Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Mr. Chairman, I understand that with the extent of this bill and with the fact that we do go beyond just eliminating the funding that this amendment may very well go beyond the scope of our rule on this bill. I hereby withdraw my amendment and hope to have the merits of the legislation considered by this House, by the President and the administration and, most importantly, by the European Union in a truly timely manner.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and rise to say that I am proposing this amendment because of my sincere concerns for the US-EU Consultative Group on Biotechnology. This amendment would guarantee that none of the funds appropriated under the Act may be used to participate in or support activities of the consulting group unless the U.S. Trade Representative certifies that the European Union is operating in a timely and science-based process of approvals for new plant varieties, including those developed using biotechnology. What we have seen too often is the European Union used this as an excuse not to let our products into this market. There are already 31 groups that have been designated to focus on this subject, I think that is about 30 too many, and the subject of delays brings me to a second reason to offer this amendment. For the past 2 years, the European Union has failed to complete the procedures necessary for marketing biotech food products in member States. In so doing, they are in violation of rules established by the World Trade Organization that require a science-based process for the decision or lack thereof they made regarding agricultural biotechnology. Instead, the establishment of yet another group to study biotechnology is simply a transparent attempt to string their inactivity along. Our friends and farmers in the agricultural community need help today. As the Government, it is imperative that we make the necessary commitment to look at real solutions to these European trade issues and not to continue to let these studies go on in a way that keeps our products out of the market. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). Mr. Chairman, this amendment would rightly supersede and suspend a bureaucratic fiat by unelected agency officials that could cost our States and communities billions of dollars as they struggle to comply with an unattainable, unsubstantiated, and unconstitutional standard. We should protect our constituents from the significant costs of EPA's decision to mandate a new, highly restrictive ozone standard until the Supreme Court decides whether or not they have the legal and enforceable right to do so. Already, the Court of Appeals has rejected the reasoning underlying the EPA's decision to mandate these standards. Taxpayers should not be burdened by premature enforcement of an agency's standard that cannot be enforceable and should not be issued. Exposing taxpayers to the increased costs of regulations erected on a highly unstable constitutional footing makes little sense. Let me be clear. This amendment is not a referendum on the Clean Air Act. It simply protects taxpayers by postponing further action by the EPA from prematurely designating these areas until the court has decided that the EPA has the right to do that. Congress should protect its own prerogatives and the taxpayers by supporting this amendment and allowing the Supreme Court to render a final determination. Support common sense and fairness. Require the Congress to accept our full responsibility in this area and allow the Supreme Court to make its decision.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of his amendment. As my friend from Arizona just pointed out, this is a bipartisan debate with some serious questions. There are some real questions about how the voters of the State fit into this process. There are real questions about how State governments fit into that process. There are real questions that really go beyond this amendment. But the amendment is narrow. It is not complex. Our friend from Florida just gave a long list of what the amendment does not do, and we should not get confused about what the amendment does not do. We should only talk about what the amendment does do. And before I go there, I might say, of course, the amendment does not prohibit the Secretary from doing anything in these two States if the Federal Government, if the Department wins its case. Both the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) have pointed to a letter that the Secretary sent yesterday that said he did not intend to do anything until the case was over. Well, if the amendment is not needed because the goal has already been agreed to, at least by this Secretary and at least for the next 6 months, if the amendment is not needed, surely it does no harm. If the amendment serves no purpose because the goal of the amendment has already been achieved, surely it does no harm to let the authorities in Florida and Alabama know that their cases will proceed. And it also sends a message to the Department of the Interior if this case is not over at the time this Secretary happens to leave, that his desire in this case would continue to be what would determine what the Department can do, that these two States would be allowed to have their day in court, that these serious issues would be fully adjudicated, and that this would be determined before we moved further. The Secretary says that the Department will defer from publishing the procedures in the Federal Register. We have this letter that does say that, and I think it probably is only binding for the Department during the tenure of this Secretary; but again, if it is not necessary, it is certainly not harmful. It would give these States the assurance they need. There are many questions in this area that go well beyond this amendment. But this amendment deals with an important question. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are here again talking about this topic that has been pointed out by many of my colleagues, has been discussed many times in this Congress. In fact, last year, we had a debate on the floor of the House, not 1996, not 1997, not 1998, but in 1999, to wait until the study by the National Academy of Sciences that had just been started was completed until OSHA moved forward with this regulation. The House passed that legislation and said that is what we would like to do. OSHA started that study, a year ago, about the time that this provision would be exhausted, that we get to the end of the fiscal year, that this provision would make it impossible for OSHA to implement these ergonomics regulations, that study will be completed, there will have then 90 days to look at it. And, in fact, if you ask most Americans, if it made sense to spend a million dollars on a study and then look at it before you move forward with regulations, they would say it did. The last National Academy of Sciences effort on this may have been exhaustive, but if I have read it right, it was over a long weekend. And the last recommendation in that exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study was this needs more study. When we had hearings last year on the bill where we talked about waiting for the National Academy of Sciences study, the past two presidents of the American College of Hand Surgery, many others who work in this area came in and said we are not ready yet to fully understand the causes or the treatments for these injuries. At the same time, it has been pointed out by others of my colleagues that the American workforce as fully employed as it has been in a long time is a valued workforce, that we have seen without this regulation ergonomics-related injuries declining every single year during this time that it has been said that the Congress is stretching out rushing to these standards. It is like OSHA's contention that every year that OSHA has been in existence that fatalities at the workplace have declined; that is true. It is also true that they were declining faster in the 20 years before OSHA went into existence. You can prove anything you want to with figures, but the one figure that is undeniable here is that workplace injuries are declining without these standards. These standards will benefit from scientific study, this amendment added to the bill by the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) would give us the time we need for these studies to be completed, for us to not rush to judgment on issues that really, I think, cost Americans their jobs, moves American companies to that final decision to make a capital investment instead of an investment in people. If Federal bureaucrats are going to mess with the jobs of working Americans, they should do that with great extreme caution. They should do that based on sound science. This prohibition to implementing the ergonomic standards gives us a chance to look at that sound science. I urge my colleagues to defeat this striking amendment, to move forward with this prohibition and to do the right thing for American workers.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is amazing to me that so much of the debate against this bill has been about campaign finance. I am for the rule, I am for the bill. If I was on the other side of it, I might be trying to talk about something else as well. Two weeks ago, we repealed a tax that we had put on the books in 1898 to fight the Spanish American War. This tax was put on the books in 1916 to fight World War I. It is time to get rid of these 100-year-old special purpose taxes and even the 86-year-old special purpose taxes. People do not have anything at their death that they have not paid taxes on many times. Death should not be a taxable event. You should not have to see the IRS agent and the undertaker the same week or you should not have to see the IRS agent because you saw the undertaker. We need to eliminate this tax. We can do this. The American people know it is unfair. Let me make one final point. In terms of spending like we were talking about in the CARA bill and so often the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I are on the same side, we are talking about spending on Federal land or for more Federal land. If a family budget goes in the red, they cut their spending. They do not get a new source of income. There is nothing wrong with cutting taxes and giving the American family the tax break they need. If we have a shortfall, we ought to find that shortfall in spending just like we said on the CARA bill we were prepared to do.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, here we are to talk about repealing a tax that was put on in 1898 to fight the Spanish-American War. We thought the war lasted 8 months. I used to teach history at high school and then later at college, and I suggested that was one of our quickest wars, only to find out as we look at how many dollars have been collected on this tax over the years that in any measure of dollars, the Spanish-American War turned out to be the most expensive war in the country's history; $5 billion collected last year in a tax that was put on in 1898 to fight the Spanish-American War. Of course, it was a tax on only the rich, because in 1898 only the rich had telephones. Now it is a tax on the people whose telephone is the lifeline of their life. It is a tax on people who use the telephone only for the most basic necessity, because it is a tax on the local service only. If you are on a fixed income, if you are a senior citizen, if you have a telephone to call your family, to call the doctor, to make an emergency call, if you never make a long distance call, if you try to pay only the smallest amount you can possibly pay and have a telephone, you pay this tax. Because we have a surplus, because we have balanced the budget, the old arguments of we need this money, how would we replace it, what program would we cut, no longer work. This is a reaction to what can happen when you show fiscal responsibility. It is a reaction to what happens when the Congress begins to use the yardstick of common sense. It is a reaction of what can happen when you take a tax that has now been on the books for almost every telephone bill for the last 102 years, occasionally phased out for a brief period of time, but always snatched right back. If we pass this bill, this rule today, which I am for, and if we pass this bill today, within the next few months, Americans that have on their telephone bill the line that says Federal tax or excise tax on their local phone service, will no longer have that. We eliminate this tax on the rich from 1898 that became a tax on those in the most difficult circumstances in the year 2000. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules has brought this rule to the floor today, and pleased that the Committee on Commerce is bringing this bill to the floor. I urge passage of both.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time and for bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to introduce the bill to name the Headquarters Building of the U.S. State Department for our Nation's 33rd President and Missouri's favorite son, Harry S Truman. The ``Man From Independence'' was a man from middle America, a man like millions of others at the beginning of the 20th century. He reflected America's farms and small towns. He understood poverty and hard work. He valued education and read book after book from the Independence Public Library. He later would observe that there was not much left in human nature that one could not find in Plutarch's Lives in a community where not lots of people had read Plutarch's Lives. He valued his parents. His love for his wife Bess and their daughter Margaret was unquestioned. His family was most important to him. He was a man who understood courage, not as a philosophical abstraction, but by facing, along with those he commanded, artillery fire at night, in the mud, in the rain in France during World War I. Truman was a farmer and a small businessman who struggled to make a living on the farm and from a retail store. Then this farmer, small businessman, volunteer soldier helped create a vision for America's place in the world that was far different from that imagined by those who had gone before him and shaped American foreign policy for decades. If there is one word that describes this native of Lamar, Missouri, it was ``courage.'' Physical courage allows one to rally his troops late at night in the face of open fire the way he did in the forests of France. He proved he had that kind of courage. But Truman also had the courage of his convictions. It was his courage of convictions that catapulted him to the ranks today of one of the greatest Presidents of our history. He willingly rejected conventional wisdom at the end of World War II and led the free world to provide for the effective rebuilding of Japan and Germany rather than trying to crush their national identities. Truman knew the sacrifices and heroism of African American soldiers, sailors, and airmen. His convictions said that these men and women were not being treated properly. His courage allowed him to cast aside decades of prejudice to order that the U.S. Armed Forces would be no longer segregated, a decision he made more than 20 years before the Civil Rights Act passed this House. The ``Man From Independence'' was known for being a leader to defend the Constitution. His courage allowed him to stand toe to toe with General Douglas MacArthur and ensure that constitutional separation of civilian and military power was upheld. Even in this age when it has become fashionable to denounce the decisions of past leaders, I believe it was the courage of Truman's convictions that allowed him to make one of the most far-reaching decisions of the 20th century, which the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has already mentioned, and bring an end to World War II. As America enters the new century as the undisputed leader of the world, our foreign policy must be driven by our convictions about peace, about justice, about freedom. But conviction alone is never enough. President Harry Truman had convictions, but he also had the courage to put those convictions into practice, even when others doubted and criticized him. Commemorating the memory of this great President by naming the headquarters of the State Department can send an important signal to the rest of the community of nations. First, America is built on a strong bedrock of convictions which come from all its citizens, not just from those born rich and powerful. Second, we do have the courage to put those convictions into practice; and both our determination and our courage need to be understood by the nations of the world. Naming the headquarters of the State Department after my fellow Missourian, Harry Truman, is another way to send that message to the world. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, today I commend Master Chief Ande Hartley of the United States Navy upon his retirement after twenty-one years of service and duty to our country. Ande carried out that duty as a submariner. Being a member of a submarine crew for two decades is no small accomplishment. It is well known among members of our armed forces that submarine duty may be among the toughest and most challenging assignments in the Navy. After all, in most other assignments in the Navy, there is usually an opportunity to leave your station for a few hours and have time alone. When you are aboard a submarine there is no opportunity for retreat from one's responsibilities. Ande's specific duties as a Machinist Mate aboard a nuclear submarine were to make sure that the mechanical systems of the submarine ran properly. All though I am not aware of all those responsibilities, I want to be sure and mention the importance of running the propulsion plant spacers and ensuring that all mechanics associated with the reactor plant were in proper working order. If a qualified member of the crew had not carried out these duties correctly, then this ship would be unable to perform its covert operations for the Navy that are so vital to the freedom of this nation. Without reservation Mr. Speaker, I can say that Master Chief Ande Hartley has performed his duties well. I am sure there were days he realized he could pursue other employment opportunities and earn better pay, and benefits as well as enjoy more time with his family and friends. For Ande though, true commitment is more than pay and benefits, it is about the preservation of the freedom we enjoy so that our family and friends will have the opportunities they now have in the future. Ande's sacrifices are without doubt noteworthy and commendable. His commitment is an example that his family, friends and fellow sailors can follow as a pattern in their own lives. Thank you Ande fro serving your country so faithfully, for so many years. It is an example we can all follow.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today on National Teachers Day in honor of this important day. I was able to cosponsor this legislation along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), my co-chair of the House Education Caucus, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon) and others. One out of five Members of the House, including the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), who drafted this resolution, have been full-time educators at one time in their career. Members of this House know from personal experience what it is like to be in the classroom, to be an administrator, to work with the responsibilities of teachers. This resolution honors and recognizes the unique and important achievement of America's teachers. It urges all Americans to take a moment to thank teachers and pay tribute to our Nation's teachers. I would like to mention just briefly a teacher in the Springfield school district that is being recognized this week as the Teacher of the Year in that district. Ms. Mae Tribble originally aspired to be a pediatric nurse so she could help others in need. However, while she was in college at Southwest Missouri State University and while working with the Springfield Park Board, she discovered the challenge and the reward of teaching. She has now taught for 27 years. She currently teaches the second grade at Pittman Elementary School. She has taught at other schools in the Springfield district and the Strafford district. Her education includes teaching first grade, second grade, disabilities K- 6, reading and math. She is an outstanding teacher. Teachers make a difference in people's lives, Mr. Speaker. They expand our only expandable resource, the potential of young people, the potential of our country. I am glad we recognize them today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor. This is important legislation that has real potential impact on many small businesses in America as well as many listeners to radio stations throughout the country. In January of this year, the five-member FCC issued rules creating a new low-power radio service. That is what we are talking about today. But two of those five members did not think this was a good idea. One dissented completely, one dissented in part, understanding as many Members of this body do that what this legislation really does is move the FCC into an area that is not yet ready. It moves many owners of radio stations, some part of large radio chains, some part of a station that a family has founded that they run, that they have done their best to build over the years, they have created identity with their signal, into an area that no one quite knows whether their station continues to work the way it has in the past or not, creating holes in the radio signal area, where if you are driving across the country and you are listening to a station and you suddenly come into one of these new low- power areas and you assume the station you were listening to is gone, not knowing that a few miles down the road it would be right back, is a very harmful thing to businesses that have been built on a guarantee from the Federal Government and the FCC that they would have a position on the dial, that they would have a position on the band and on the spectrum that worked for them, that was theirs, that they could really gain listener respect, listener loyalty and a place that they knew they could be found. Inexpensive and older radios are particularly vulnerable to interference, meaning the proposal could have the effect of denying low-income and elderly listeners clear reception of their favorite stations. This is important legislation. I am glad it is on the floor. We need to pass it today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for the time to speak in favor of this rule and for bringing this, and I also want to thank him for bringing this important issue to the floor of the House. We have a chance today to cast a vote for the future. Two-thirds simple majority is, in fact, reserved for the most important of issues, including amending the Constitution, ratifying treaties in the Senate. The founders understood that the two-thirds majority was appropriate majority on those kinds of issues. I am confident that this standard of importance would have been used to decide other things if there had been any perception of what those other things might have been. There were issues that James Madison and others thought were important enough for a supermajority. If they had any idea of what the tax burden on American families would be today, this would have been one of those issues in that Philadelphia summer of 1787. A two-thirds simple majority standard would guarantee that there was a consensus among Members of both parties that increasing taxes was a necessity. This bill has gone through the committee process over and over again. It was just pointed out by the other side that this same legislation has been rejected by the House a number of times. Well, to be rejected by the House a number of times, it had to get to the House floor a number of times. It is the same bill that went through that committee process in the last Congress. Today is the time to cast this vote. Today is the time to vote on this issue. I am grateful that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) in the Committee on Rules and the other committees have brought it to the floor today as they have. By making it more difficult for Congress to endlessly reach into the pockets of working Americans, a two-thirds simple majority would require Members to be more careful in the dollars they spend. We should spend every dollar taken from American families with the utmost care, making it harder for this Congress and more likely for future Congresses to take that money, makes it more likely it will be spent with greater care, be more treasured as it comes here because it is coming right from working families. In the 14 States which has implemented tax limitation standards, taxes and spending grew at a slower rate, while the economy and jobs grew at a faster rate than in the other States. That, Mr. Speaker, is not by accident. Although the economy is presently strong, Federal taxes are still the highest they have been since World War II. The entire tax burden is the highest it has been in the history of the country. It is important to compliment this strong economic standard today by dealing with the future of taxes in America as this bill does. The most recent States to pass tax limitation measures have done so with overwhelming voter approval. They would have met the two-thirds requirement because they met requirements of over 70 percent of their voters saying we want to see tax limits in our State. Again, States with tax limitation supermajorities are adding economic opportunity at a rate faster than the other States. Job creators understand the stability that tax limitation brings to the economy. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House today have an opportunity to show that we understand the importance of tax limitation for America's economy and the importance of tax limitation for America's families. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support the bill, to make a stand for American families today and to make a stand for the future of America by putting this new supermajority requirement on the books and in the Constitution.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I wish I had more time to talk about this great bill and the manager's amendment that perfects it in an even better way. This is about homeownership. It is about choice. I served for a number of years on the Missouri Housing Development Commission. There is no higher point in a family's life than that moment when they own their home. We are building in the 7th Congressional District in Missouri this year a Habitat for Humanity, a house that Congress built. There is no better day for a family when they get to see their own efforts make another step towards homeownership. This gives flexibility. It does the thing that we need to do to allow families to have the dream that they want to have.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding time on this important bill that really helps restore confidence with the people who worked to get this legislation enacted to start with. Both Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson have had the support of virtually every outdoor sports organization. They have had the support of people who sell the very things that are taxed under this legislation. Seldom do we have people who are selling a product come and say we would like that product to be taxed because it enhances the cause that we believe is important to enhance. Of course, this current law levies excise taxes on guns, on ammunition, on archery equipment, on fishing equipment; and that is used to fund wildlife programs. What we have seen happen is that the percentages that the chairman just mentioned, the maximum percentages for administration have been far exceeded in expenditures that were beyond the scope of this legislation. The House Committee on Resources had hearings where it appeared that as much as one-third of the money was being used in areas that were originally thought to be capped at 6 or 8 percent. That is not acceptable. This bill establishes a cap on administrative costs. It creates 12 specific categories of costs so that we know for sure what is going in can count as administration. It prohibits funds from being used for functions where Congress has already appropriated money. That is what this process is about. It is not up to the Fish and Wildlife Commission to decide that the Congress did not appropriate enough, and so they will supplement that out of funds intended for other purposes. They need to come back to the Congress and ask for more money and justify that money in the regular way. This then returns unused money to the States. It eliminates a $1 million directors' conservation fund. Some have suggested that that was a slush fund, and there is plenty of evidence to say that that is what it very well could be called. I hope that we restore the confidence of the people who asked for this excise tax, who collect the tax, who see how the tax is spent, by approving the rule and approving the bill today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I was amazed at the end of the business day today when there was a discussion on the floor as to whether or not the failure to extend the law that authorizes the strategic oil reserve, and the concerns that many Members have about the Energy Department, somehow means that the Congress of the United States is responsible for the failure to have an energy policy for the last 7 years. It is exactly the kind of wrongheaded thinking that has allowed us to lull ourselves as a Nation into where we are today with gasoline prices, with heating oil prices. Certainly nobody is going to release the strategic oil reserve if that authorization is not extended for a few days. I think there is a very legitimate question as to who should control the strategic oil reserve. Should it be the Department of Energy or should it be the Department of Defense? What is the purpose of a strategic oil reserve? Is it militarily strategic, or is it strategic in some other way? In fact, what has happened for the last 7 years is that on all three fronts that we needed to have an energy policy, we have not had an effective energy policy. We have not dealt with the oil-producing nations that we have come to rely too much on for oil and gasoline. We have done everything we could to discourage domestic production. We have not done anything to encourage alternative sources of energy, and in fact, the Secretary of Energy on February 16 said that we were caught napping at the Department of Energy. The administration really did not expect to see these oil prices go up. That is the same Department of Energy that there were Members on this floor just a few minutes ago saying should unquestionably be given an extended ability to manage the energy policy of the United States. It is part of the same administration that, for 7 years, has really managed to perform the governmental hat trick of looking at the three areas that we ought to be thinking about for more energy independence and doing everything possible to insure that we would have more energy dependence. We saw the Secretary of Energy in the last few days and weeks going to those oil-producing nations that in the past have been our dependable allies, certainly we have been their dependable ally, and acting as if it was a huge deal to have a small concession of increased production from those countries. Whenever those countries, some of those countries, came to us and said, we would like young American men and women to come over and defend our country, we did not have the response that, well, we will see if we can do a little something, and we will do it, and we will let you know when it might happen. It will be out there sometime. That was not our response. Now to assume that that is an acceptable response, something is wrong. Either something is wrong with our relationship with those countries, or something has been wrong in maintaining that relationship. In terms of alternative sources, the Secretary of Energy just a couple of Sundays ago said maybe the answer is wind power. Well, the answer may not be wind power, the answer may be brain power. The answer may be looking at what we can do to ensure that we are not caught in this same situation 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years from now, to become increasingly dependent on foreign oil, to do nothing to encourage alternative energy sources in this country, to do everything to discourage domestic supply. To do everything to really put the internal combustion engine at risk without coming up with any alternatives is an economic travesty. Our economy has some jeopardy right now because of a failure of policy. For our colleagues to stand up here and say that the Department of Energy needs to be congratulated for what they have done in energy, or the Department of Energy needs to be extended into the future without any question, or that if this Congress questions the Department of Energy, somehow the Congress becomes automatically responsible for the failures of that department and this administration for the last 7 years in this area, does not really meet the test of credibility on this floor or in the country. I think we need to look very carefully at where we are, how we got here, and what the Department of Energy has had to do with those results that are likely to lead to $2 gas prices and significant challenges to our economy this summer.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time, and I thank her for bringing this rule to the floor. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill. What we have heard here this morning over and over again from the opponents of the rule, and I assume the opponents of the bill, is we need to fix the marriage tax and we need to fix it later, we need to fix the marriage tax and we need to fix it later. The truth is we need to fix it now. We are meeting the important financial goals for the future of the country that we have not met in a long time: balance the budget for the first time in almost 30 years; we are restoring integrity to the Social Security trust fund by not spending that trust fund for the first time in four decades; we are paying down debt in ways that we have not before. Now, not later, is the time to look for the unfairness in the Tax Code and begin the hard work of eliminating that unfairness. Certainly, 10-year projections can be off. In recent months, they have been off generally to the advantage of making our job easier to balance the budget, pay down the debt, restore Social Security. They may be off the other way. We may not have as much surplus out there 10 years from now as anybody thinks we have right now. But if the surplus is not there, should we first go to American families and say, we need to continue this unfair system because we do not have as much extra money as we thought we were going to have in Washington? We should be saying just the opposite, we are going to work hard in Washington to spend money more wisely, and we are going to work hard in Washington to see that working families get a fair Tax Code and get to keep their money. This is a vote honoring marriage. It is a vote honoring families. It is a vote honoring fairness in the Tax Code. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and later in the day, to cast an important vote for the future of families in America.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a resident of the Seventh Congressional District of Missouri who can teach all of us something about commitment. Jerry L. Sumners Sr. has touched his community in Aurora, Missouri. His philanthropy and vision have given new and expanded opportunities to his community to grow and develop services and facilities that have benefited kids, the environment and the city's business climate. Jerry Sumner's full time job is running Service Vending Company, a multi-state enterprise with 50 employees. The firm specializes in the sale of gumballs, treats and toys from coin-operated dispensers found in most supermarkets and convenience stores. The company that earns two-bits a sale, has given Jerry the ability to be a civic dynamo--a role he takes very seriously. He may be Aurora, Missouri's greatest cheerleader. Jerry Sumners has unselfishly given his time, energy and support to his community. Jerry's approach to business and life is simple and direct. ``Be organized, do things the same way all the time; get the facts; don't tell me the problem, give me the solution.'' Jerry, an avid pilot, understood the need for expanding the city's airport. In 1999 he donated $100,000 to the Aurora Airport to extend the present runway. That same year he provided a major gift to build a concession stand at Aurora's Baldwin Park with an additional gift to add dressing rooms for the baseball players to be completed by 2002. Between 1990 and 1998, it was Jerry Sumners who contributed at least $180,000 to expand the Little League program from one baseball field to four. Jerry Sumners annually sponsors various baseball, basketball, softball and soccer squads. Jerry has given significant donations to the Aurora Main Street program to modernize the look of the business community and was a major supporter of the city's Christmas lights project. Jerry Sumners has sponsored the annual Applefest pageant in Marionville the last two years and is a leading sponsor in the annual 4th of July fireworks in Aurora. When a local youth sports team wants to compete on the road, Jerry makes sure they have the resources to go. He also contributed to the new band building at Southwest Missouri State University and to improvements at the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield near Springfield. Jerry's company has prospered in the small town setting. His family of four sons and two daughters have gone to school and grown up in Aurora. Jerry and wife, Theresa, are both active in the community and live on a 300 acre farm where they raise cattle. In short, if it has something to do with improving the community of Aurora or adding to the quality of life, chances are that Jerry Sumners has taken an active role in it. He has earned the title of ``community leader.'' Saturday, January 29, the Aurora Chamber of Commerce gave Jerry L. Sumners Sr. their highest honor--``The Community Service Award''--in recognition of his contributions to improve the community. Jerry, who turned 65 on January 27, has no plans to either slow down or end his commitment to the betterment of his community. I know my colleagues in the House join with me in honoring him for his dedication and his commitment to his community, neighbors and his friends.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, during our past winter holiday recess tens of thousands of high school and college marching band members packed themselves on vans, buses, trains and planes around this country to travel to another city to appear at one of the many holiday bowl games. For many people who watched the games, the only effort was the apparent one of the performances they saw on the football field during a pre-game or a half-time show. What we don't see at the game or on television begins during the hot summer with long hours of practice followed by interminable fund raising efforts. It's learning to perform as part of a team; it's creating pride in a group; it's learning perseverance in pursuing a goal; it's learning the importance of having a dream. And they aren't alone in their efforts. Their dedication is supported and encouraged by parents, relatives, friends, teachers, music directors and community leaders that culminate in that performance. It's not just the band that marches onto the football field, but all those who have worked to see that they could be there. I rise today to offer special recognition for the Flaming Arrow Marching Band of the Strafford Missouri High School. Incidentally, I am proud to call Strafford home. The 76 member band under the direction of Shane Harmon was one of ten bands invited to the inaugural edition of the Mobile Alabama Bowl. Besides providing pre-game and half-time performances, the band was involved in competition earning the coveted first place over-all award, as well as first place trophies in the solo, marching, jazz and color guard categories. I know my colleagues in the Congress will join me in extending their congratulations to the Flaming Arrow Marching Band members, their families and their director, not only for the quality of their performance and awards, but for their dedication to achieving an important goal.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and support of the bill. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate the work of the appropriators. The new chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), has done a tremendous job at a time when we are really laying out some new rules for appropriations, and all the members of appropriations on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to try to redefine this culture of what we are trying to achieve: A balanced budget, without spending Social Security. We have heard a lot of debate about whose numbers may be right, whose predictions may be right. We really did not debate those things. Apparently the Congress did not debate them for 40 years, because we did not have a balanced budget without spending Social Security and nobody seemed to care. It is great that we are down now to debating whose projection about income may be the closest to accurate next September, because that is really the projection date that counts. I am convinced we are not going to spend for the second year in a row a penny of Social Security income. I like the way the committee put this package together. It is a big package, but it is a package of individual bills. You can go to each of those bills and see exactly what was in them, and what is in them are the items that should be in them. This is not a package that people have put things in that should not be there or are not understood to be there. Social Security was not spent. That gives us a chance to really look at the future of Social Security. We cannot really talk about Social Security reform if we cannot stop spending the trust fund. Somebody said the problem with the Social Security trust fund has been there was no trust and there is no fund. Well, this restores both of those concepts. The balanced budget adjusters do tremendous things for home health care, for rural hospitals. This is a good bill, this is a good rule. I urge my colleagues to support both.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from the cosponsorship of H.R. 3140.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the ending of a tradition of dedication of serving the public by the Gray family of Carthage, Missouri. On August 27, 1924 Howard H. Gray opened the College Pharmacy on the square in Carthage. On October 31, 1999, Howard Gray's son, Bill Gray will close the doors of the College Pharmacy for the last time. Bill Gray has spend the last 60 years in his ``first home''. First as an eleven year old youngster working for his father as a curb hop, picking up order from customers at the curb and running them in to his father to be filled. Later, Bill worked the soda fountain which in those days was filled with teenagers...quite a lively place. Upon obtaining his pharmacist degree from the University of Missouri, Kansas City, in 1950, Bill became an owner in the family business. Over the last forty-nine years, Bill Gray has served the citizens of Carthage as a pharmacist and friend. Filling prescriptions, answering the questions of a nervous mother whose child is ill and even making house calls to deliver medicine to the elderly all have endeared College Pharmacy and Bill Gray in the hearts of the people of Carthage. Life has not been all work for Bill. For over thirty-one consecutive years, Bill led a group of Carthage residents, known as Clyde's Bluff Dwellers, down the Buffalo River for a late spring float trip to enjoy the beauty of the Ozarks. Bill's knowledge of the Buffalo River is legendary. For over 75 years, three-quarters of a century, Howard and Bill Gray helped the sick in Carthage get better and they did it with hometown service. On October 31, Bill Gray will hang up his blue pharmacist's coat, turn off the lights and lock the door to the College pharmacy for the last time. With the turn of a key, an historic landmark in Carthage, Missouri will become a memory. I congratulate the Gray family for their years of faithful service to the public and, specifically, wish Bill Gray the best in the years ahead as he enjoys his retirement.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, as members of Congress we often address the need in this chamber to improve the spirit of volunteerism or the spirit of community to meet local needs. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call attention to a group of dedicated people in the Seventh Congressional District of Missouri who demonstrate the impact of that spirit. For almost 150 years, Jolly Mill near Pierce City has been a fixture in Southwest Missouri. Located on the first road from Springfield to Oklahoma, the three story mill has served as a grist mill, a distillery, and a resupply point for wagon trains and stagecoaches. It survived two skirmishes in the Civil War and the burning of its surrounding settlement by bushwhackers. It continued as an enlarged flour mill though it could not attract a railroad line. However it could not survive as an operating mill forever, finally closing its doors in 1973. But that is not the end of the story. A group of citizens decided that it was essential to save this heritage landmark for future generations. They did not turn to government for federal grants or lobby to have the site added to the state park system. Like good Ozarkers they knew they could do the job themselves. Using local donations they bought the mill and 32 surrounding acres to form the Jolly Mill Park and formed the Jolly Mill Park Foundation. The Foundation has an ongoing commitment to protect the history and heritage of rural Missouri. Not only have they restored the mill to its condition at the turn of the century. Nevertheless, they have also moved and restored a 90-year-old iron bridge and a one room school house built over a century ago. The park, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, is a gift from the Foundation to the community. Its visitors can make their way to the old limestone slab foundation and hand-hewn and pegged framing timbers of the old mill to relax, reflect and to better understand the lives of those who settled there and developed the area. Mr. Speaker, today I offer my appreciation and that of all my colleagues for the spirit of volunteerism and community that characterize the unselfish dedication of the Foundation and its many members over the last 16 years to preserve this singular part of the history of Newton County and Southwest Missouri.