 year ago today is beginning soon. American consumers sent Iraq and Saddam Hussein more than $1.4 billion for oil in the first 4 months of this year. This is a corrupt regime that pays the families of homicide bombers $25,000 for their attack on innocent victims in Israel. We are at war, and depending on Saddam Hussein for the fuel that powers our war on terrorism is untenable. Mr. Speaker, there is a direct link between energy policy and our national security. That is why more than 80 percent of Americans want us to pass a comprehensive energy plan that protects our national security while strengthening our economy. In 1992, we imported 32 percent of our energy. Now, nearly 60 percent of our energy is imported. We need an energy policy. The conferees on the energy bill begin meeting tomorrow. I urge them to bring us legislation to increase our energy independence, create jobs, and strengthen our economy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, often in Congress, we ignore science in favor of emotional appeals and sound bites. The ``Preservation for Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002'' is a case in point. The bill focuses on a type of antibiotic known as fluoroquinolones. It grants FDA the authority to ban any product containing the antibiotic while providing no recourse to fight against this new mandate. The bill suggests that there is a direct correlation between the increased use of antibiotics in food production and human health problems. Yet, no scientific study exists to corroborate the link. The bill also singles out a beneficial class of products, used in the production of poultry, without ample scientific evidence. The family farmers that I represent do not choose to use antibiotics unless there is a great need in their flocks or herds. The class of antibiotics mentioned in the proposed bill is used rarely and only under the direction of a veterinarian on a prescriptive basis. In addition, farmers must wait until the drug is out of the birds' systems before they can send them to the processing plant. This proposal could cost poultry growers and processors millions of dollars with no scientific proof of harm to human health. While public health must come before economic considerations, Congress should not impose severe economic damage upon one segment of agriculture without sufficient evidence that the action would be beneficial to human health. The proposal will also ignore the benefits to human health from the scientific and prescriptive use of antibiotics in animal production. It is unknown what all of the consequences would be to humans if antibiotics were removed from poultry production. One consequence that could occur is an increased level of pathogens in the food chain as a result of the arrival of ill animals to processing plants. Food processors are directed to keep pathogen numbers as low as possible, and withdrawal of the use of antibiotics in food production will make that job harder. Another troublesome aspect of the bill is the intrusion of Congress into the FDA regulatory process where these debates and decisions can and should be made. I know the regulatory process can be cumbersome and lengthy; however, that forum, when implemented properly, allows for debate in the scientific arena. The consequences to the poultry farmers in my district if the bill is passed could be economically disastrous. The bill is unnecessary, weak in science and a new government mandate. Congress should think before it reacts to irrational, unfounded fears.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me time. I am here to talk about what happens to working families in 2011 if we do not go ahead and act now, act in a way that responsibly assures that we do the right thing for the children of those families. My good friend from Texas talked a couple of times about what we are doing for our grandchildren. What do we do for these grandchildren if we accept the figures that we are hearing on the floor today? Mr. Speaker, $460 billion of tax increases for families where moms and dads are both working over 10 years, $460 billion taken away from those families where 2 people every day get up, go to work, do their very best to provide for their families, and we decide that we want to reinstate a marriage penalty on January 1, 2011. That is not acceptable; it is not something this Congress should be considering. What we have a chance to do today is to really be sure that this relief becomes permanent. The fact is that when you get married, you should not have to have a penalty in the Tax Code. If anything, there should be a bonus in the Tax Code. You get more of what you encourage, you get less of what you discourage. A marriage penalty works against the very things that we want to encourage: families working together, people going to jobs every day to try to create a better life for their families. We do not want to have a $42 billion annual tax increase that goes into effect January 1, 2011 because people are married. If we are going to think about penalties in the Tax Code, it should be somewhere besides here. We need to move forward with this legislation today and we need to make it certain that one of the biggest tax increases in history for working married couples will not be January 1, 2011. The way to do that is to make the marriage penalty relief permanent, to do it now, to let couples begin to plan what they can do with their financial resources in the future for the advantage of children and grandchildren.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, June 10, 2002, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11, for morning hour debates.

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. It is anticipated right now that the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act will come to the floor on Thursday, and the motions to go to conference on energy and trade are likely to happen on Wednesday, as will the tax limitation amendment.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has completed its legislative business for this week. The House will next meet for legislative business on Tuesday, June 11, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 o'clock for legislative business. The majority leader will schedule a number of measures under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices tomorrow. Recorded votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business and immediately recess. The House will reconvene at 11 a.m. in a joint meeting with the Senate for the purpose of receiving the Honorable John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia. Later on Wednesday and then on Thursday, the majority leader has scheduled House Joint Resolution 96, the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment; and H.R. 4019, the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2002. The Speaker also advises me that he expects to be ready to name conferees for both the Bipartisan Trade Promotional Authority Act and the Securing America's Future Energy Act. So we anticipate scheduling these motions to go to conference next week as well. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BLUNT. Well, the gentlewoman and her colleagues are going to be working hard on appropriations. We need to get those bills to the floor. We do not have any ready to schedule yet, but we are eager to do that; and since we passed the President's requested wartime supplemental, we hope the full energies of the Committee on Appropriations now turn to getting bills to the floor and hope that happens very quickly.

Mr. BLUNT. I am hopeful that it will happen before the July 4 break.

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

Mr. BLUNT. As the gentlewoman knows, we are considering this an important priority. The chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce and Energy are working hard to get this to the floor as soon as possible. We do not anticipate that will happen next week; but hopefully, it will happen soon after that.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me first associate myself with the remarks just made by my friend from Georgia. He is exactly right, as we both rise to support the bill later today, and I rise to support the rule right now. This is a tax that needs to be eliminated and this law needs to be taken totally off the books. We will hear today many other proposals of how we might change it here or change it there or set a new limit nonindexed for inflation at some time in the future. This law needs to be taken off the books. This tax was put on American families, American businesses, to pay for World War I in 1918. We won World War I. We paid for the war. All the bonds have long since been paid off, but this tax is still on the books. Leaving any portion of it in the law allows future Congresses to come back and once again ensure that more and more families have to see the undertaker and the IRS at the same time. It is unconscionable. It should not be what happens to families at the end of a productive career. It should not be what happens to the families that run the kind of businesses, run the kind of farms that the gentleman from Georgia just mentioned. These businesses have been built over years of labor. These farms have been put together over years of labor and hard work. Taxes have been paid on the money that came in. There is no reason for the Federal Government to come in one final time and make it impossible for a family business to continue to be a family business. There is no reason for us to continue to have a law on the books that was designed to pay for a war that has long since been over, has long since been paid for. This is the day we have a chance to send a specific message to the American people and to our friends in the other body that we want this tax eliminated.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), my good friend, for her comments about this bill and her support of this bill, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who, along with me, initiated this legislation. We were joined by over 40 of our colleagues as we look at one of the real forgotten results of the terrorism of Osama bin Laden. This is the same group that attacked our citizens on September 11. It is led by the same person. They took credit for these embassy bombings. These embassies, as all embassies anywhere in the world, are considered U.S. territory, American soil. So Americans were killed on American soil. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden immediately came to the forefront and took credit for what happened in Kenya and what happened in Tanzania, what happened that ripped the lives of the families of these 12 individuals apart, just as what happened on September 11 ripped the lives of families apart in ways that can never be fully compensated. What we do in this legislation is respond in a way that is fair, respond in a way that is equitable, respond in a way that I believe to be appropriate, as August 7, 1998, is exactly analogous to September 11, 2001. It did not affect Americans in the same way at the moment because it was not next door, it was halfway around the world; but it was halfway around the world on American soil. It was halfway around the world with cowardly terrorists who immediately stepped forward to say, We did this and we are proud of it. It was halfway around the world because our country and our citizens were targets. From my district, Army Staff Sergeant Kenneth Hobson, the son of Kenneth and Bonnie Sue Hobson of Lamar, Missouri, was a victim of this attack. One of my daughter Amy's law school classmates, Edith Bartley, lost her father and her brother in these bombings; and since a time shortly after the bombings many of us have talked with the victims' families about what we could do and what we could encourage the State Department to do. Prior to September of last year, there was no formula in place for this exact same kind of incident. This is only fairness to include these 11 families, 12 victims from 11 families, and others who were injured in what happened, other Americans who were injured in what happened at these two embassies, to include them under the same compensation review that we created last September. There is no reason for these families to have to go to court unless they choose to go to court. That is available to all the families from September 11, and it is available to these families, as well; but this gives families an opportunity to have some appropriate compensation without having to once again challenge their lives by needlessly going to court, having to prove that there is some damage by some institution when we know who the damage is from. The damage was from al Qaeda, and the damage was from Osama bin Laden. This treats these 11 families and others of injured Americans exactly as we are treating the families that were affected by September 11. We did not do it as quickly, but hopefully we will do it as well. Families who have a case in court today can say, if they choose to, I want to walk away from this case in court. I want to go to the Special Master. All we want is fairness and equity. We want to get on with our lives, but we also want to do that with a government that appreciates the lives of Americans representing their country overseas who gave their lives in a cowardly attack on Americans at work representing us on August 7, 1998. I am, again, grateful to all those who have worked to get this to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I appreciate all my colleagues who have joined with me as cosponsors to try to bring equity and fairness to these families, and that will be the result of this debate today, I hope.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Start on Thursday and anticipate that we are very likely to carrying over to Friday. And this will be, of course, the first Friday that we will have worked, and perhaps have been scheduled to work, will be this Friday.