« Blogging The State Of The Union | Main | The Split Political Personalities Of Blogs »

Leadership Race: An Interview With Roy Blunt

House Republicans will meet Thursday to elect a new majority leader. Beltway Blogroll requested e-mail interviews with all three candidates in advance of the vote, and Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the current majority whip and frontrunner in the race, was the first to submit his answers.

The interview with Blunt is below. The interviews with the other two candidates, John Boehner of Ohio and John Shadegg of Arizona, will be posted as they are received:

Beltway Blogroll: Washington is embroiled in a lobbying scandal right now. What impact do you expect that to have within Congress and on Republicans in the House in particular? What electoral impact will the scandal have? In other words, would your reign as majority leader be a short one?

Roy Blunt: In 1995 House Republicans took the majority by focusing on reforming the way government does business, and 2005 was no different. We had a banner year legislatively, ranging from securing our borders to extending tax relief. I'm proud of House Republicans' accomplishments. We've led with bold initiatives -- not by reacting to the news of the day. Our successful agenda is built around our core philosophy of limited government that promotes entrepreneurs, encourages job growth, defends the family and secures our country. While I acknowledge that we will have to take steps to regain Americans' trust, this scandal does not define us. The best thing we can do to regain that trust is to finish the work we've begun by staying focused on our agenda.

There is no question that the issue of a few bad actors who did not abide by the laws or any prevailing ethical standard have drawn attention to a situation that requires another look.

BB: Are there too many lobbyists in Washington? Do they have too much influence on Capitol Hill? What lobbying reforms would you advocate as majority leader?

RB: There are some very specific problems that require a tough, but common-sense, approach to reforming the current system. My proposal includes:

-- Applicability of the rules to lobbyists. Apply the congressional gift ban to lobbyists and impose penalties for lobbyists who violate the rules. Right now there are no penalties for lobbyists for breaking the gift rules.

-- Disclosure and transparency. Require more timely disclosure of lobbying expenditures, including all expenditures covered under the gift rules.

-- Expand disclosure requirements. Unlike corporations, tribal employees who lobby Congress are not required to file a lobbying disclosure form. They should be subject to the same rules as corporate lobbyists.

-- Restrict tribal donations. Since most tribes are not incorporated, they may make contributions in federal elections directly from their tribal funds, without establishing a PAC. This facilitates the ability of tribes to make contributions and enables them to make contributions from the income they receive from tribal businesses. Tribes should not be treated differently than corporations.

-- Shadow political organizations. Subject 527s to the same limits as PACs.

-- Private travel. Prohibit privately funded travel for members [of Congress] and staff, or at a minimum require that such travel be pre-approved.

BB: What involvement have you had with the GOP's K Street Project, and what would become of it under a Blunt majority leadership?

RB: I have not been involved with the K Street Project.

BB: On a personal level, were you aware at the time (March 2004) that your former chief of staff and close friend Gregg Hartley secured a position for Jack Abramoff at Hartley's lobbying firm after the initial story came out about Abramoff's bilking of Indian tribes? And now what do you think of Hartley's securing a soft landing for Abramoff?

RB: Gregg Hartley is a close friend, but he does not discuss management of his firm with me, and I don't weigh in on his personnel decisions.

BB: What are your thoughts on some of the "institutional reforms" that have been proposed? Specifically what about the use of conference reports to include/exclude language, late-night votes, and bills going to the floor that have not been viewed by members?

RB: My agenda for institutional reform includes:

-- No new government programs. Adopt a policy prohibiting consideration of legislation creating any new government program with a net cost unless the cost of the program is offset by the elimination or reduction of an existing program.

-- Annual spending reconciliations. Adopt a policy that the House will pursue a spending-reduction reconciliation bill as part of each year's annual budget.

-- Emergency reserve fund. Begin budgeting for emergency spending, such as natural disasters, by including an emergency reserve fund in the annual budget.

-- Sunset review. I am a long-time supporter of Rep. [Kevin] Brady's proposal to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs through a sunset review commission. It would be my intent to bring that plan to the floor this year.

BB: Given the political importance of spending earmarks to members, how much can you really curb them? And will you deny them (take them out of bills) to the appropriators who put them in?

RB: While we all acknowledge that there have been wasteful and inappropriate earmarks, I continue to believe that directing funds to carry out projects that serve a legitimate public purpose is an important function of representatives in Congress. If funds were not earmarked for a specific project but instead simply allocated to a big government program (under which they are earmarked), they would still be spent -- at the discretion of administration bureaucrats who don't have the same insight into the needs of an area that a member of Congress has.

This practice often results in the same wasteful and inappropriate spending, such as the $700,000 EPA grant that was made without any knowledge of the work the recipient would perform, or the $1 million that was spent by the National Institutes of Mental Health to attempt to discover "what makes a meaningful day."

We must seek to eliminate wasteful spending wherever it occurs. That is why I am proposing that the House consider reforming both the earmark process and the grant-making process. Specifically, on the issue of earmark reform, I propose requiring that for each earmark included in a bill, the following be disclosed:
-- The member requesting the earmark;
-- The name and address of the recipient;
-- And a brief statement explaining how the earmarked funds will be used to carry out the purpose of the program under which the earmark is made.

On government grant reform, the administration should be required to develop and maintain a publicly accessible central database providing the following information:
-- The name and address of the recipient of each government grant;
-- The total amount of grants received by an entity from all government agencies;
-- And a brief statement explaining how the government funds will be used to carry out the purpose of the program under which the grant is made.

BB: What is your view of the recent practice of annual, automatic cost-of-living adjustments for members of Congress? Have you accepted those raises, and if so, why? Would you push legislation to end that practice and to require up-or-down votes on pay raises?

RB: I have supported cost-of-living adjustments for all federal employees, and that does include members of Congress.

BB: What would your legislative priorities be as majority leader in 2006?

RB: We must extend tax relief that has already been enacted and ensure that there are no automatic tax increases on families or entrepreneurs in the future. We must also address rising health and energy costs that threaten our economic progress. Health savings accounts should be expanded through additional incentives; medical malpractice laws must be reformed and health insurance made more portable.

We must also reform the earmark and federal grant-making processes. Specifically, members must be accountable for the requests they make for funding in their districts. Earmarks must be identified with the member who is requesting them, and they must be accompanied by a justification for how the expenditure serves a public purpose. This scrutiny should also be applied to grants made by federal agencies by creating a public database of all those receiving grants along with a thorough explanation of how the grant fulfills the public interest.

I look forward to implementing our aggressive agenda to limit the size of government and grow our economy by putting more control back in the hands of families and entrepreneurs, and by enacting new lobbying reforms, which I've already outlined, and enhancing penalties for those who break the public trust.

BB: What is your view of the controversy over eavesdropping on Americans? As majority leader, would you seek changes in the law to limit such activities?

RB: I agree with the president. This practice should be re-termed a "terrorist surveillance program." I support any actions that are designed to keep Americans safe from terrorists.

BB: Cellular privacy is in the news, with reports that people's calling records can be purchased easily online. What would you advocate as majority leader to address privacy concerns involving that practice?

RB: I hope to take up legislation early in 2006 that protects the privacy of cell-phone users, and ensures that the necessary legal authority and resources are in place to punish those who attempt to sell or otherwise distribute an individual's calling records.

BB: What are your political priorities as a leader of the Republican Party headed into a mid-term election? If elected as majority leader, what three to four specific ideas for increasing the GOP majority would you offer to National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds?

RB: Chairman Reynolds does a great job and certainly doesn't need my advice, but we all do need to work together to help him retain and grow our Republican majority in the House. Because there are significant and legitimate differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to issues like national security, tax and spending policies, and protecting the family, it would be my goal as leader to ensure that we had votes on the floor that highlighted those differences.

BB: What role should moderates play in the Republican Conference? In your service as chief deputy whip and majority whip, describe your work with the moderate and conservative wings of the party on hot-button issues like tax cuts.

RB: Every member is an important part of our Republican Conference, and I'm committed to talking and working with each one. Moderates and conservatives have much more in common than they disagree on when it comes to our agenda.

As whip, I have made it my job to know our members better than anyone else, and have listened and worked with moderates and conservatives alike to identify how we move forward on our agenda and resolve any differences within our conference. The success of our conference in working together was best demonstrated at the end of last year, as we passed both spending and tax reconciliation bills on the strength of Republican votes.

BB: In National Journal magazine this month, I had a piece on the growing influence of blogs within Washington. What is your assessment of their influence?

RB: This leadership race is the first in the age of the blogs, which are one of the best ways for people who are interested in the race on the outside to follow developments. It's exciting to see what pundits and political observers are saying, but it's important to keep in mind that at the end of the day this is a unique election in which only members get to cast a vote for leader. That's why I've focused my time and energy on listening to my fellow members' ideas and sharing my ideas with them about where to lead us.

BB: What blogs do you read regularly? How would you reach out to bloggers as majority leader? Would you start a blog as majority leader? If so, how would you use it? If not, why not?

RB: The blogs are having quite an impact on this leadership race. It has been really interesting to read the rapid coverage and feedback on the race and politics in general.

I already began an open dialogue with the bloggers with my first bloggers' conference call a few days ago. If I'm elected majority leader, I'll continue that regular interaction, as I already do with reporters who cover the Capitol in a weekly pen-and-pad session.

I am working on redesigning my Web site now, so any new site will have a blog component so I can update readers constantly on what is happening on the Hill.

Posted by | 08:34 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://amcblog.nationaljournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/468

Comments

Post a Comment