Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman being willing to look into it, and I appreciate the time of the Members here today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, as I go around my district in southwest Missouri and ask school administrators or teachers what is their biggest problem with the Federal Government, I always get the same answer, IDEA. And so now I ask what is their second biggest problem with the Federal Government, and I get a variety of answers, but there is no question their biggest challenge is in the way IDEA is funded, the way IDEA is administered, the way that the rules and regulations are set up. We cannot do anything today about the administration and the rules and regulations. That needs to be in another, bigger debate later. It needs to happen. But we can do something about the funding. In 1974, when this program was conceptualized and put into law, Congress said they would pay 40 percent of the cost. Twenty years later, we were paying 6 percent of the cost. In the last 4 years, we have been able to double that, to 12 percent, so we are headed in the right direction. But we need to keep our word. This is about the Federal Government, not just conceptualizing some new obligation but paying their share and keeping their commitment to make those programs work.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, there was no vote taken yesterday not to support our military. There was a vote taken not to endorse a policy that we should have been asked weeks ago before the bombing started to be part of. There was a vote not to endorse a policy that has not been explained to this Congress the way it should have been explained by the administration. We have heard of vile partisanship on this House yesterday, but over 2 dozen members of the Democratic party voted with Republicans, Republicans voted with Democrats. We would be glad to have those 2 dozen members of that party if they do not want them. This was not a statement about vile partisanship. This was a statement about principle. This is about whether foreign policy is driven by the Constitution or by CNN, and the Constitution says the President and the Congress should be involved in that. I call on the President to provide the leadership that this Congress needs.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the Missouri State Senate and Missouri House of Representatives in support of home education. The Missouri General Assembly has designated the first week of May as Home Education Week. Missouri is looked to as a leader nationwide in home education movement. Home education in Missouri has enjoyed considerable success in recent years because of the tremendous support received from countless citizens who realize the significance of family participation in the education process. Home education allows parents to ensure that the positive character traits and moral values instilled in their children at home are reinforced by the educational process. Home education is successful and history proves it. Since the founding of America many famous Americans have been home educated. That list includes George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Booker T. Washington, Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mark Twain and Sandra Day O'Conner. Home education is practiced by over 4,600 citizens of Missouri. Without hesitation, I thank each parent who is at home teaching their child the skills they will need to succeed in the competitive world we live in today. I hope that my colleagues will join me today to let you know that your efforts are generally appreciated.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the legislation. This really is largely about whether we are going to have a one-number census or a two-number census and all of the things that surround that. How many Members of this body would want us to have a two-number election result and then decide after the election what would have happened if somebody's speculation of what was going on on election day somehow could have been fulfilled? How would we want to serve if we had not just the number that was certified as the actual count of the election, but if we had the number that was certified as somebody's idea of what might have happened if the election had been done in some scientific laboratory? This is about counting people. This bill is about counting people in a way that involves local governments. It is about counting people in a way that involves the Census Bureau with local governments, because so much of what happens at the local level for a decade is determined by their numbers; not just how they are represented in this body, but how they are represented on their county council, how they are represented in their city council, how they are represented in the State legislature. Missing a block, forgetting a thousand people or even a hundred people, can be a significant factor in all of those determinations. In the past, the Census Bureau has seen this as one of the important principles of coming up with an accurate number that stands the test of time, that local governments rely on for the better part of that decade. I think this bill has been carefully considered. It is also the way the Census has been conducted. In fact, in 1990 the Census Bureau said that what is most important about this review is that local officials have an opportunity to review the maps and counts while the Census is still in progress. Possible errors identified and reported at this stage, according to the Census Bureau, are relatively easy to check and correct if necessary. Once this stage is passed, once the Census is finalized, once local governments have somehow not had this opportunity, it is awfully hard to come back and solve those problems. The substitute today, the amendment today, would leave this up to the Secretary of Commerce, who has already said in writing that he is not supportive of this legislation, and it is questionable without his support, a post-Census review. Of course we want to have a local review. Of course we want a Census that is the best possible. Of course we want to correct this process before it is finalized, not after it is finalized. That is what this bill does. It is what it does, creating the best cooperation between local officials and the Census Bureau. I support the legislation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, there are many memories that come to mind when I think of Missouri's longest serving Secretary of State, Jim Kirkpatrick, of Warrensburg, Missouri. There was the quick laugh and sparkling eyes that often calmed a political confrontation. There was the always present Irish green tie, the green jacket, the green stationery, the green ink, the green furniture. In fact, everything in the Secretary of State's office when I had the privilege to follow him there was some shade of green. It is a privilege for me today, the only Republican elected Secretary of State in Missouri in the last seven decades, to join with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as we honor the memory of Missouri's ``Mr. Democrat'' as its most Irish politician this week of Saint Patrick's Day. Many Missourians remember Jim Kirkpatrick working to establish statewide voter registration, directing two winning campaigns for better roads, and championing the establishment of a records management and archives division in State government. Jim Kirkpatrick instinctively understood Tip O'Neill's axiom that all politics is local, as he crisscrossed the State for two decades eagerly meeting with citizens wherever he went. Others remember Jim Kirkpatrick and his newspapers. He worked his way up to be the editor of the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal. He then moved to edit the Jefferson City News and Tribune. He was the publisher of the Windsor Review and Lamar Daily Democrat. It was Missouri Governer Forrest Smith who first brought him into State government as his administrative assistant in 1948. What I remember most about him was he put ``service'' in public service. When he left office after five terms, his commitment to the people of Missouri and to the job done by the Secretary of State's office was as strong as ever. He continued to dedicate himself to the efforts of his office during his last week as a State official with the same concern that I am sure he had during his first week. In 1985, Jim retired to Warrensburg and to the campus of Central Missouri State University, where he graduated, served on the Board of Regents and led in effort after effort. His office in the Ward Edwards Library was the replica of his office in the State capitol. His lectures to the students were high points for them and him. Jim and his wife traveled with campus groups, went to hundreds of campus events, and were involved in the community as a great team until Jim's death. Next week, the campus and the community will officially dedicate the new James C. Kirkpatrick Library at Central Missouri State University. Jim Kirkpatrick's legacy of service continues.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding to me. I stand in support of his resolution. I also want to associate myself with the comments just made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). I think that was an excellent analysis of the delicacy of the decisions that are going to be made in the next few weeks. The repeated threats to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state are as unstablizing, as destabilizing, as unsettling as anything could be in this process. That action is in violation of the agreement as I see it. Article XXXI of the Oslo II Accords clearly states, ``Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations.'' Obviously, this is at the heart of the outcome of those negotiations. Obviously, this is a core issue that more than any other can provide great imbalance at a time when the Middle East has at least within sight the opportunity for peace, the opportunity for balance there. Mr. Speaker, our response to what the Palestinians might do would be crucial. Chairman Arafat's understanding of our response is crucial. We need to make it clear that we will not recognize a unilaterally declared State; that the peace process would be in jeopardy; that the United States will do its best to help mediate this conflict, to help ensure permanent peace, but that the timing could not be worse than the timing that is projected to declare this state, a timing only days before an election in Israel. Elections are volatile times anywhere. They are most volatile in the Middle East; they are most volatile in Israel. The debate is a difficult debate to achieve. It is particularly difficult to achieve in the middle of an election campaign. Mr. Speaker, our message to Chairman Arafat should be, do not take this step, do not jeopardize the process. Do everything you can to stabilize the situation with Israel. Our message to Israel should be to work hard for peace.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of times here today that the Congress should not be acting on this question yet. It is amazing to me that of our NATO allies, the members of the Bundestag can debate this question and vote on it, the members of the Parliament can debate this question, but the Members of the U.S. Congress cannot debate this question. I have heard here a number of times today that we should be waiting until there is a final agreement. Mr. Chairman, I am confident that every effort has been made to get assurances that if there was a final agreement, that the Congress would be consulted after that final agreement and before troops were deployed, and those assurances are not there. Yesterday, before a committee of the House, the Secretary of State said that this is not a good time for the Congress to be debating this issue. But then she went on to say that there is never a good time for the Congress to debate these issues because we just get in the way of diplomacy. That is not the role of the Congress as I see the role of the Congress in the Constitution and many others do. I am grateful for the Speaker's decision to provide this debate. Too many times, the Congress has said we will wait until the decision is made and the decision is made and the commitment is made so quickly that then we have a decision of whether we are going to support troops in the field, not to whether those troops would be in the field or not. There are questions that this House has an obligation to ask right now. Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former national security adviser, the former Secretary of State, gave some insightful testimony before the House Committee on International Relations yesterday. He said there is a critical question to be asked, under what circumstances should American military forces be used to pursue national objectives and what should those objectives be? Should American military might be available to enable every ethnic or religious group to achieve self- determination? If Kosovo, why not East Africa? Why not Central Asia? Is this part of our policy? I think there are questions that this Congress has to ask in regard to Kosovo. Why would we be there if we are there? What is our goal in Kosovo? I understand that part of the goal is to get Serbia out of Kosovo without getting Kosovo out of Serbia. I submit to the Congress that that is a very difficult goal to achieve. How will we know when we have done it? We have been in Bosnia now for years and the checklist that we had hoped to be checking off, we cannot check any of the boxes yet. We are no closer to leaving Bosnia than we were the day we went into Bosnia. And what is the cost to our armed forces? What is the cost of our ability to defend America around the world? I thought the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) made an incredibly effective presentation with the wrong conclusion. The presentation was the diminution of our military forces, our military readiness, our military benefits, our military research, our development of new weapons, and then one of the main reasons for that is this willingness to commit troops, to commit our defense capacity without any end in sight. We need to ask what that end is. There may in fact be a better way for the Congress to take up this issue. I would be fully in favor of the administration negotiating this question and then coming to the Congress and say, ``Here is what we have negotiated. What do you think?'' That has not happened time after time after time. We have sought assurances it would happen this time. There are no assurances forthcoming. For all those who say now is not the time, I would say to them, there will not be a time if we wait for the administration to determine when the Congress should be involved in this because, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, it is really never helpful for us to discuss these issues. The President and the Secretary of State should be asking for our approval. We need to be partners in this kind of policy. I rise in support of this amendment and to encourage the administration to fully involve the Congress in its future activities before they are completed.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, today begins a year long celebration of McDonald County, Missouri's sesquicentennial. McDonald County is tucked away in the very southwest corner of my congressional district, bounded on the south by our good neighbors in Arkansas and our friends in Oklahoma on the west. McDonald County is noted for its friendly folks and scenic beauty. Clear streams and majestic limestone bluffs have long been attractions for sightseers and were prominent in the stories of early settlers. Add to that the booming economy and you have an All-American place to raise a family, start a business and put down or carefully nurture ``roots.'' The population in McDonald County, now over 20,000, is growing at more than 14% a year making it one of Missouri's fastest growing counties in its 150th year. Only a few hundred people called McDonald County, Missouri home when it was organized on March 3, 1849. It was named after Revolutionary War hero Alexander McDonald, a sergeant in the Continental Army. This year a series of events and observances will mark the county's milestone. March 3 is McDonald County History Day observed at all county buildings. Students will participate in art and history exhibits, and there are picnics, parades and festivities planned throughout the year. The county seat at Pineville celebrates ``Jesse James Days'' in August by reliving the 1938 filming of ``Jesse James,'' a movie production that brought stars Henry Fonda, Tyrone Power and Randolph Scott to McDonald County. In October the limestone bluffs and clear streams become the backdrop for some of North America's best fall foliage. McDonald County is a place for families and small towns. Nearly 70 percent of the households are married families; half of those have children at home. the largest towns in McDonald County--Pineville, Anderson, Lanagan, Noel, Jane and Southwest City--had fewer than 2,000 people each at the last census. McDonald County schools are meeting the growth in population with the construction of new schools all over the county--and they are doing it without federal handouts or new taxes (something Washington could learn from). The school system is financially stable and is ``paying as it goes.'' County and city governments are also keeping up with the growth with a positive eye on the future. Economic development and infrastructure needs are constantly scrutinized and considered. The economy is strong. A number of new businesses are springing up. A $53-million poultry industry makes McDonald County the leading livestock producing county in Missouri. Many of its residents work in McDonald County, but some commute to work in other places in a growing Southwest Missouri. McDonald County is in America's heartland. Within a hundred miles there are lakes and streams like Table Rock Lake and Roaring River, as well as the Mark Twain National Forest and live entertainment in Branson. There is a diversity of good jobs and professions, churches of many faiths and institutions of higher learning that abound in the region. McDonald County is a great place to live and work. Happy Sesquicentennial, McDonald County, Missouri.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives meets to vote on the impeachment of the president. In the 210-year life of our Constitution and of the House, the Congress has met to vote on this critical question only one other time. This is our most serious constitutional duty. This duty is required by the unique system of checks and balances that has made our system so strong. This concept, born in Philadelphia in 1787, has served us well. It has served us well because the representatives of one branch of government cannot subvert the others. No president can be allowed to subvert the judiciary or thwart the investigative responsibility of the legislature. There is clear evidence that President Clinton committed perjury on two or more occasions, and urged others to obstruct justice. These are serious felonious acts that strike at the heart of our judicial system. Oaths taken in the American system of government are serious commitments to truth and the rule of law. Violating these oaths or causing others to impede the investigation into such acts are serious matters that meet the standard for impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee, after a month of hearings, returned four Articles of Impeachment all dealing with President Clinton's statements made in a civil trial deposition, to a federal grand jury his actions with others who were likely to testify and in his response to the committee's inquiries. This is not about the President's personal conduct, it is about the President's conduct under oath. It is about his subversion of the judicial system and his unwillingness to cooperate with the legislative investigation of that failure; it is about the rule of law. The President's actions and statements have brought the country to this difficult decision. The vote today holds great consequence for the President and the constitutional process. This is about determining the facts, seeking the truth, and giving the President the forum to rebut the charges against him. The duty of the House of Representatives is to determine if sufficient evidence exists to proceed with a trial in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee has met that burden. After reviewing the material gathered by the Judiciary Committee and the corroborated nature of hard evidence, it is my conclusion that the allegations against the President warrant a formal trial in the Senate. Many of my colleagues advocate some other punishment for the President. They say for the first time in the history of the United States the Congress should censure the President. Censure would set a dangerous precedent for this President and successors. The Constitution prescribes one option for the Congress which is to determine whether the President's action are impeachable or not. Today, you could censure the President for bad conduct, five years from now another Congress could decide to censure a president for a bad policy and a few years later the Congress could censure a president for good policies that did not work out and suddenly, we don't have a presidential system, but a parliamentary system. One of the great strengths of our system of government is the lack of a requirement that a president be popular between elections. The Congress has only one standard, the actions of the President are either impeachable or they are not impeachable. The decision to censure would head our government in the wrong direction. It is my desire that this embarrassment on the presidency and our country end quickly, but the Constitution cannot be rewritten by public opinion polls or by political expediency. When I took the oath of office to serve in Congress, I did not swear to uphold the Constitution only if it was popular. Today the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the responsibility to determine if the President's conduct is impeachable or not. There are no other options. Tomorrow this House should get on with the business of the new Congress. Our next job is to work to defend the country, balance the budget, find tax relief for working families, keep our commitments to Social Security, Medicare, Veterans and Military retirees and the next generation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association (OOIDA) represents over 40,000 small business professional truckers across America. On October 9, OOIDA celebrated 25 years of service at the grand opening of their new headquarters in Grain Valley, Missouri. I would like to submit the following speech, which was delivered before the celebration by OOIDA Secretary Robert E. Esler, for the Congressional Record. This speech is a special tribute to recognize the hard work and dedication of OOIDA President Jim Johnston. HELP!!! . . . This was the cry that was being heard from the East Coast to the West Coast. From the Northern border to the Southern border the sound resonated throughout the land. WE NEED HELP. Owner-operators, independents, and truckers in general were fed up with the way things were going in the early seventies. Fuel prices were escalating. Taxes were soaring. Rates were not keeping up with the ever-increasing costs. Government rules and regulations were becoming more and more unbearable. What can we do was the cry. Something has to be done. We can not continue on under these circumstances. For as many questions there seemed to be as many answers. Owner-operator groups were springing up everywhere, each with their own agenda. Each group was sure that they could get immediate solutions to their specific problems. Either by public demonstrations or, as simple as it seemed, by calling on their local legislators. Surely, after bringing attention to their plight, the powers that be would see how wronged and mistreated they were and as if by magic make their problems go away. Oh how wrong they were. There were many pitfalls on the road ahead. One such group was formed in 1973. This group went through some rough times getting organized. Trying to get a bunch of disgruntled truckers to agree on anything was like getting three lawyers to share the same viewpoint; it ain't going to happen. After a couple of years of floundering it became evident that they lacked an essential ingredient, leadership. Sure there were people elected to be leaders but none seemed up to the task. It got so bad that no one wanted to be in charge and lead. This is where the right man was at the right place at the right time. One man stood up and faced the challenge. It was his vision that Owner-Operators should be treated as equals in the trucking industry. Not only from a governmental view point but also from the Motor Carrier industry as well. This became his focus and thus became his mantle. He has been able to do what no other person has done. And that is, take a group of owner-operators that were on a course to nowhere and turn them around. His leadership has enabled them to chart a course that has taken them to a position of being the largest, longest running, and most successful owner-operator group to date. Where do such leaders come from? They come from the midst of our ranks. They have the unique ability to recognize a need, the vision to see a solution and the persistence to overcome obstacles. Each has a different style of leadership but they all have one specific element, focus. Focus on the job until it gets done. And without question they will all tell you the job never gets done. There is always a new task to face. Such is a man named Jim Johnston who, nearly twenty-five years ago took a job nobody wanted. He faced the challenge. And, through years of dedication and hard work dramatically changed the course of events that now places the owner- operator on a level-playing field with all segments of the trucking industry. On behalf of the Members, Board of Directors, and Staff of Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association I would like to say, ``Jim we all look forward to the next twenty-five years. Thanks for being the right man at the right place at the right time.''

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, we have heard here again this morning that this Congress and the Congress before it has not appropriated money for education when in fact we have appropriated more money every year than the year before. So much of the debate about education in the Congress is about who controls the money and about whether the Federal Government is going to keep its word to local school districts. Any time I am in the Seventh District in Missouri and ask an educator what is their biggest problem with the Federal Government, they always say, ``Special education mandates.'' When we mandated special education, we said we would provide 40 percent of the money. At the beginning of the 104th Congress, we were providing 6 percent. Now we are providing 12 percent. Part of the debate about teachers is whether some of those teachers could be special education teachers and help us get to what we have promised local districts we could do. But, no, that is not good enough. We have to tell local districts exactly what classes those teachers should be in and special education would not be one of them unless we prevail in this debate about education.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all say that exactly what was said by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is the goal here. It is not a specific result of the process, but it is the process. And as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has advanced this resolution, it is a resolution that hopes to see in this country, and in other countries in Africa, what we have seen over so much of the world in the last decade. This truly, Mr. Speaker, been an extraordinary decade for democracy. In the last debate we heard about the democracy in Slovakia. We could talk about democracy in country after country in Eastern Europe. We could certainly talk about an incredible change in South America and in Central America in the last decade as democracy has held sway time and time again. We need to stand for that same process in Africa. We need to stand not in opposition to any result or in favor of any result, but in favor of democracy. We need to stand as a beacon, as we have to so many other countries in the world, of support in their efforts to have the kind of freedom that is only possible with a true democratic process. As the country of Gabon approaches what we hope will be a fair and free and open election in December, followed by what we hope will be the implementation of the results of that election, I just want to encourage my colleagues to support the resolution, and to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for all he has done in this Congress to encourage democracy all over the world, and to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for bringing this resolution forward.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association represents over 40,000 small business professional truckers across America. On October 9, OOIDA will celebrate 25 years of service at the grand opening of their new headquarters in Grain Valley, Missouri. I had planned on being present at these very special ceremonies, but unfortunately the schedule of the House will prevent my participation. The Association provides many services to its members including access to affordable health and truck insurance, training, updates on regulatory changes, and support for resources for operating a successful small business. OOIDA is also an effective advocate on its members behalf before state and federal regulatory and legislative bodies. We need to work closely with OOIDA and their members, small business operators, to seek passage of legislation that achieves a reduction in the number of toll roads, that enhances the deductibility of meals, travel and health insurance expenses, and legislation that reduces the tax burden on all small entrepreneurs. We must stand with OOIDA to eliminate onerous regulations and as partners to rebuild our transportation infrastructure. On this day, we offer our appreciation for the outstanding achievements of Jim Johnston, President of OOIDA, OOIDA's board of directors and the independent truck drivers who deliver every day for us all.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and will submit my remarks for the Record. I intend to vote for the Judiciary Committee's recommendation that would begin the inquiry for impeachment. The President of the United States needs the trust and confidence of the American people. When the President does not have credibility, the country is at risk. Currently only one in five Americans say they have confidence in the President's credibility and truthfulness. The American people deserve a speedy resolution of this crisis-in-confidence. The President deserves the opportunity to restore his credibility by having the opportunity to explain his side of what seems to be perjury and obstruction of justice both in a civil case and before a federal grand jury. It is my hope that this inquiry will meet the demands of the Constitution and be resolved with all deliberate speed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do their duty under the Constitution and take this step toward a conclusion of this national challenge.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today as the Majority Leader recognizes Joe White, Joe White from my district in southwest Missouri, Joe White with a doctors degree from Southwest Baptist University, Joe White who has devoted his life to kids. Mr. Speaker, Joe founded a foundation, the I Am Third Foundation, and I think the three principles of that foundation talk about what Joe's life is about and what these camps that the Majority Leader has talked about focus on. The I Am Third Foundation is God first, family second, and I am third. The individual is third. A life based on faith is part of these camps. Mr. Speaker, I have heard Joe White from memory quote entire books of the bible, quote the Book of First Timothy and in Paul's letter to Timothy in First Timothy Paul says: ``You are my true child in the faith.'' Joe White becomes a father to children who need a male role model. Joe White becomes an example to kids who often do not have an example. Joe White has scholarshipped thousands of urban youth into a life and a life style for that eight days in southwest Missouri that changes their life from the time they come one year until the time so many of these want to come back and get to come back the second year. The picture that the Majority Leader has, the smile on his face, I think says it all. Joe White makes a difference in the lives of kids.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 575, I announce the following suspensions to be considered today: S. 2094, Fish and Wildlife Revenue Enhancement Act of 1998; H.R. 2886, Granite Watershed Enhancement and Protection Act; H.R. 3796, To Authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to Convey the Administrative Site for the Rogue River National Forest and Use the Proceeds for the Construction or Improvement of Offices and Support Buildings for the Rogue River National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management; H.R. 4151, Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act; S. 53, Curt Flood Act; S.J. Res. 51, Granting the Consent of Congress to the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority; and S. 1021, Veterans Employment Opportunities Act.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, people in America understand that they need tax relief. They understand that it is only fair, as we begin to balance the budget, that they get to keep part of the money they are sending to Washington. We see these two charts here that clearly point out that the amount of tax relief has no impact on Social Security. They cannot imagine why we would possibly let the marriage penalty stay in the tax code one year longer, let alone forever. They cannot imagine why we would not do everything necessary to go ahead and make health insurance automatically deductible for small business people, once we have decided that needs to be done, rather than to wait 6 or 7 years in the future. They cannot imagine why, out of $1.6 trillion in surplus, that $80 billion of that cannot go to tax relief and go to tax relief right now.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, did those who supported tax cuts last summer as part of the balanced budget agreement, and oppose them today, last year raid the Social Security fund when they voted for tax cuts? Why was it that last year the tax cuts that were passed while the budget was in a deficit were not a threat to Social Security, but tax cuts while the budget is in surplus are? This is just goofy, Mr. Speaker. The other side is counting yet again on their hopes that seniors will not know the facts, so they can scare them just like they did 2 years ago about cuts in Medicare. Those cuts turned out to be actually increases in Medicare. Even goofier is their obvious bad faith in opposing tax cuts this year, along with their argument that billions and billions of dollars of new spending they support does not raid Social Security. Well, my friends on the other side of the aisle, which is it? Is spending on education, health care, welfare, and the environment a ``raid'' on the Social Security trust fund or not?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, so many of our colleagues are for tax cuts in the abstract, until there is money to actually give some relief to working families. This week we have to deal with really what can be a defining moment in the history of this Congress. We have an opportunity to give American taxpayers the first back-to-back tax cuts in modern history. Last year we had the first tax cuts in 16 years, and revenue increased as the Federal Government encouraged work and productivity. We have the unique opportunity for the second time in 2 years to let hardworking families keep more of their money. It is unreasonable to spend the surplus on more government when American families are forced to spend 40 percent of their income on taxes. This plan has a win-win-win formula. It ensures the future of Social Security with $1.4 trillion. It simplifies the tax filing system. We begin the process of eliminating the marriage penalty, that currently forces 21 million couples to pay an average of $1,400 a year in extra Federal taxes because they are married. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford not to do a tax cut and give tax relief to working families this year.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and for his work on this bill. We have heard a number of things in this debate today. We have heard that IDEA was going to be ended. It is not. We have heard that Title I was going to end. It is not. In fact, Title I is one of the programs that already comes pretty close to the standard. I think it is well over 90 percent of the money that we appropriate federally in Title I gets to districts. We have heard from our friend from Massachusetts a moment ago that if we ask people in his district whose fault it is that education is not producing the right result, they say, the Federal Government, even though right before that, he said that only about 6 percent of the money comes from the Federal Government. Well, maybe this House ought to be more clear with the people we represent and explain to them that only about 6 percent of this money is Federal money, that local responsibility is paramount here, that we cannot continue to confuse Americans by letting them think the solution is going to come from somewhere where the solution is not going to come from. Local and State decision-making on programs like classroom size, local and State decision-making on how and where we ought to add teachers is possible under this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, I thank the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. I think the fundamental point here is that no school district has to lose money or will lose money under this bill. This is not about school districts losing money. This is about bureaucrats in Washington losing money. This is about bureaucrats at the State level losing money. This is not about school districts losing money. Those people who say this money is going to go from one school district to another are not reading the bill the way the bill has to be read. This is the difference in whether 95 cents out of every education dollar gets to the classroom, or 65 cents out of every education dollar gets to the classroom. This is clearly not something that people who are in favor of the bureaucracy growing would want to be for. It is clearly something that people who are for money being spent in classrooms, on teachers, on education should be for. This is about a teacher who knows every student's name having more to say about how the money is spent. This is about districts that now may not qualify for all 31 of these different grant programs, but is a district that gets to qualify for money, they get to use the money in the way that they understand is best for their district. Even the opponents of this bill concede that the Federal impact they say is minimal. Well, the minimal impact is not what does the job. What does the job is making education work. It is involving families more in the process. It is involving teachers more in the process. It is involving the local building administrator in the process. It is figuring out what can be done for those kids at that school on that day with 95 percent of this money.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 444, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership in this critically important bill. Earlier today we addressed the other side of this problem, the supply side of this problem. The truth is if we were able to do everything we wanted to do in sealing our international borders, we would still have a drug problem. The truth is that the methamphetamine problem, the other domestic drug supply problem, is so great that no matter how effective a job we do on the important work we committed ourselves earlier today, we have to deal with this issue of demand. This is a great follow-up on the Drug-Free Communities Act that was passed last year. I was glad to hear our friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) mention that many of the things in this bill are things that we have given some funding to but have not fully authorized. And other things in this bill are items that have had hearings and have passed the House but have not gone further. We need to take all of those things and put them in such a powerful package that they can no longer resist becoming part of an overall effort to help parents, to help communities, to help schools in the fight against this problem. This is a problem that Americans pay a dramatic price for every single day. This kind of approach to the demand side from a media campaign to schoolhouses, to parental involvement, is the kind of approach it takes to make that difference. This is the kind of commitment this Congress needs to make. It is the kind of commitment we need to direct the Federal Government to make, and it is the kind of commitment the country needs to understand how broad and how deep the commitment has to go. I believe this legislation does that. I am proud to be part of it and certainly proud to really recommend it to my colleagues and encourage the great efforts of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) here.