Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me some time. It is interesting to hear the comments of the distinguished minority whip and minority leader. But I am curious about something. I am curious how such a great party and the party that gave birth to some of the pillars of domestic policy in this country, has become the party of denial, the party of doing nothing. When it comes to discussing Social Security reform, their answer is, do nothing. We have until 2040 or 2041. When it came time to reform Medicare and even enrich and modernize the benefits available for seniors, their answer was vote against it. Do nothing. And here today we are discussing a third pillar of domestic policy in this country that helps enrich the lives and provides a safety net for so many of those who are less fortunate in our society, and to put forward a reform proposal, and their answer is to do nothing. Governor Mark Sanford, the Governor of the State of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, said the subject of Medicaid reform is important and timely. Our system, as currently configured, works fundamentally against the taxpayer and against the consumers in the form of Medicaid recipients and patients. Governor Blunt of Missouri and Governor Granholm of Michigan agreed that the program is unsustainable. Governor Vilsack of Iowa: ``If you do the numbers, they just do not add up.'' The South Dakota Governor, opening the legislative session, bemoaned the dramatic increases in how they are cutting into available funds for other folk, for other programs, and pointed out that the State health care program is growing at a 2 percent rate and Medicaid is going up at 18 percent, something that is unsustainable. The Governors, on a bipartisan basis, have already, after this subject just coming forward weeks ago under the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and the Budget Committee, have already developed a plan that generates nearly $9 billion in savings, and that is the first draft. How is it that the great party that stood for great opportunities to help those in need has gone into denial and said, we will not change a thing. Everyone agrees the rate is unsustainable. Everyone agrees the costs are eating up State budgets. Everyone agrees that there is tremendous opportunity for savings that can then benefit other important programs; but our answer is to do nothing, or to outsource the job to a commission. And if the pattern holds, when the commission, if it is appointed, comes back with their findings, they will besmirch the reputation of the members of that commission, particularly those from their own party who were selected in one form or another by the President or by the Congress. That is what happened with the Social Security Commission and the distinguished Senator Moynihan. Why would this be any different? Why would the party that is so responsible for originating these grand ideas be so irresponsible about making them relevant to people of my generation or the distinguished gentlelady from South Dakota's generation? Why is that? Why would you outsource the responsibility to provide a solution? It is an important step that the House Budget Committee took in directing the Energy and Commerce Committee to take a hard look at these programs and find savings. It did not specify where they would come from. It did not tell them how to do their job. It directed them to take a hard look at where 55 percent of our budget today is going in the form of mandatory spending. And a huge part of that is in the Medicaid program. I would encourage all of us to agree that there is a problem and move forward with some commonsense reforms that include saving the taxpayers money when possible.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am proud to be a part of the Committee on Rules, which reported out a very balanced rule that allows both sides to be heard on this issue. The interesting thing about this issue is that there is agreement that the death tax should go away. There is disagreement about the numbers and the number of people for whom it should go away, our side believing that it should be totally repealed, the other side believing that there are a certain number of people who should be exempt from paying this. It is good to see that we have finally come together to recognize that the death tax is a killer for small businesses and family farms and ranches. I am glad that that is a bipartisan agreement, and I am glad that this rule reflects that. A wise man once joked that there is always death and taxes, but death does not get worse every year. With the death tax in place, that is not true. Each year that passes, many family-owned farms and businesses are subject to this tax. It is fundamentally unfair that death is a taxable event. Taxes have already been paid on the assets subject to the taxation under the death tax during the lifetime of the owners. It amounts to a second bite of the apple for the government. With the repeal of the tax, more small businesses and farms will stay in the hands of those families. Currently, the death tax is a leading cause of dissolution. And we see this all the time in agriculture, that when the grandparents die they have to sell off a portion of the land so that the government gets their share so that they break up the very asset that made that farm what it was. They eliminate the opportunity for that next generation to participate even though they worked on it themselves, growing up, paying their way through school, helping to support all of the family efforts. That is a great cause of the loss of rural communities and small-time agriculture in this country, and I think that we can all agree that that is a shameful loss to our Nation. They form the backbone of our rural heritage. The death tax is a virtue tax in the sense that it penalizes work, penalizes savings and thrift in favor of large-scale consumption. In other words, if those same families had sold off everything and spent it, then they would not be subject to the death tax. But the fact that they made a decision to hold something, to build it, to grow it so that their children and grandchildren might have a farm to continue to cultivate the bread basket for the world in, then they are taxed. Where is the fairness in that? Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to the third generation. Unquestionably, the death tax plays a tremendous part in that statistic. This is especially true of businesses that are land- rich and cash-poor. That is what we call it in the South, Mr. Speaker, where you have all of your assets tied up in things. You cannot afford a brand-new car, you cannot afford a brand-new tractor, you cannot afford all the nicer things; but yet on paper you are quite wealthy, because you purchased land, you gave value to that land as time passes. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we adopt the rule and continue forward with the repeal of this scurrilous tax on death.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise with great respect for the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and in agreement, frankly, with his final comments about this, his alternative to our budget, laying out a different approach, a different set of priorities for this Nation, and that is the beauty of this deliberative body. Frankly, it was the beauty of the fairness of the rule I believe that was crafted that allowed four separate approaches, four separate sets of priorities in budgeting to be debated and considered on this House floor. But I must strongly oppose the Obey amendment. It authorizes higher, uncontrolled spending, while at the same time cutting national defense in a time when our soldiers and sailors and Marines and airmen and Guardsmen and Reservists are engaged all around the world, an unacceptable notion. In addition to cutting our spending on national defense, it raises taxes by an estimated $18 billion for the next fiscal year. It does increase education spending by $8 billion. It increases veterans spending and health care spending as well, but I would add that in a time when we are engaged in an unprecedented war on terror and waging a separate effort against growing budget deficits, that the level of growth laid out by the House Committee on the Budget's spending plan meets our national priorities, continues our commitment to veterans and education. The Department of Education under the House budgets for the last 10 years, the Department of Education's spending has gone up 146 percent over the last decade. It is hard to argue that is an inadequate rate of growth. Veterans spending continues to grow. Investments in IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act have gone up dramatically higher than in the previous 10 years under a different management of this House. This budget resolution that comes out of the House committee sets these priorities moving our Nation forward and protecting our homeland, investing in homeland security, investing in national defense and in our personnel who are in harm's way, and it maintains those policies of pro-growth that allows our economy to expand, that allows small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses to operate in a climate where they want to grow and hire employees and continue to open up new markets around the world, giving Americans new opportunities to move products and giving Americans the opportunity to achieve the American dream. Congress has addressed extraordinary spending demands in the last several years. They bring us face to face with the reality that it is an unsustainable rate of spending growth, one that must be slowed. Last year's projected deficit was $521 billion, but we ended the year with a deficit of $412 billion, reducing that deficit by 20 percent. Although that number is staggeringly high, admittedly, this House-passed budget, the committee-passed budget, puts us on track to cut that deficit in half in 5 years. In doing so it makes some tough decisions, which is what we are paid to do around here. It requires us to prioritize and make tradeoffs while ensuring that those highest priorities are fully funded and met, and in the House budget we identify that highest priority as being national security and homeland security. This amendment, the amendment we are debating today, cuts defense spending and we find that to be unacceptable in today's climate. The budget slows the growth of mandatory spending by 0.1 percent over 5 years, from its current rate of 6.4 percent to 6.3 percent. I think that is an important fact. While we spend an awful lot of time in this Chamber talking about cuts, what we are doing is slowing the rate of growth. If someone were to offer workers a 6.3 percent pay raise, it would be a pretty good deal. The fact that these programs continue to grow at 6.3 rather than 6.4 percent is not throwing starving children into the streets. It is not taking food out of seniors' mouths. It is not wrecking our ability to be a compassionate and decent society, it is simply recognizing the simple fact that we cannot maintain the dramatic rates of growth we have been engaged in for the past decade and solve the deficit problem. This budget resolution continues to make homeland and national security major priorities. Since September 11, Congress has spent nearly $1.9 trillion to provide for defense and homeland security, not including supplementals. Like last year's budget, this plan takes into account funding for the ongoing war in Iraq. The resolution budgets $50 billion to provide for the ongoing war against terrorism. The national defense budget continues the multiyear plan to enable our Armed Services both to fight the war against terrorism now and to transform itself to counter unconventional threats in the future. It fully accommodates the President's request for defense. Mr. Chairman, the last time we made any real effort to rein in spending, that piece of spending in our budget that makes up 55 percent of the budget, was in 1997. That 55 percent is what we call mandatory spending. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is very familiar with this. As an appropriator, he has seen his share of the budget in discretionary shrink over time, and it will continue to without us making important reforms on the mandatory side of the ledger. This budget, again for the first time since 1997, instructs the authorizing committees, those committees with the greatest expertise in their areas of jurisdiction, through the reconciliation process to find $7.8 billion in savings for next year and $68.6 billion in savings over the next 5 years. What that means is we are putting the people who understand these policy areas best, we are putting them on the trail to find out the ways to help make those programs be the most effective and the most efficient. They know best the successes and failures in the myriad of government programs that are now on autopilot through the mandatory spending process. It is estimated that if mandatory spending grows at its current pace, by 2015 it will consume 62 percent of the Federal government. I think it is an important piece of our budget that we begin the process of mandatory spending reform. That reform happens through the reconciliation process. A number of the President's key initiatives supported in this budget include $40 billion for homeland security outside the Department of Defense; an additional $2.5 billion for Project BioShield to secure new vaccines against smallpox, anthrax and other deadly bioterrorist threats. These funds follow on the heels of massive increases over the past several years to make sure our Nation is prepared to deal with the terrorist threats we know are out there. I support our budget. It is an important, thoughtful, prioritized budget that makes some tough decisions. I appreciate the gentleman's right to offer an alternative vision. That is what this is. This is a clash of visions, a clash of priorities that our Nation faces. Do we grow our way out of the deficit by fostering a climate that encourages people to find work and start businesses and grow existing businesses, or do we take the approach that we should tax our way out of the deficits? Do we fund our priorities? And what are our highest priorities? Our approach is our highest priority in a time of war is national defense, and our high priority in a time of increased threats from terrorism is homeland security. We believe that it is important to follow the lead of other Presidents, other administrations, other Congresses that have found themselves budgeting in a time of war to make necessary trade-offs. The New Deal agencies when World War II came about did not continue to receive the same level of funding. In fact, it was President Roosevelt himself who curtailed and even eliminated a number of the agencies he created. We recognize in our budget that we cannot continue to spend on the domestic side as aggressively as we had at a time of peace when we are at war, and to that end we call for a 0.8 percent reduction in nonsecurity domestic discretionary spending. While it is an important first step and it has not been done since the Reagan administration, it will hardly cause starvation and pandemonium in the streets at a 0.8 percent reduction. Nor will the directed reconciliation process to the authorizing committees do the same. We make some tough choices. We admit that. We lay out our priorities, and we proudly defend them. And those priorities include investing in defense, caring for those most in need and creating an economic climate that allows people to succeed without raising the burden of taxation on them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member's suggestion that if we disagree we should vote against it, and I assure him that we shall. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the newest member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman is right. It is simple. His amendment is not a complete substitute for our budget. It is simply reducing the amount of growth in defense, as he clarified for us, and increasing taxes. He points out the eight-tenths of 1 percent reduction in nonsecurity domestic discretionary spending. Does the gentleman believe that in amongst the stacks of GAO reports that come across his desk as the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, our desk in the Committee on the Budget, that there is not eight-tenths of 1 percent? Eight-tenths of 1 percent in one's personal budget they lose on diet Cokes on the way to work every morning. Eight-tenths of 1 percent cannot be found in negotiating a better deal on computer equipment, office supplies, travel, increased financial accounting? Spending for education, one that he pointed out specifically, has gone up 146 percent over the last 10 years, and now we are talking about shaving eight-tenths of 1 percent off. Pell grants, the President calls for them to go up. Our budget would allow for that. Fees for veterans are not even budgeted for in this. While the gentleman rightly pointed out the President's budget, the President's budget is not up for debate today, and this budget that the House will vote on later does not call for fees on our veterans. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment and support for the underlying House budget.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the Spratt amendment. I respect the ranking member and the work that he has put into the Budget Committee, but I have to clarify a number of points that have been made by the prior speaker. This budget goes a long way toward laying out priorities for this Nation. We have through this process been afforded the opportunity to see a variety of different sets of priorities. Members have had the opportunity to vote on four different blueprints for this Nation, across the ideological and political spectrum. I think that is a healthy thing. I do not think that happens enough in this House where we have good solid debate like this. The differences amongst those priorities, though, are stark. Our budget lays out a blueprint that invests in defense and invests in homeland security, two things that we find to be most urgent at a time when our Nation has come under attack recently and where we are engaged in conflict against terrorism around the world. We create in this budget blueprint an opportunity for policies to move forward that create jobs, that allow for continued economic expansion, that allow us to build upon the fact that homeownership is at its highest rate ever, that Americans are enjoying a lower tax burden that allows them to make decisions about their children's higher education, about their small business, about their opportunity to carve out their piece of the American Dream. It does not raise taxes on those same small business men and women who are taxed at the individual rate because they are an S corporation, because they are a small business, because they are the neighborhood barber or diner or farmer. We lay out a policy that also calls for fiscal restraint, and we balance the approach to fiscal restraint on both the discretionary side of the ledger and the mandatory side of the ledger. For those who are uninformed about Washingtonese, the mandatory side of the ledger now consumes over half of the Federal budget and soon will consume over two-thirds. It is on automatic pilot. You cannot get your arms around the deficit without tackling mandatory spending. Our side knows that. The other side knows that. You cannot be serious about budget reform without simultaneously addressing discretionary spending and mandatory spending. We do that. We shave the rate of growth by one-tenth of 1 percent. Yet the New Testament is invoked on a regular basis from the other side's talking points to claim that there will be blood in the streets, that there will be mass pandemonium and starvation because one-tenth of 1 percent of mandatory spending's rate of growth has been shaven off. On the discretionary side, we bring eight-tenths of a percent cut to programs that have experienced double-digit increases over the last decade. You cannot look at the spending history of this House and this Congress' budget in veterans, in students with disabilities, in HUD, in education, in homeland security and defense and find anyone who has experienced real pain or real cuts in the last decade. There have been substantial increases. Our budget lays out that priority, investing in defense, creating economic opportunity and beginning that long process of making tough decisions, the decisions we are paid to make to get our arms around the deficit so that future generations are not burdened and that the current generation, current workers, current employers, current small businesses are not seeing their tax burden go up. Vote for the underlying House budget and defeat the Spratt amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I look forward to that constructive effort because we share that passion that those 55 and older, those at or near retirement, will not be impacted. But by golly, we have got an obligation to those people who are under 35 or under 45 or whatever number we finally arrive at, people who have time to plan and people who know, and all of us know, of all stripes, that there will be a problem in either 2040 or 2041 or 2042. We can argue over months and weeks all day long, but the point is we are not doing anything to take care of that first-year teacher, that first-year firefighter, that first-year soldier that all of us stand up on a regular basis and claim to speak for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would respectfully request that the gentleman give us the page number and paragraph of this budget blueprint that cuts the Witness Protection Program. As the gentleman knows, the budget document is a broad blueprint for spending that directs the authorizing committees, those committees of members who have developed expertise in their areas, to find savings through reconciliation instructions. It allows Members like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on the Committee on Ways and Means to best formulate those revenue measures that avoid AMT taxing; that allows members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to deal with the issues facing Medicaid program, which all of the Governors acknowledge is swallowing up State budgets; that allows the Committee on Agriculture to fund within their committee's jurisdiction those savings in a variety of programs. This budget blueprint is a sound document that sets the course for our Congress and for our Nation for the coming year; and the cuts that the gentleman refers to are reductions in the rate of growth in those programs, with the exception of the reconciliation instructions, which are a remarkable and historic first step to this Congress restraining spending and funding priorities and simultaneously getting our arms around the deficit that both parties are understandably concerned about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The untrained observer would believe that we were debating a Social Security bill here this afternoon. In fact, it is the rule on the budget blueprint for this country for fiscal year 2006, a budget blueprint that does a number of things important to the American people. It puts our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines and Coast Guard and Reservists and Guardsmen foremost, fully funding the President's defense request, budgeting for the continued global war on terror to the tune of $50 billion; prioritizing, even making tough divisions, something that we are loathe to do often in this process, but it is what we are here for, making tough decisions about priorities, priorities in government, priorities in households, priorities in our individual lives, something every American is accustomed to. It continues to invest heavily in our Nation's defense and homeland security. But it also recognizes that these challenges that have come about since 2001 have also required us as a Nation to make some tradeoffs. And so for the first time since the Reagan administration, it calls for an eight-tenths of a percent reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending. It directs the authorizing committees to find savings on the mandatory side of spending, discretionary being just over a third of the budget anymore; mandatory nearing two thirds, essentially on auto pilot. So a balanced approach to finding savings in our government such that we may begin to get our arms around the deficits and cut the deficit in half in 5 years so that we do not shoulder young people just entering the workforce, school-age children, children not yet born with these massive debts. We begin the difficult process of fiscal restraint, something that is anathema to this body oftentimes, all too often. It has been said in the context of the Social Security debate that the other side does not believe the solution to solving Social Security's problems is to privatize it. We do not believe the solution to Social Security's problems is to do nothing. We have led with our chin on this issue, and I am very proud of that effort; and I am proud of the manner in which we have conducted this debate because it will undoubtedly be an extensive debate occupying a good part of the 109th Congress. It is an opportunity for this Congress to lead, to lead the American people to an understanding of an issue that is at a total insolvency point occurring in 2042, but its impacts on the Federal budget beginning as soon as 2008. And as a young person who will be impacted by that, it gives us an opportunity to look beyond the short term and be truly visionary in the great ways that this Congress is capable of being. We have done a lot of great things over the past several years: doubling NIH, continuing to invest in research and cures and trials to make the human condition better. And, frankly, we have succeeded to the point that the reason why Social Security faces insolvency is because the life expectancy of Americans continues to grow. Every 5 years that pass, life expectancy goes up a year. This budget continues to fund our priorities, continues to invest in people, and continues to lay the groundwork for policies that allow people to pursue their own version of the American Dream, to find opportunity in a growing, expanding economy; that allows for job creation, that does not punish entrepreneurial spirit, that allows people to continue to invest in their businesses, to have more money in their own pocket to make decisions about their own children's future, about their own opportunities, and about their own hopes and dreams. And with that I urge my colleagues to support the rule, which is a very fair and balanced rule, and to support the underlying budget produced by the committee.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 154 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a great day in our great Nation, and it is an honor to be here to begin the debate about the fiscal blueprint for our Nation, the priorities of our Nation. House Resolution 154 is a structured rule that provides for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 95, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration. This rule provides for 5 hours of general debate with 4 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by the gentleman of New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) or their designees. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution. This rule makes in order four amendments which are printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each is debatable for 40 minutes, the time equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, except that the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. It also permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency. This is a fair rule. The Committee on Rules has allowed substitute budgets to be considered on the House floor. They range across the political spectrum affording Members of varying philosophies within each political party and across political parties an opportunity to support the budget they deem appropriate for our Nation. Since before my time in this body, the Committee on Rules has consistently afforded the minority the opportunity for its alternative to be heard, with the only exception being the fiscal year 2003 budget when there was not a budget alternative offered. I am pleased this rule provides a chance for all our Members to express their views on how our Nation should prioritize its spending. The congressional budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to set priorities for the coming fiscal year. Therefore, this budget provides for America's most urgent needs. The driving forces behind this budget are continued strength, continued growth, and restrained spending. The congressional budget is the ultimate enforcement tool, allowing Congress to clearly identify its priorities for how taxpayer dollars should be spent. It allows us in a time of war to ensure that our Nation's soldiers are sufficiently equipped. Prioritizing guarantees that our economy continues to expand, providing jobs and opportunities for more Americans each and every day. Finally, this tool allows us to make certain that our government acts in a fiscally responsible manner to ensure opportunities and safety for future generations of Americans. This budget ensures that our Nation remains strong in the face of terror. We continue the multiyear plan to enable the military to fight the war on terrorism now and to transform itself to counter unconventional threats in the future. This budget works to prevent attacks, reduce vulnerabilities, and improve readiness. Continued economic growth is vital for our Nation to fund her priorities and give opportunity to her people. Today, the general consensus of both private and public forecasters is that the U.S. economy is in a sustained expansion with solid growth of real GDP and payroll jobs and with low unemployment and low inflation. The speed and strength of the economic recovery of the last several years has been due in large part to the tax relief packages given to the American people along with the extension of that tax relief passed last year. These policies continue to promote sustained economic growth and job creation. I am proud to be a member of the Committee on the Budget that this year reported out a historic budget that sets in motion a glidepath to cut the deficit in half both in dollars and as a percentage of gross domestic product in 5 years. This budget wisely targets both discretionary and mandatory spending in an effort to set priorities. The Committee on the Budget calls for a reduction in total nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending. And for the first time since 1997, the budget includes reconciliation instructions to authorizing committees calling for the slowed growth of mandatory programs. Mandatory spending is the guaranteed spending that grows each and every year, mostly without reform or review. It currently consumes 55 percent of the budget; and if it continues unchecked, it will reach 61 percent of the budget by 2015. More than half of the government's spending today is on automatic pilot. This is neither sound policy nor sustainable fiscal policy. Congress is on its way to losing control over spending priorities as entitlements squeeze the budget more and more. Reconciliation instructions are the critical step to begin the process of getting our mandatory spending back to a sustainable level. I am hopeful that while the authorizing committees are reviewing their programs they may also conclude that many of these mandatory programs would be better suited as discretionary and, therefore, subject to greater oversight by the Congress. I am proud of the work the Committee on the Budget has put forward this year. I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), the chairman of that committee, for pushing forward with fiscal discipline and bringing us this outstanding budget for consideration. I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means in regard to the alternative minimum tax. The gentleman will be delighted to learn that this budget makes accommodation for a further AMT extension of relief so that middle- class Americans are not impacted by that AMT provision that originated in the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman from New York will be further delighted to know that the budget process allows the flexibility and the discretion for that authorizing committee to make those changes rather than having the Committee on the Budget direct them for them. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman and the previous speakers for drawing attention to the looming crisis that impacts people my age in Social Security, the people who frankly have come to the conclusion that unless Congress acts sooner rather than later, there will not be that program and that dramatic and important action is needed. But coming back to the rule on the budget, which is the order of the day, it is also good to know that it is more about what reforms we will be taking up later this year are dominating the discussion, which I take to mean and assume to mean that the overall and underlying budget itself is a sound one and that the rule is fair. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a vigorous debate about the priorities that are embodied in our budget blueprint. But for the second day in a row now, we have had this characterized as a government without a conscience. Yet since 1995, we have seen dramatic and historic increases to IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Title I, historically high numbers. Veterans health care, $18.9 billion in fiscal year 2000, $30 billion today. Education numbers, up in double digits. HHS and NIH, doubled. That is not a government without a conscience. That is a government that has seen unsustainable rates of increases to discretionary domestic spending. This budget turns that corner and begins the process of slowing the growth in mandatory and discretionary but continuing to provide for those priorities, continuing to make those tough decisions in ways that have been avoided by prior Congresses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted to provide the gentleman some facts. Fact number one, title I has grown 10 percent per year since 2000. Pell grant funding, grown 10.3 percent per year since 2000. No Child Left Behind funding, grown 40 percent. Special education since 1996 has more than quadrupled. Funding for IDEA has quadrupled since 1996. IDEA funded only 8 percent of the per pupil expenditure in 1994 and 1995. Now it is nearly 20 percent. The Education Department discretionary budget authority has increased 146 percent since 1995. Those are the facts. Was there not a conscience in the Congress prior to 1995? Is a 146 percent increase unconscionable? The commitment to education, the commitment to health care, the commitment to the NIH, the commitment to defense and the commitment to policies that expand and grow our economy and give Americans tremendous opportunities have been embodied in our budgets and are embodied in this budget. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There will be that opportunity, this being the rule on the budget; but I will engage in a bit of discussion about the Social Security because I am one who will gain or lose a great deal, being someone who will reach that retirement age at that year of insolvency. And it is shocking to me that the party who gave us Social Security, and should be very proud of it and are, are almost in complete denial about the looming crisis that it faces and refuse to accept the fact that, regardless of which option we choose to solve the problem, that it is something that should be kicked down the road to future generations, to future Congresses, to future years. And there is a stone wall of resistance to any discussion at all about for once Congress getting ahead of a big issue, for once Congress actually dealing with the problem before it is crashing down around our heads, for once Congress actually being bold and looking into the future beyond the next budget cycle, beyond the next election, beyond the next short-term problem and actually tackling it and dealing with it. Anyone who has been through their freshman orientation upon being elected has a bipartisan group give them the long-term unfunded liabilities of this government, and we acknowledge that there are vast differences in the approach to saving Social Security. But, unfortunately, largely with one bold, brave exception in the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), there has been total resistance to have any constructive effort to bring about a solution to this problem.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's leadership in this effort. As he noted in his opening statement, we have spent a great deal in these past few years to secure our Nation in the wake of the September 11 attacks. But at the same time we were directing a huge new share of resources to those urgent needs, we were also continuing to keep pace in our domestic nonsecurity programs like education, health care, veterans, agriculture, a whole host of other issues outside of defense and homeland security that people associate with their government. On 9/11, our priorities shifted as a Nation, but our fiscal priorities remained the same. We kept growing our domestic programs by the same levels we had been, the rate of which would have been unsustainable even without a September 11. Over the past decade, we have increased programs almost across the board, and in many cases doubled, tripled or even quadrupled the rate of inflation. I say that because out of one side of the mouth of the opposition comes a plea for fiscal restraint and out of the other side comes a hue and cry at the devastating terrible cuts that are being beset upon the American people. Let us look at what the impact of domestic spending has been over the past decade. A Mount Everest of increases in discretionary spending. As we can see, overall discretionary spending grows since 1994, a very steep line. With the exception of last year which was the first time in a long time that we began the process of slowing growth, on average we have increased discretion spending by 6.1 percent per year for over a decade. Let us look at some of the key areas that make up that portion of the spending. In the last 5 years, the Republican Congress has increased education funding by an average of almost 12 percent per year. Over that same period of time, spending for the Department of Education has increased by 75 percent, almost doubling our commitment. In fact, aside from the newly created Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education has grown faster than any other Federal agency or Department during this period. Let us look at some of the key programs that make up two-thirds of the Department of Education's budget. Title I, since 2000 title I funding for low-income schools has increased by 55 percent. Pell grants which help provide lower-income students with funding for college has increased by 57 percent over 5 years. And while this decision will be left up to the authorizing committee, the President's budget request called for increasing that amount that students are eligible to receive under this program. Let us look at funding for our special needs students. IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, provides for those needs of our most important and sensitive children in the school system; funding has increased by 87 percent in the past 5 years. In addition to increased funding, Congress also passed the No Child Left Behind Act which demands results in exchange for dollars. It works to forge a real link between education spending and classroom achievement while focusing resources on underperforming schools. Now let us look at veterans, those men and women who have done so much to secure the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy and take for granted on a regular basis. I think that everyone should be proud of the commitment that we have made and continue to make in the area of veterans benefits. Since Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, tremendous strides have been made in improving benefits for our Nation's veterans through hefty increases. Budget authority since 1995 has increased 77 percent, beginning at $38 billion, ending up at $67.6 billion. A tremendous increase. In fact, that 77 percent increase compares to only a 40 percent increase over the previous 10 years. Spending per veteran. Let us get right down to the veteran in your district. Spending per veteran since 1995, increased payments per veteran have gone up 103 percent compared with 43 percent during the previous 10 years. You could walk into any Legion Hall or VFW complex in America and be proud of that number. Since 1995, we have increased VA medical care funding from $16.2 billion to almost $30 billion. And in 1996 and 1999, Congress expanded eligibility for medical care and as a result the number of veterans utilizing VA care has nearly doubled. The Montgomery GI bill. Those veterans who return home and seek to improve their lot and develop their education skills, since 1995 Montgomery GI education benefits have gone from $405 to $1,004, an increase of 147 percent. And I will also note that prior to the Republican take over in 1995, under 40 years of Democrat control, there was no progress whatsoever on concurrent receipts. Now military retirees injured in combat or while training for combat who are 50 percent or more service disabled, are able for the first time in over 100 years to receive retirement benefits at the same time as their veterans disability compensation. About a month ago, the Charleston Gazette ran this quote, and I will share it: ``Bush increased VA spending by 27 percent in his first term. As factcheck.org pointed out, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25 percent.'' The bottom line is that domestic discretionary needs have been met and continue to be met under this blueprint that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) presents today.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. I would ask the chairman, is it his understanding that the administration has the authority under the Stafford Act to remove debris from the private lands when it is in the public interest?

Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.