Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has been an employer can tell you the difference great employees can make on behalf of a business or organization. Exceptional employees are the foundation of exceptional endeavors, happy clients or customers, successful businesses and extremely pleased bosses. It's true--great employees make their bosses look good! When Georgia Ware retires from her job as Peter Herschend's Administrative Assistant at Silver Dollar City this October, Peter is going to have to work harder to keep up his image. Georgia has made him and Silver Dollar City in Branson, Missouri look really good for almost twenty years. Many people only know Georgia Ware by telephone. When people call Peter Herschend, the Vice Chairman of Silver Dollar City, Inc.--the internationally--known family-oriented attraction in Branson--Georgia is who they talk to first and first impressions are important. Georgia is more than an assistant. Her voice has the ultimate sound of hospitality blended with just the right amount of authority needed to represent a very busy and very sought after boss, as he tends to this unique family-owned business. She knows how to respond to CEO's, family friends, local business leaders, Governors, and even Congressmen--with just the right touch. Georgia is the perfect diplomat, ambassador and empathizer. Even ``no'' sound pretty good when she says it. Georgia will be leaving Southwest Missouri to move closer to her only son, Jerry, his wife, Debbie and their daughter, Mindy. We know they look forward to her arrival and she surely is ready to be closer to them. Silver Dollar City and all of us who work with them will sorely miss her contributions to their every day efforts. My best wishes and many thanks to Georgia--she is exceptional.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, today we took the first vote in what may be a series of votes on how we deal with our constitutional responsibility. It was an important vote, because it was a vote to be fully inclusive, not only of every Member of the House, but to be as inclusive as possible of every American. At this critical time for our country, being open with the American people, giving them a report that they paid the bill to produce, letting them reach their conclusions, as we reach our constitutionally required conclusion, is an incredibly important thing to do. The job of the Congress is to do what the Constitution requires. The job of the Congress is to do what the Constitution requires and what is best for the country. As the American people enter into that job with us, I know we want to be prayerful, not only for Members of Congress, but we want to be prayerful for President Clinton and his family and for the United States as we do what the Constitution requires. We are a system of law.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following statement for the Record regarding H. Con. Res. 277, the New Tribes Mission Resolution: I invite all of my colleagues to join me today in approving legislation that I introduced, H. Con. Res. 277, the New Tribes Mission Resolution. On January 31, 1993 three Americans, Mark Rich, David Mankins, and Rick Tennenoff were abducted from the Kuna Indian village of Pucuro in the Darian Province of Panama, and were taken to Colombia by the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC). These men, missionaries from the New Tribes Mission headquartered in Sanford, Florida, are now believed to be the longest held American hostages in Colombia. After five years of uncertainty about the fate of these men, their families and other members of the New Tribes Mission deserve closure. Congress must take action to urge the missionaries' captors to come forward and release any information they may have on the fate and well being of these hostages. My resolution expresses the sense of Congress that any individual or group with knowledge of the whereabouts of the New Tribes Mission missionaries be encouraged to come forward. It also seeks to bring international attention to the abduction and to pressure the Colombian government to release any information they may have about the fate of these men. Accordingly, I welcome the support of all of my colleagues in approving this bipartisan and humanitarian legislation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I also am glad to hear the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) say what he had to say about the Virginia law. Mr. Chairman, this just simply includes children in the chain of responsibility. It does not exclude the ability to hold others responsible. In fact, in the District of Columbia and in all 50 States, because of a 1992 law passed by the Congress, it is illegal to sell tobacco products. The 19-year-old store clerk has a penalty if he sells tobacco products to the 17-year-old purchaser, but the 17-year-old purchaser has no penalty. In fact, the 17-year-old purchaser can stand in the parking lot of the convenience store and smoke the pack of cigarettes while the 19-year-old store clerk and the store manager and the store owner are paying fines or having the kind of penalties this Congress said should be on that side of the counter. The gentleman's legislation just says that there should be penalties on both sides of the counter; that the only person involved in this transaction who has no consequences for their action should not be the teen smoker. I urge that we support this amendment.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I do not think there is a single Member of this House that would allow polling to be used to decide election results. We should not allow it to be used for this purpose either. I rise today in strong opposition to the Mollohan amendment. Republicans are prepared to fund an unprecedented effort to count all Americans because we believe that every American counts. In fact, Chairman Rogers has provided $100 million more than the President requested to help ensure that every American is counted. The Clinton administration plan will delete millions of people who turn in their census forms on time. These people will be removed at random because population polling indicates that their demographic group is overrepresented. Americans have the right to participate in the census and have their completed census form included in the count. The Clinton administration cannot arbitrarily decide to delete millions of people from the counts based on population guesstimates. The Clinton administration wants to play politics with the census. I urge you to oppose the Mollohan amendment and support an accurate and honest census.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. I would just like to ask the gentleman whom I think is well motivated and well intentioned in this debate, in your sense of an effort to persuade someone on an issue or to encourage a vote on the issue but you said that masquerades as that when it is really something else, who decides that is I think really my concern. Who draws the line between what masquerades as an ad or what is really clearly encouraging a result on an issue? What we do not want to do here is shut the door on people's ability to rightly influence the legitimate debate of the Congress. And who decides where that line is? What is the standard?

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the bill a little bit while the gentleman from Pennsylvania is getting that answer for the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). Let me also say that I think this is essentially the same kind of campaign reform that the House voted for on February 12, a bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) introduced, a bill that the chief election official from California said he thought was an improvement and an important addition to the ability of States to be able to, once again, manage the election process. Until motor voter, with the exception of establishing age qualifications for voting for Federal office, which almost always, then, for reasons of practicality required the States to adopt that same age, we have left election administration to the States. This just simply allows the States to look at this to see if, in their State, this would work. A majority of Members of this body said just a few months ago, on February 12, that this kind of thing was a good idea. It was a good addition to campaign reform. I rise in support of the concept of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), that if we are going to reform campaigns, let us reach campaigns. A number of States already require that citizens give the Social Security number for registration. So in Georgia, in Hawaii, in Kentucky, in New Mexico, in South Carolina, and Tennessee and Virginia, the only change in this law would be that we also would have access to INS records. We would only have access to those records until 2001 to see if this concept is helpful or harmful. It allows a pilot project for the States that want to do it. It does not require a single State to do a single thing. It was approved by a majority of voters that voted on the floor of this House in February. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) brings it as an additional element of campaign reform. It is not a mandate. It is a pilot program. I would suggest it is the kind of thing that we ought to return back to the States while we are talking about election reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman made that point, because our colleague from California just made the point that every legitimate voter, that is exactly the statement she made, should be allowed to register to vote and should be allowed to vote, and that is certainly right, and they should be allowed to do that with as little encumbrance as is reasonably possible. The least encumbrance would be no registration at all. We tried that for generations in America, and finally we found out that that did not work, because people voted more than once, they voted at more than one location. We decided we had to have voter registration, and every legitimate voter should be allowed to register, every legitimate voter should be allowed to vote. But every time we let someone cast a ballot who is not a legitimate voter, who does not meet the requirements to vote in that election or in this country, we do just exactly what the sponsor of the amendment said; we cancel out the vote of voters who had a right to vote. That is every bit as big a problem as any other problem we could have in this process. If people begin to think that there is no reason to go to the polls because their vote is going to be canceled by somebody who should not have been allowed to register because they were not a citizen, they stop going to the polls for that reason as well. Every legitimate voter should be able to vote. This amendment, which the House has already passed in the form of a bill one other time and needs to be included in this reform package, merely says to the States, if the States want to try this as a way to verify that, in fact, the people who are casting ballots at your election have a right to do that as American citizens, give it a try until 2001 and we will see if that produces better results.

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would help me here for a minute, figure this out, if you cannot mention the name of a Member of Congress on anything you pay for, including a postcard, within 60 days of the election, how do you alert others who feel the same way you do about an issue to contact a given Congressman who may be, a given Member of Congress who may be thinking about which way they want to vote on that issue?

Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, the amendment says that this deals solely with an issue or legislation which is or may be the subject of a vote in the Senate or House of Representatives.

Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that if we begin to say that we cannot, with a radio ad or some other communication, some instant communication, try to encourage that specific Members of the Congress be contacted, we are a long way down, I think, the wrong road.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to hear the gentleman's question.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me.

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. If I heard the previous speaker correctly, and Shays-Meehan already allows this in all probability, why do we not just be specific about it? This really just says that you can contact, you can encourage others to contact a Member of the House or a Member of the Senate during this 60-day blockout period, if in fact there is an issue before the Congress or likely to come before the Congress, and encourage that they be contacted on how they would vote. When we come back in September, everything we deal with would be in that 60-day period, where it is arguable whether you could contact, whether you could encourage the contact of a Member of Congress. I think it is probably not arguable that you could call a Member of Congress and say, we would like you to do this. It is probably not arguable that you could write your own letter. But Shays-Meehan appears to say that you cannot encourage others to do that. We have got appropriations bills that will be coming, that we will send to the Senate, others that will be coming back in conference from the Senate. Are we saying that no group could send out a postcard that says, contact your Member of Congress about this issue that is coming up next week or a specific Member of Congress and mention their name? Are we saying that nobody could send out a postcard and say, last time this issue came up, this Member of Congress voted yes, contact them and encourage them to vote no on the bill that is coming up this week? I think really this gets down to the very fundamental point of issues before the Congress at a time, if the gentleman from Michigan is correct and it is in there, what does it hurt to make it even more specific?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the words ``not including lyrics'' be added after the word ``music.''

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 25 as the designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in defense of music. I represent one of the music capitals of the world, Branson, Missouri. In Branson, we do not quote Voltaire often but if we did, we might paraphrase Voltaire by saying, ``I may not like your choice of music but I will defend to the death your right to play it.'' We may ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, what does music have to do with campaign reform? I asked that very question myself. Yet the Federal Election Commission speech police deemed background music relevant. I, like most reasonable people, do not think that the FEC has the authority or the right to decide what background music can or cannot be used in issue ads. This amendment prohibits that kind of regulatory intimidation. Now, I am not joking about this, Mr. Chairman. The FEC has a history of prosecuting on the basis of background music. For instance, in the case of Christian Action Network versus FEC, the FEC stated that background music should be a determining factor in establishing the presence of express advocacy. Thankfully, this case was dismissed and the FEC was severely castigated in court for pursuing it. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals even awarded the victims of the FEC, the Christian Action Network, attorneys' fees because the prosecution was not substantially justified. The Shays-Meehan bill is extremely vague and the expansive definition of express advocacy gives the FEC even more rope to strangle speech by private citizens and groups. Without my amendment, the FEC could again cite background music as a basis for persecution. Without my amendment, who knows what would happen if Shays-Meehan became the law of the land. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, express advocacy if I ever heard it; John Philip Souza, forget it. You would have to have a legal defense fund. Francis Scott Key in the background, you better call your lawyer. We are not just whistling Dixie with this amendment, Mr. Chairman. The FEC has already tried using background music in an enforcement action. If not for the Fourth Circuit Court, they would have gotten away with it. Do not let them try it again. It is time for the FEC to face the music, Mr. Chairman. Stand up for freedom of speech and freedom of music. Vote for this amendment. It is in tune with the first amendment.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just, again, would like to urge that we clarify this and take the FEC clearly out of this realm of expression and, in defense of music, that we add this modified amendment to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the greatness of America, in large part, depends on the goodness of its families. The course of our nation is not steered so much by media personalities, or intellectuals, or politicians, as much as it is set by husbands and wives committed to each other, to their children, and to their communities. Dr. Burl and Reba Pfander, of Springfield, Missouri, are such a couple. On September 5th, Burl and Reba will be celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary. When a young World War II veteran married his attractive bride in 1948, they made a life-long commitment to each other. In an age when many people have entered and exited marriages with startling rapidity, Burl and Reba Pfander have kept their promise. They have stood as an example of what marriage should be: a solemn commitment, a life-long partnership, and a relationship of love and honor. As a result, their marriage has enriched their own lives and the lives of their family beyond measure. The commitment of Burl and Reba to family and to the future is reflected in their son, Michael. Michael has become a veterinarian, continuing his father's private practice of thirty-eight years. Michael has gone on to form his own family; he and his wife, Jeanne, are the parents of Burl and Reba's granddaughter, Meghan Michelle. Burl and Reba Pfander have raised a son that any family would be proud of, with the type of values every son should have. The most important obligation of each generation is to pass on a set of values to the next generation. The Pfanders have met that obligation. Outside of their family, Burl and Reba's marriage has benefited an entire community. The Pfanders have been involved with local youth organization for many years. Reba has been named an honorary farmer of the Nixa, Missouri, chapter of the Future Farmers of America. Burl has supported the FFA, 4-H, and the Missouri Junior Polled Hereford Association. Both Pfanders are active members of their local church, and they serve as volunteers for community-wide events. The Pfanders have also shown a strong commitment to giving young people opportunities to advance themselves through higher education. They have endowed an annual scholarship in memory of Reba's brother, Wallace Lanz, who was killed in World War II. The scholarship is given to support local high school seniors as they enter college. Burl and Reba also counsel aspiring veterinarians about their applications to veterinary colleges. Burl and Reba Pfander understand the importance of giving back to their community. Fifty years ago, few people may have recognized the significance of the wedding of Burl Pfander to Reba Lanz, but today few people in their community can escape it. The Pfanders have remained committed to each other; they have been good parents and passed on their values to a son who has followed in his parents' path; they have been model citizens; and they have given of themselves to those around them. I am glad to give my congratulations to Dr. Burl and Reba Pfander on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

Mr. BLUNT

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