Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I just rise to point out to the Members that we are here to modernize the FISA bill of 1978, and I ask Members to think about all of the changes in sophistication and accessibility of communication devices today. Think about your own e-mail, your own BlackBerry, your own cell phone, your own laptop, your own desktop, just the handful of things that are directly involved in this line of work, in any routine business in America. All of those things offer multiple avenues per device to communicate around the world in an instantaneous manner at almost no cost. Tracking that type of communication device, when it is being used by people who would fly airliners into the World Trade Center; when it is being used by people who would fly an airliner full of innocent women and children and students on field trips, and bands who have spent all year having car washes to be able to go on that trip into the center of our defense might, the symbol of our Armed Services, into the Pentagon; the kind of people who would plot to blow up 10 more airliners as recently as 5 weeks ago. Now, it seems odd to me that that is a difficult choice, that we would want not to give all the tools possible to our law enforcement and intelligence officials. The plot that was broken up in London several weeks ago reflected two things to me: one, that we are still in grave danger; that the enemy is still, to this day, 5 years after 9/11, getting up every morning, going to bed late every night thinking of ways to destroy not just the United States, not just our allies, but those who share our values, Western Civilization in general: Madrid, Spain; London, England; the Danish, because of their free speech; and the United States are just some of the most blatant examples. We are still very much in danger. That is the first lesson of the disruption of that plot. The second lesson of the disruption of that plot is that legislation that has passed in this country and in the U.K. in the 5 years since 9/ 11 worked, tearing down walls that separate discussions between intelligence gatherers and law enforcement. That legislation worked. Tracking financial transactions to be able to follow money from Hamburg to Pakistan, back to London to the ticket agent where people are about to board an airplane that they intend to blow up worked. Tracking communications among terrorists works. If a laptop is discovered in a cave in Afghanistan, and you look on their contacts list; if a cell phone is picked up in a desk drawer in a hotel in Islamabad and you look at who their frequently called numbers are, don't you think that says a lot about that person and who they are talking to? Certainly if you look at your own it says an awful lot about you, who your friends are, who your stockbroker is, what your wife's cell phone number is. Look at your own device. And we use that same common sense, that same investigative approach to the terrorists. So when we look at the laptop or when we look at the cell phone in Islamabad or London or Hamburg or New York and there are numbers on there from a known al Qaeda operative to someone in the United States, we ought to be on that number as quickly as possible. Anything else is an assault on common sense. We must move as quickly, as efficiently as possible, using every technology at our disposal to prevent terrorist attacks, to disrupt terrorist attacks, and to bring to justice the people who are planning them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is my desire to bring this focus back to the issue at hand and bring something of a commonsense approach to this. We are trying to modernize the FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Since 1978, there has been a technology revolution in communications: the Internet, cell phones, laptops, desktops for under $500, immediate, rapid, global, affordable communications on demand, satellite phones, GPS for $99. The bottom line is the terrorists can communicate, conspire, organize, recruit and train on a global basis from any spider hole, cave or clubhouse anywhere in the world. We have to modernize the legislation that allows our intelligence agencies and our law enforcement officials to track down those bad guys, not after they have blown up the World Trade Center or after they have flown a plane into the Pentagon, but before they do those things. In other words, a September 12th mentality, as opposed to a September 10th mentality, the idea that we have to recommit ourselves to the notion that we are very much at war and that we are very much in grave danger by these radicals who have at their disposal all the tools that modern technology can provide and we are arming our law enforcement officials with 25-year-old authority. To change that, to bring us out of the copper wire telephone world into the wireless, cellular satellite world, we have to pass this legislation. By passing this legislation, we can be assured that we are giving them everything that they need to disrupt terror attacks on our soil. It seems to me to be a no-brainer that we should give them the tools to listen to anyone who is in regular communication with a member of al Qaeda, to anyone who is in regular communication with someone whose laptop is seized in a cave in Afghanistan after a firefight with allied forces, whose records are found in the desk drawer of a hotel in Hamburg that has been traced to be money laundering through Pakistan, through the European Union, through London, to set up cells in the United States, to buy airplane tickets, to send people to flight school. Those are the tools that we have to give our law enforcement officials and intelligence agencies, just like the tools that we gave them when we tore down the walls that separated them and prevented them from communicating, just like the tools we gave them to track the movement of money that the terrorists were handling and these nation states who fund the terrorists were handling. Those are the tools that we give to reflect the nature of this global war on terror and to reflect the realities of modern communication technologies. It is vitally important that we pass this bill. To pass the bill, we have to pass this rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question for H. Res.--H.R. 5825--Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act At the end of the resolution add the following new Sections: Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provisions in this resolution and without intervention of any point of order it shall be in order immediately upon adoption of this resolution for the House to consider the bill listed in Sec. : Sec. . The bills referred to in Sec. . are as follows: 1) a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 434 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Much has been made about the role of Florida in this debate because Florida has been offered a tremendous opportunity to participate in this debate as a result of the leadership of Mr. Pombo and Mr. Jindal. There are things about this bill that give Florida protections she does not enjoy today. Currently, the entire east coast of Florida is unprotected. This bill protects it. Currently, the Keys are completely unprotected. This bill protects them. There are those who say that 100 miles is too close, who also cosponsored a bill in 1997 that would have allowed it right at 100 miles. There are those who say that the legislature shouldn't have a say in what their State does or does not do, who proudly served in the legislature, many times in leadership positions. This is not a perfect bill. No bill that ever leaves here and heads to conference is. But it gives Florida protections she does not now enjoy. It gives Floridians control over Florida's coasts, where the chances of Florida having Florida's future in Florida's hands are 100 percent as opposed to what they are in this Congress, where they make up 25 out of 435. It gives Floridians concrete proof, written-in-stone protection from our Department of Defense and the military mission line, thanks to the leadership of Mr. Young and Mr. Miller working with the committee to insert into this bill, along with Mr. Boyd, the definition of that military mission line, which now further aligns this House bill with our two Florida Senators' proposal. This is a huge step forward from where we are. And the bottom line in this debate is that if we do nothing, unlike most other issues that come before this House, if we do nothing, bad things do happen. Because the moratorium that Floridians have slept under the protection of for the last 25 years begins to expire as soon as 2007, and it continues on in the expiration into 2012 when drilling will be far closer to our coast than anyone wants in this Chamber. So I commend the gentleman for his leadership. I urge people to support the bill, I urge them to give every consideration to the Bilirakis amendment, and let us move this thing forward.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Florida, a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees, Mr. Crenshaw.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 886 is the rule that provides for debate of H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, the two committees of jurisdiction for the underlying legislation, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for our consideration. The Legislative Line Item Veto Act is the product of years of work on both sides of the aisle in Congress and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The original Line Item Veto Act was signed into law in April of 1996. It was later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its 1998 ruling on Clinton v. The City of New York. In each Congress since 1998, there have been multiple proposals from both parties to give the President constitutional line item veto authority. In his State of the Union address this year, President Bush stated: ``I am pleased that Members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the Federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together if you pass the line item veto.'' This subtle, but powerful, statement gave momentum to the effort to consider a constitutional option to the original Line Item Veto Act. The statement was followed up by an official message from the President to Congress in which he specifically asked Congress to consider his proposed Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, which was subsequently introduced by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. This legislation is based on an expedited rescissions approach to controlling spending that has been historically supported by both Democrats and Republicans as a means of bringing greater transparency and accountability to the budget and spending process. In fact, during the early 1990s, and again in 2004, expedited rescissions proposals that would have provided the President with the ability to propose the cancellation of spending items and special interest tax breaks and have them considered by Congress on an expedited basis were widely supported by Members of both parties. The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1993 was introduced by the ranking member, the Democratic leader on the Budget Committee, and received 258 votes on the House floor, including 174 Democrats. The Expedited Rescissions Act of 1994, another bill sponsored by the ranking member on the Budget Committee, received 342 votes on the House floor, including 173 Democrats. In 2004, the Ryan- Stenholm bipartisan Expedited Rescissions amendment received 174 votes on the floor, including 45 Democrats, one of which was the ranking Budget Committee member. The current version of H.R. 4890 is also the product of that bipartisan effort. Based on input from Members from both sides of the aisle, it is narrowly drafted to meet the intent of allowing the President to work with the Congress to reduce wasteful spending, while preserving the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. This legislative line item veto ensures that the power of the purse remains in the hands of Congress, where our Founding Fathers placed it and intended it to remain. Both the House and the Senate must affirm the President's vetoed spending. We will vote on any items the President selects. Congress maintains the final say on where and how and if the funding in question occurs. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan, the Budget Committee, and the Rules Committee for creating legislation that will enable this Congress to maintain control of our spending priorities at both the beginning and the end of the budget process. This legislation is another example of the Republican-led Congress and our President pushing forward with fiscal discipline. I urge members to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 886 and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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, I would just remind my friend that on the three previous occasions there has been an opportunity to vote on this issue, 173 Democrats one time, 173 Democrats another time and 45 Democrats at another time all joined the cast members at his theater. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Tennessee I am sure he did not mean to impugn or personalize the debate against any given chairman in this Chamber. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt). (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a leader on our Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker, and I would inform my friend from Florida that I have no further speakers and we prepared to close as well.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, this has been an important debate. It has been a good debate about an issue that has been around for a long time, and it has been around under a variety of iterations, the first version having been found unconstitutional, as my friend from Florida pointed out, and read to us from the Constitution. But because of that, the sponsor of this bill has adjusted it so that it is written in a constitutional form, and it is written in a constitutional form because it leaves the power of the purse in the hands of Congress, as the gentleman pointed out in article I of the Constitution. It says that we have yet another resource for the President and the Congress to work together to eliminate wasteful spending which we all know exists in this town, but it says that the final say-so rests with the Congress, so the final power of the purse remains in the legislative branch, a very important point. My friend also overlooks the fact that in these different versions that have been around and most recently have been around in almost identical form to what we are hearing and debating today, there has been support for the Democratic-sponsored version of 174 Democrats when President Clinton was the one who would get the line item veto; in 1994, under the sponsorship of a Democrat, 173 Democrats supporting; in 2004, a bipartisan-sponsored bill, 45 Democrats supporting. Apparently there was a change of heart depending on who the President was in office, whether there was Democratic support for the line item veto; 174 votes for the line item veto when President Clinton was in office, only 45 when President Bush was in office. But be that as it may, this remains a bipartisan issue. It is an institutional issue. And this effort is carefully crafted to protect this institution, this legislative branch, so that the power of the purse rests with us; but we have expanded the ability to root out wasteful spending. This is an important issue. I urge the House to adopt the rule and adopt the underlying bill.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of American efforts to rid the world of terrorism and help democracy take root in a region long controlled by hostile dictators and murderous regimes. All around the world we are working to eradicate terrorists and their organizations. Iraq has emerged as a central battlefield of this war, a battlefield where Saddam was captured in a hole and is now in jail, where Zarqawi met his demise, and where insurgents and jihadists are fighting and losing to the might and skill of coalition forces. Most importantly, it is a battlefield far, far from the shores, schools, neighborhoods, and cities of America. I recently traveled to Iraq with our Speaker and was able to meet with the Prime Minister and other key government officials, as well as our U.S. commanders overseeing the operations. I was impressed by what I saw, but I was more impressed by what I heard from the servicemen and women themselves. Morale is high, and they are confident in the success of this mission. Iraqi citizens have embraced freedom and have now voted in three national elections, each garnering wider and broader support. Iraq now has a constitution, a parliament, a president, a prime minister and a fully formed cabinet. What is more, this new government reflects a broad ethic and sectarian balance, a balance that will help ensure the needs and voices of all Iraqis are represented. Ultimately, it is that freely elected government that is the most important success of this effort, elected leaders who are Iraqi first, and all other identities second, interested, invested in the future of their own country, of their own people. These Iraqi founding fathers face great challenges, no doubt. But what opportunity is more powerful than freedom from tyranny? We must remain committed through patience and hard work to help this new government succeed. I support this resolution. I support the rule that is allowing this resolution to come forward and the manner in which it was created. And I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important affirmation of the hard work of America's servicemen and women.