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. We expect that to be on the floor on Wednesday as well.

Mr. BLUNT. Expect that measure to come to the floor on Wednesday.

Mr. BLUNT. There probably will be votes on Friday since we are starting the DOD authorization on Thursday. It is likely that will go to Friday and, of course, on Friday we would have our final votes completed by 2 o'clock.

Mr. BLUNT. We are working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and I think it is possible that the committee could mark up the supplemental next week; and we will move it to the floor as quickly as possible after it is marked up.

Mr. BLUNT. The Committee on Energy and Commerce marked up the bill last week. The Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means will do their markup this week. It is likely that we will have the welfare reform bill the week after next.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has completed its legislative business for the week. The House will meet next for legislative business on Tuesday, May 7 at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. On Tuesday, the majority leader will schedule a number of measures under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to the Members' offices tomorrow. Recorded votes on Tuesday will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and the balance of the week, the majority leader has scheduled the following measures: H.J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act; H.J. Res. 84, a resolution disapproving the action taken by the President under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974; and H.R. 4547, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BLUNT. We anticipate the committee could do the markup next week, and we will look for the earliest possible floor time; but that certainly could be the week after it is marked up.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 9, 2002, for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Thursday, May 9, 2002, for the Speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, May 3, 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, May 6, 2002, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2002 for morning hour debates.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 392, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart) for yielding me the time. I rise in support of the rule and the resolution. This is a resolution that commits this Congress and the country further to go down the path for peace. We have had a long and unique relationship with the State of Israel, but we also desire peace for all those that live in the Middle East. There is no cycle of violence in Israel any more than there is a cycle of violence as we respond to terrorists that attack the United States. There is a response to terrorism, the kind of response that is so clearly in line with the response that we had to that cowardly attack on our country. This resolution really begins to make the case more effectively, as I think recent weeks and months have made the case, that the leader of the Palestinians today, Mr. Arafat, is not prepared to be a partner for peace. The negotiators on the Israeli government side deserve a partner for peace. Palestinians who desire peace, and the vast majority of Palestinians do desire, and deserve to be led by someone who is willing to be that partner for peace. Mr. Arafat's been given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity. As my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) just pointed out, he was given in September of 2000 an incredible offer for a peace plan for Israel and for the Palestinian people as well. He walked away from that opportunity. He went back, it would appear from all the evidence we see, on the same path of his history in the past, a path that promotes and encourages terrorism. Certainly, not a path that seeks to end terrorism. If, in fact, he is a viable leader, he needs to lead for peace. If he is not a viable leader, we need to seek aggressively to find someone who can be a viable leader for us to deal with, for us to be as helpful as all peoples who live in that incredibly important part of the world, seek peace in that part of the world. This resolution sends a message to the world of where this Congress stands. I look forward to seeing it pass today. I look forward to seeing the message even more clear to Mr. Arafat and those who would encourage terrorism that we will not tolerate that on our shores, we will not tolerate that in the country of our friends, we will not tolerate that in any country anywhere, and this resolution addresses that.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and thank him and the ranking member for their great work on this bill. I think our conferees worked hard, did a tremendous job, kept this on focus, and my belief is that it was as likely as not that we could have wound up at the end of that conference without a farm bill if it had not been for the great dedication of the House conferees to make this happen. This is a good bill. It sets the stage for several years of agriculture stability, provides a much-needed safety net that was not present in the last farm bill, it continues to decouple payments, allows updating of acreage, and does good things in dairy. More importantly, it establishes the rules and does that early enough that it may even have some positive impact this year. We all worked hard to get this bill out. Of course, the House passed a bill months ago. Again, our conferees, the chairman and the ranking member, as they bring this bill to the floor, have a lot to be proud of. Farm families in America have a lot to look to with appreciation for the job we have done, the job I believe we will do today as we pass this bill, and I look forward to its implementation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Myron McKinney on his 33 years of service to Empire District Electric Company. His exceptional career with Empire began on June 5, 1967 as a sales consultant and will end on April 30, 2002, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Empire. Myron McKinney was the recipient of numerous awards, including Outstanding Citizen for 1999 by the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce. He was also the Outstanding Alumnus in 1997 for Bolivar High School, and in 2000, was voted Outstanding Alumnus for Missouri Southern State College. Myron McKinney has served the Joplin area for many years by volunteering countless hours for local service clubs and community boards. He is a former president and board member for the Joplin United Way and the Jasper County Association for Social Services. Mr. McKinney is a Missouri State Chamber of Commerce Board Member and a former president and board member for the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce. He also served on the Joplin Business and Industrial Development as their chairman and board member. He is on the Freeman Hospital Board and served as chairman of the board for the Ozarks Public Telecommunications board. Mr. McKinney served as the chairman and board member for the Joplin Southern board and is a former board member of the Joplin Family Y. Myron McKinney was born on September 9, 1944 in Santa Paula, California, to O.S. and Hazel McKinney. He grew up in Bolivar, Missouri, graduating from Bolivar High School in 1962 as the vice- president of his class. He attended Joplin Junior College and served as the president of the Student Senate and was the captain of the football team. He graduated from Southwest Missouri State University in 1967 with a Bachelors Degree in Business Administration. In 1964, he married Janet Manard. They have 2 daughters and one grandson. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Empire District Electric Company will miss the exemplary leadership that Myron McKinney has provided. I would like to personally wish him well in this new stage of his life. I know that he'll continue his service to Southwestern Missouri and am certain that my colleagues will join me in honoring this remarkable man.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, beginning on Saturday, two individuals from my congressional district gave their lives in Afghanistan: one, a 34-year-old warrant officer in Special Forces; another, a 31-year-old sergeant, both of whom had clearly dedicated their lives and, in so many ways, dedicated their own families to protecting our freedoms and protecting our country. As I was thinking about what I wanted to say today about them on the House floor, I read an editorial from a Springfield, Missouri, newspaper yesterday; and I think I would like to just enter that editorial in the Record and share it today as we think about the fact that we honor these men and women and the others who are putting their lives in harm's way for us. Let me share that material with the Speaker and the Members here and then enter it fully in the Record. The editorial starts out: ``From the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush has warned Americans to be prepared for casualties. Now we have them, and the pain of this war has been felt in the Ozarks. It has taken two of our neighbors: Chief Warrant Officer Stanley Harriman. Sergeant Philip J. Svitak. ``Harriman, a Strafford High School graduate, was the first American to die in the ground offensive on al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds in eastern Afghanistan. Svitak, of Joplin, was among the seven soldiers killed in incidents involving two American helicopters. ``They are not faceless casualties. They were flesh-and-blood men who touched others in their hometowns. Harriman was described as soft- hearted, sensitive to the suffering of others, yet a fierce competitor on the football or baseball field. Svitak was an only child who wanted to be like his parents, who both served in the Navy in the 1960s. Each leaves a wife and two young children. ``Harriman and Svitak were devoted to the Army and their country. `Stanley died for you and you and you,' his wife, Sheila Harriman, told reporters at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, `and for your freedom. All Stanley ever wanted to do was be an American soldier.' ``Both soldiers knew the dangers of their jobs. Both knew that by making the military their career, they could be asked to put their lives on the line for their country at any time. ``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 am proud to die for my country.' ``Both men were sent. Both died, leaving friends, family, children to grieve and remember. They join John Willett and Craig Amundson, Ozarks natives who died in the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. They are, for us in southwest Missouri, the faces of this war. ``Six months after those attacks, the Nation has largely returned to life as normal. Networks seek to reduce news programming to make room for more entertainment. Crash reality shows move back up in the ratings. Politicians again plot for their advantage. ``Yet the war continues, not a mop-up action but a full-scale assault. Our neighbors are on the front line. Our neighbors are dying. That ultimate sacrifice ought to mean something. The politicians will tell us it is in defense of liberty, and they are right. But it is up to us to decide what we will do with this liberty. Will we use it to keep the government honest, to be aware of what is happening in the rest of the world, to assure all Americans equal opportunity? Or will we use it to pay more attention to contestants on Survivor than soldiers in Afghanistan? ``Ozarkers are dying for freedom. How will we honor their sacrifice?'' [From the Springfield News Leader, Mar. 6, 2002] How Will We Honor Ozarks Soldiers? Harriman and Svitak died fighting for our freedom. From the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush has warned Americans to be prepared for casualties. Now we have them, and the pain of this war has been felt in the Ozarks. It has taken two more of our neighbors: Chief Warrant Officer Stanley Harriman. Sgt. Philip J. Svitak. Harriman, a Strafford High School graduate, was the first American to die in the ground offensive on al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds in eastern Afghanistan. Svitak, of Joplin, was among the seven soldiers killed in incidents involving two American helicopters. They are not faceless casualties. They were flesh-and-blood men who touched others in their hometowns. Harriman was described as soft-hearted, sensitive to the suffering of others, yet a fierce competitor on the football or baseball field. Svitak was an only child who wanted to be like his parents, who both served in the Navy in the 1960s. Each leaves a wife and two young children. Harriman and Svitak were devoted to the Army and their country. ``Stanley died for you and you and you,'' his wife, Sheila Harriman, told reporters at Fort Bragg, NC, ``and for your freedom. All Stanley ever wanted to do was be an American soldier.'' Both soldiers knew the dangers of their jobs. Both knew that by making the military their career, they could be asked to put their lives on the line for their country at any time. 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.' '' Both men were sent. Both died, leaving friends, family, children to grieve and remember. They join John Willett and Craig Amundson, Ozarks natives who died in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. They are, for us in southwest Missouri, the faces of this war. Six months after those attacks, the nation has largely returned to life as normal. Networks seek to reduce news programming to make room for more entertainment. Crass reality shows move back up in the ratings. Politicians again plot for their advantage. Yet the war continues, not a mop-up action but a full-scale assault. Our neighbors are on the front line. Our neighbors are dying. That ultimate sacrifice ought to mean something. The politicians will tell us it is in defense of liberty, and they are right. But it is up to us to decide what we will do with this liberty. Will we use it to keep government honest, to be aware of what is happening in the rest of the world, to assure all Americans equal opportunity? Or will we use it to pay more attention to contestants on ``Survivor'' than soldiers in Afghanistan. Ozarkers are dying for freedom. How will we honor their sacrifice?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, in a report already mentioned today on Morning Edition, NPR implied, as we have already heard, that a conservative group, the Traditional Values Coalition, was involved in the anthrax mailings to the Senate because they disagreed with two members of that body on a religious issue. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishes the freedom of the press, forbidding the Congress to make any law abridging the right of the press to speak freely. I, like all of us, am a true believer in the Constitution and what it stands for. However, I believe that with this freedom comes responsibility, the responsibility of the press to report accurately and in an unbiased manner the facts of an issue. This trust is compounded in the case of public television and public radio in that they receive taxpayer dollars to fund part of their operations. On the morning of January 22, NPR broke their contract with the American people by reporting hearsay as fact. They did their fellow journalists and their listeners a grave disservice. In this case, the United States taxpayers did not get what they paid for. This report was completely inaccurate and irresponsible. As I have stated, the press has a responsibility to report the facts, not unproven accusations. Two results should emerge from our 1-minutes today: one, NPR should issue an equally public apology to the Traditional Values Coalition; and, two, Congress should look long and hard at the recipients of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in support of the amendment. I do not know why this amendment would derail the bill. The Senate I do not think had it in their bill; it was not in the original Shays-Meehan bill. In fact, under the original bill, the parties had to get rid of all soft money in their accounts beginning 30 days after enactment. This was added, I think, at a later time to really put a big loophole in this bill so that the parties could retain soft money. Now, this does not really affect both parties the same way, because only one party has the money in the account right now to build a building. It has already been pointed out that if this money is, in fact, corrupting, it would seem it would be corrupting for all purposes. Money that was bad to use for voter registration, money that was bad to use for party-building, money that was bad to use to turn out the vote, one would think that same money would be bad to use to build a building for one of the parties. Now, I hope that the plan, and we have talked about this a lot today, but I hope the plan is not to take this building fund and use it to pay off hard money that might be borrowed during the campaign, the campaign we are in right now. Certainly it would be nice collateral for a loan that then one could turn around and pay off that loan. That is what at least two Commissioners of the FEC say that could be done with this building fund. Why not eliminate this building fund controversy? This is an area where if the parties are not going to be negatively impacted by soft money, let us be aboveboard on that; let us do the same thing for all party-building, including the parties building an actual building. Let us ban soft money, let us take this out of the bill. It was not in the Senate bill. It was not in the Senate bill, and we have talked so much today about how we need to have things that are compatible. We cannot amend the bill, we cannot go to conference, we cannot do anything with this bill because the Senate needs to accept it. This is a wholly grown idea on this side of the building. I think it ought to be eliminated from the bill. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment and get rid of this soft money to be used only for this one purpose, only to benefit one party.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for yielding me the time. We will have a chance to do what the Shays-Meehan bill did in an earlier time, to ban all soft money. It did that, it had random FEC audits, it had strong penalties for violators. None of those things are there, and one of the things that is there is this huge confusion over what can be done with the money that is in the coffers of the parties after the November 5 election this year. This is what happens when my colleagues file a bill at 10 or 11 o'clock at night to vote on the next day that did not have committee hearings, that everybody says would just be devastated by going through the regular process and going through conference. There has been a lot of discussion about that, a lot of letters flying around, lots of things put on the file. I just received from two of the current commissioners of the FEC, David Mason, the chairman, and Bradley Smith, the commissioner, a letter indicating their views, not the official views of the agency, because they have not met yet; but this is the chairman and one of the commissioners. This says that ``the transition rule allowing national party committees to spend soft money between November 6, 2002, and January 1, 2003, does not prohibit the use of soft money to pay debts related to Federal elections. Because the proposed bill effectively invalidates the Federal Election Commission's soft money allocation regulations,'' which as they apply to national parties, ``as of the effective date of November 6, no rule of the Commission would address how parties could use these funds to retire debts.'' Two current commissioners of the FEC say in the concluding sentence, ``If Congress wishes to prohibit the use of soft money to retire hard money debts during the transition period, the legislation should be amended to specify this restriction.'' That is exactly what we have been saying on the floor all day. It is, in fact, the case. It opens the door fully to use any soft money that can be collected or is in either party's coffers this year to retire hard-money debts this year. That may not be what my friends who drafted this legislation thought it would mean. Maybe they did not even look at this particular provision that was being drafted, but that is what it means. Not only does this bill not close the door on soft money in the future, it knocks down the door on the impact that soft money would have in this election. We will see the greatest race for soft money, if this bill passes, that we have seen to date. Last cycle, my friends on the Democratic side collected more soft money than we did on the Republican side. I suppose they could do that again. If they do this in a partisan sense, it would make a lot of sense. I cannot believe that would be the result they would want the American people to think was the purpose of campaign finance reform. That is what this bill says. It should have had a hearing. A conference would be a good thing. We need to do this in the regular order. We are not doing it that way.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I look forward to this debate today. I think this debate will in all likelihood produce a result, whether that result is out of conference or from the floor today. Those who suggest that a conference would not work, I think, overlook the desire that the President has, that others have, to have campaign finance reform. The idea that we would file a bill at 11 o'clock or so last night, that I think is substantially different from the bill that was filed a year ago, and we would be told on the floor today that really this cannot be improved, that any amendment is a killer amendment, or a conference is a bad thing, we take very important pieces of legislation to conference and usually they benefit from that conference. Certainly the White House can be more involved in a conference than they would ever be involved in debate on the floor. This is a bill that for weeks and months now we have talked about a bill that would, I think, the phrase, the term of art, is ban unlimited soft money. The truth is, there are plenty of soft-money loopholes in this bill. Banning unlimited soft money sounds like you are really doing something, when maybe you are not doing that at all. There is a loophole of about $60 million, where you could give money to all the political organizations in the country, the State parties, the county parties, the legislative district parties. This is a huge loophole in this bill where soft money is still involved. There is the ability to build buildings with soft money. There is the ability to do all kinds of things with soft money; and at the same time we hear that somehow soft money is corrupting. Well, let us accept that premise as we debate today, for at least part of the debate. If soft money is bad, it is all bad. We all know that money can go from account to account. If soft money is corrupting, why would we want to have an exception so that the Democratic National Committee could build a building with soft money? We do not want them to have a building that has been corrupted by the influence of soft money. If soft money is corrupting, why would we allow in the bill that was filed last night soft money to be used to pay off loans from this election cycle? Pages 78 and 79 of this bill, there is a huge problem in this bill, because it opens the door wide for soft money today. Not only does it not ban soft money in the future, but it opens the door absolutely for spending soft money in this election cycle we are in right now. Maybe that was misdrafted. Maybe that is a mistake. I would like for somebody to come to the floor and explained what those pages mean, because when you read them, it appears they mean you can borrow hard money today, spend it for hard-money purposes, and, on November 6, pay off that loan with soft money.

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know my friend from Massachusetts has worked hard on this bill. He has had a bill in the past on the floor that is much tougher than this bill, that did have a total ban on soft money. It had the ability to audit campaign accounts at random. It had some stiff criminal penalties. Those are gone from this bill. What you intended to do and what you did may have been two different things. I am told they are two different things. On November 6, in fact, you could take the soft money you had on hand and pay off any past debts you had, no matter what purpose those past debts were incurred for. To open the door totally to soft money in the cycle we are in is even worse than postponing the date to begin the bill. We cannot let that happen. We cannot talk about a soft-money ban for months and then bring a bill to the floor at midnight that does just the opposite. I am very concerned about that. I am sure it is going to be widely debated today. The gentleman will have plenty of time to look at the specific language with his attorneys and respond to the problem that I think this bill that was filed last night creates in just being totally at odds with what we have said this bill would do or what proponents of the bill said it would do for over a year.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there will be an amendment that says that. There will be an amendment that says if there is bad, let us go ahead and eliminate it, and let us eliminate all of it. I will be voting for that amendment.