Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 303 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2744, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006. According to the rule general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution. Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The resolution authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present for consideration this open rule for the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. As with most all appropriations bills, the Committee on Rules has once again afford the entire Chamber an opportunity to offer any amendment to this legislation that complies with the rules of the House. Members of the House are permitted to come to the floor and bring forth any idea or change they wish to see in this legislation. I am pleased that rule provides a chance for all of our Members to express their views on how our Nation should prioritize spending in this area. Article 1, section 9 of the United States Constitution says, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' Our Founding Fathers established the role of the Committee on Appropriations to ensure that our Nation's spending is subject to oversight and approval by its elected representatives. The committee plays an important role in determining the wise use of taxpayer funds. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and his subcommittee for the tremendously difficult work this year in bringing the spending bill under its budget allocation. The Congressional budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to establish priorities for the coming fiscal year. It is always encouraging to see the budget and the appropriations process work together in tandem, allowing Congress to ensure that our government acts in a fiscally responsible manner. The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations has reported out a bill that provides important resources to ensure that our Nation's farmers and ranchers remain competitive in the 21st century. The legislation enhances our ability to safeguard our food supply and addresses the nutritional needs of women and children and the most disadvantaged in our country. The bill also works to maintain and build fiscal discipline. H.R. 2744 continues to fund important projects at a level consistent with fiscal year 2005, allocating nearly $17 billion plus $83 billion in total mandatory spending. At the same time, it addresses needs such as the protection of health and safety. In an effort to combat harmful pests and disease that threaten America's food supply, the Food Safety and Inspection Service funding is increased by $20 million over last year, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service activities are funded at $16 million above last year's level, for a total of $829 million. In addition, the Farm Service Agency's salaries and expenses are funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing the continued efficient delivery of farm and disaster programs that are so critical to wide swaths of our great Nation. To unlock much-needed advances in agricultural research and allow American farmers to have the tools necessary to produce a safe and wholesome food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at over $1.1 billion. Additionally, USDA's Conservation Operations activities are increased by $26 million over the President's request, which allows farmers and ranchers to achieve important conservation and environmental goals as our Nation's farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists in this country. This appropriations bill is an excellent example of how Congress can attain fiscal discipline and still fund our priorities. H.R. 2744 funds programs over the President's budget request, increasing funding in strategic areas while maintaining a funding level consistent with funding for fiscal year 2005. I am impressed with the work of the subcommittee, and I am certain the appropriations process this year will serve as a model of how we can achieve responsible and responsive funding simultaneously. Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in Florida that is among the top in the Nation in production of certain agricultural goods. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee staff for their continued commitment and attention to the needs of all of American agriculture and Florida in particular, especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes that devastated much of Florida's agriculture last summer and fall. The Committee on Appropriations' work is greatly appreciated. I also wish to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his attention and dedication to the continued needs resulting from invasive pests and diseases that are affecting a number of crops throughout our country, including citrus canker affecting our citrus industry in Florida. I know that all of America's farmers and ranchers and consumers deeply appreciate the subcommittee's tireless efforts to assist our agricultural community. I urge Members to support this fair and open rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) comments about hunger remind me of an old proverb. ``When there is food, there are many problems. When there is no food, there is only one problem.'' The gentleman speaks very passionately about that issue. It reminds me how fortunate we are that, because of the productivity of the American farmer and rancher, that Americans spend less of their disposable income on food than any other industrialized nation and our greatest threats in terms of childhood illnesses is obesity, not hunger. And I would not trade our problem for anybody else's. It is clearly a huge issue. I am proud of the work the appropriators have done in allocating $900 million through the emergency bill for those who were ravaged by the tsunami that struck southeast Asia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his comments. His passion for ending hunger in this country is laudable. This is a fair rule. It is an open rule. With the exception of those amendments that are legislating on an appropriations bill, anyone can come down here and have the opportunity to make their case for changes. So while Members have been here expressing frustrations about certain policy issues, there has been widespread agreement, including from the gentleman on the Rules Committee and including from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member of the subcommittee. There has been a general agreement of support for the underlying bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has produced. I am glad to see that type of bipartisan cooperation that has not been given the credit that is due here in Washington. This is a great bill for America's resources and for the conservation element that America's farmers and ranchers are so vital in participating in. It provides the necessary framework for disaster programs and commodity programs that allow us to continue to provide the safest, cheapest, most wholesome food supply in abundance in the world with a very small percentage of our population; and it allows us to continue to be in the forefront of technology and research and development, continuing to be on the cutting edge of having greater production, greater yields on fewer acres in the most environmentally conscious manner possible, in addition to dealing with our nutrition issues, our women, infant and children issues and school lunch programs and the other important issues for our underserved in this country. It is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I encourage this entire House to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Respecting the gentleman's right to get off his chest whatever he chooses to get off of his chest, I would point out that the appropriations process is far ahead of schedule, and we are on track to complete the program of passing the bills through the House before July 4. I would also point out our appreciation to the gentleman for his support for the bill and recognition of the hard work the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his subcommittee have put in to an outstanding agriculture appropriation bill, and appreciate the fact that, despite his misgivings about the process, he likes the work product that this committee has produced. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I am delighted to be here to talk about what is an important issue for the whole country, but it came to light in the aftermath of the hurricanes in Florida. Immediately after Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne ravaged the Sunshine State, with the help of this Congress hurricane disaster relief assistance was provided to help our State recover from those devastating storms. And while many of those who suffered damage are still waiting for FEMA recovery payments, there were a number of questionable payments that have been made as it related to funeral expenses for hurricane-related deaths. For example, the instance in Pensacola of a recovering alcoholic with cirrhosis of the liver, after Hurricane Ivan blew through town on September 16, the gentleman went on a binge ``due to misery,'' his widow told the Miami Herald. He never fully recovered and died of respiratory failure. His funeral expenses were paid by the American taxpayer. A gentleman from Palm Bay, Florida, died of lung cancer 6 days before Hurricane Frances made landfall. The gentleman was buried before the hurricane made landfall. His widow said that FEMA damage inspectors came to her home and suggested she might qualify for funeral expenses. She said that she did not think her husband's death was related to Hurricane Frances. She had her husband's funeral paid for by the American taxpayers. The Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security with a report that came out today echoed these concerns and called for two specific changes: a change that the Department should develop specific criteria and guidelines for determining if a death is disaster related, and a specific requirement that staff of FEMA provide for an analysis of each request and document the rationale for approval or disapproval of funeral-related assistance. This is an issue that is hugely important to Florida as we try to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and allow FEMA's limited resources to go to those who are truly in need. We had offered a different approach to this as it related to medical examiners. With the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), we were able to come to a resolution on the appropriate legislative language that solves this issue, and I am grateful to him for his leadership. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I want to just take that remaining time then to thank our delegation chairman, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Shaw) for his efforts on this, and all of the other related FEMA issues; and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). This is an important issue for the taxpayers, and it is important to make sure that people who are truly in need are assisted by FEMA and those who are not are not able to game the system. I appreciate the leadership of my colleagues. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend and distinguished colleague, I can certainly understand the gentlewoman's desire to read the completed conference report. I would just point out that the same-day rule was passed last night in the Committee on Rules as an accommodation to the entire House so we can facilitate the work, enable the budget conference report to be passed out of the House so that it can go to the Senate; because the Senate, apparently in need of a respite from their legislative productivity of the last several weeks, will be taking next week off. So in order to get the budget process moving and give the Federal Government and the American people a blueprint of our priorities, we wanted to move this as expeditiously as possible and out of consideration for all Members to be able to get home to their districts and have the budget conference report get to the Senate and be passed out as soon as possible. I certainly understand the gentlewoman's concern. I would like to see the conference report completed as quickly as possible. We fully expect that it will be today. The Committee on Rules will meet again where the gentlewoman and our other colleagues on the Committee on Rules will be able to consider the rule for the consideration of that conference report. As to the facts and figures in the budget, apparently they are available as we heard during the 1-minute speeches from colleagues on the gentlewoman's side of the aisle. There were a number of challenges and concerns and problems that were discussed in disagreement with the proposed budget, so I assume that some Members have managed to find the facts and figures and statistics that they are using to urge opposition to the budget. Apparently those figures are available. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply point out the gentleman making up one-third of the entire delegation to the conference committee, the ranking member has certainly been a greater participant in that conference role than members on the majority side, other than the chairman and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Mr. Speaker, I know there is some interest on the part of both parties about the schedule for today and tomorrow as it relates to consideration of the budget conference report. We are considering the same-day rule now allowing an hour of debate. We will take up the rule, and then of course be able to debate the conference report. After consulting with the majority leader, I can say with a strong level of confidence that we will not have votes tomorrow. The Committee on the Budget chairman has indicated he will have a conference report ready to file within the next hour or so, and we would hope to consider this conference report later this afternoon and conclude votes for the week by late afternoon or early evening, giving Members an opportunity to return to their districts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman is obviously very passionate about the views that he has on the direction this country should take, and I would encourage him to offer his new New Deal concept. But it is clear that his difference of opinion is about the substance of the budget, and this is a rule about the facilitation of consideration of that budget. There was not a single person from his side of the aisle that voted for this budget in committee. There was not a single person from his side of the aisle who voted for this on the floor of this House. He knows that the Senate version differs greatly from the House version, and he knows that the House version differs greatly from the President's submission. So there are three distinct visions out there that are being reconciled through this conference process that we will take up later today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, we have spent a great deal these past few years to secure our Nation in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. On 9/11, our priorities shifted because they had to, but we in Congress failed to make up for our enormous new fiscal responsibilities by reining in the growth in other parts of the budget. Over the last decade, we have increased our discretionary domestic spending programs almost across the board at double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of inflation. Even without 9/11, these rates were unsustainable. Look at this chart. Overall discretionary spending growth since 1994, not including emergency spending, a very steep line. On average, we have increased discretionary spending by just over 6 percent per year for a decade. Let us look at two areas of specific discretionary spending. Education: in the past 5 years, the Republican Congress has increased education funding by an average of 9.1 percent per year. Over this same period, spending for the Department of Education has increased almost 60 percent. In fact, aside from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education has grown faster than any other agency during this period. Despite the rhetoric about irreparable harm to children, the Education Department is well funded. Veterans: since 1995, when the Republicans took control of the Congress, total spending on veterans has increased from $38 billion to almost $68 billion. That is a 77 percent increase, compared with a 40 percent increase over the previous 10-year period. Since 1995, we have increased payments per individual veteran by an average of 103 percent. The discretionary portion of this budget continues to recognize and fund our nonsecurity domestic priorities, but does so in a way by reducing domestic nonsecurity spending by eight-tenths of a percent. It recognizes the need to get our deficit under control. That is the right thing to do. We have to stop judging success by the amount of dollars going into the program. We have to pass this responsible budget.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, all time on our side having expired, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House of what this budget is since we have heard what it is not. It accommodates the tax relief that was passed by this House on a bipartisan basis. It fully supports national defense with an increase of nearly 5 percent. Homeland security expenses are dealt with with an increase of 2.3 percent, and an overall nonsecurity, nondefense discretionary spending reduction of less than 1 point, something that, if you only heard the other side, you would believe would lead to massive chaos in the streets, the sky falling and ruin of biblical proportions. I only wonder what will be said next year. What type of analogy or metaphor will top that of this year? This is a budget that is responsible, that lays out priorities for a Nation and is one that gives a vision, a direction for the country towards cutting the deficit in half in 5 years, by dealing not just with discretionary spending but with mandatory as well, and in doing so by reducing the rate of growth. Something that is lost in this debate is that it is not even a net cut. It is only a Washington, D.C. cut when you are going up 7.3 percent instead of 7.5 percent and accused of making cuts. This is a budget that meets the needs of our national defense. It creates a climate of opportunity and growth for small businesses and individuals who are working every day to be a part of the American Dream and to achieve their goals that they have set out to achieve and take risks and seek capital and take on new employees and buy equipment. It allows them to continue to do that. It has an eye towards future generations. It is not a budget about today or about the selfishness of one generation over another, but looking ahead multiple generations and saying, how do we deal with problems that we know nonpartisan experts in these areas, the comptroller general, think tanks of all shapes and sizes and stripes say in 2040, you have a major problem in Social Security. What are you going to do for that first year, teacher? What are you going to do for that student who is graduating from high school this year who will retire years after the system has become insolvent if we fail to act? On this side you see a variety of opinions, in fact, even clashing ideas about ways to address the problem. And on the other side there is silence. The party that gave us a pillar of domestic policy is in denial about a problem that will affect future generations, and I believe that is a tragedy. This budget is a budget for today, tomorrow, and decades to come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who has been a leader in budget process reform and in fiscal discipline.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another aged and crusty Member of the House, a leader on fiscal policy, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished physician, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Committee on Rules.