Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina's diligent efforts on the Budget Committee as the ranking member. He, along with our chairman, have forged a very strong working relationship. I respect his efforts on these issues, and he has certainly been working on them for years. Let me take a moment, though, to scrutinize the Democratic substitute, where, if our budget is the Land of Oz, theirs is worthy of a good Sherlock Holmes novel, a who-done-it and where-did-they-put-it, because they seem to rely on revenues that just do not exist. For example, the key component of their revenue in the Democratic substitute is over $700 billion in what the IRS calls the tax gap. In other words, it is the difference between what people owe the IRS in taxes and the collections that actually come in. They assume, my friends on the other side of the aisle, in their budget projections that all $727 billion of that so-called tax gap shows up. Now, if they know where it is now to project it in their budget, please share it with us so that we may meet these needs, these unmet needs that have been described with great elaboration. You seem to know where it is, because you know for a fact such that you budget for it, that it will appear, poof, that it will show up in time to make your budget balance. They allow the important tax reforms that we have worked so hard to implement over the past several years to expire. They allow taxes to go back up. Their budget, their budget, provides for only $150 billion in tax relief, which I am glad to see that they are coming around to the concept that tax relief can be an important economic stimulant, as we were just hearing the opposite view in congratulating the President for signing $70 billion in tax relief, and yet they account for $150 billion, but say that our $70 billion was reckless and irresponsible. They would allow the child tax credit to expire, or the 10 percent bracket to expire, or the death tax to expire, or the marriage penalty to expire to make their numbers work. And so when we get tied up in all of the rhetoric about this issue, it is important to remember that the budget debate that we will be moving forward with today is about choices. It is about a different set of priorities as represented by the two political parties for the future of this country. Our budget deals with both sides of the ledger. Our budget recognizes that over half of the Federal spending today is on the mandatory side of the ledger. It is on automatic pilot. That is unsustainable. Both parties know that Social Security needs help. Both parties know that Medicare needs help. Both parties know that Medicaid needs help or it will sink the entire Federal budget. It makes up 55 percent of spending today. Within the decade it will make up two-thirds of Federal spending. Their budget does not address 55 percent of the Federal budget, a $2.17 trillion budget; just ignores it. That is not responsible. That is not dealing with the problems that we know exist and will only grow in magnitude and scale as time moves on. These are the challenges that our budget attempts to deal with and deal with in a very responsible and balanced way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 815 is a same-day rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee. It applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of May 17, 2006, providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 376, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This resolution will prepare the ground so that the House may complete its business and pass a budget resolution. We are working to moving this process along toward the goal of setting the spending priorities for the next fiscal year. The House is prepared to begin consideration of several appropriations measures to fund our government's activities, but we must pass this budget first. We must set the priorities in funding levels before we proceed with the appropriations process. The budget is our congressional spending blueprint. We must complete its consideration to move on with the business of the House. The Committee on Rules will meet later today to provide a rule for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, the budget for fiscal year 2007, and I am pleased that this same-day rule facilitates the timely deliberation of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the same-day rule so that we can move forward to a serious discussion about the budget legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with my friend from Massachusetts about the magnitude of this budget process and its importance and how we establish priorities in this government, how we lay out a spending blueprint. My friend from Massachusetts has referred to this as the greatest deliberative body in the world on a couple of occasions, and I would just offer a slight correction that perhaps the Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the world, and we are the greatest legislative body in the world. They talk about it, and we act. We move forward on the agendas that are important to Americans, and we do it in a bold and decisive way, while perhaps the more deliberative body talks things to death and produces nothing. The budget of the Federal Government works a bit differently than it does for those Members who came from a State legislative background or from local government background. It is a two-step process. The budget lays down the markers, the fence lines, if you will, around the big numbers: X amount for Defense, X amount for Transportation, X amount for Health and Human Services. And the second step of the process then is the appropriations process, which consists of 11 separate bills moving to fill in the blanks: How many tanks and jeeps and bullets and bombs do you buy within the budget framework for defense? How many post offices do you construct or repair within the Postal Subcommittee? How many bridges and roads do you get within the Transportation? They put the meat on the bones. The skeletal framework is this budget, this blueprint, this spending priority for the Federal Government. And the rule that we are here to debate, and I suspect that this will become a proxy debate on the budget itself, which is not what we are considering before the Speaker today; what we are considering is the procedure that allows us to move forward with the budget that is a hugely important blueprint for this Nation. It is important that we get going on it. We have now been considering it for several weeks. The committee mark has been available for over a month. The substitute amendments that undoubtedly will be presented to the Rules Committee as alternatives have been available for weeks. So there is no mystery here. There is no secret. We are attempting to facilitate the work of the House. 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 thank my friend from Vermont for raising the points that he did. They are very timely in that almost as we speak, the White House signing ceremony will be occurring, where the President, along with the congressional leadership, will be celebrating the fact that we have prevented taxes from automatically increasing, something that the other side would have advocated by virtue of opposing the tax plan. Now, let's talk a little bit about this tax issue.

Mr. PUTNAM. I gladly yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time to answer the gentleman's question, I would answer the question with a question, which is how does the gentleman feel about the fact that 40 percent of American taxpayers end up with no tax liability, and the fact that the top half of all taxpayers in this country contribute almost 97 percent of all income tax revenues to the government? So you have to have a situation where the people who pay taxes are getting tax relief, because we have created such an upside down system where 40 percent of Americans have no tax liability. How is that sharing in the burdens of democracy? How is that contributing to the needs of the Federal Government? Let me go into this a bit. Up to 40 percent of Federal tax filers cannot receive further tax relief because they have no tax liability. Millions of families in the bottom 20 percent have either zero tax liability or get money back from the government after April 15 through the Earned Income Tax Credit or the child tax credit. In 2003, as I said, the top half of taxpayers, the top 50 percent of taxpayers, contributed 96.5 percent of all Federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent, the bottom half, contributed less than 3.5 percent. This reflects the early effects of the Republican tax reforms under the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act. The top 1 percent, the top 1 percent of tax filers paid 34 percent of all Federal personal income taxes in 2003, while the top 10 percent accounted for 66 percent of those taxes. So this is not just about going after athletes and rock stars and Hall of Fame pitchers. It is small businesses who pay at the individual rate that are receiving the benefits of these tax reforms. It is married couples who have benefited from seeing the marriage tax penalty eliminated. It is families with children. It is an extension of the 10 percent bracket. It is the increase in the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, the Rostenkowski tax that was put in place under the Democratic leadership of the Congress, that now, like the insidious effects of the Federal Government, has found its way into the pockets of millions of middle-class Americans. The tax bill the President is signing today prevents those taxes from going up on middle-class Americans, it prevents the AMT from taking effect on millions of people who don't know what AMT even stands for but are going to get stuck with a tax bill for it and it encourages investment in this strong economy. Frankly, the results have been staggering, where revenues to the government have gone up 14 percent because of the fact that we have had in place capital gains rates, dividend tax rates, AMT relief, sales tax deductions, that allow people to continue to invest and take on new employees and take risks, which is the heart of a free enterprise economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PUTNAM. Well, I thank the gentleman for his generosity. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, in his use of the term martial law, the fact that we are here in a democratic process arguing about it for an hour and then going to have a vote on it, under which chapter and verse of Webster's is that martial law where there is debate, discussion, transparency, and a vote?

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. He does have a way with words and continues to refer to a process whereby, in order to waive the rules of the House, you must come to the floor, introduce a resolution, it must be given an hour of debate, which we have been engaged in very vigorously, and be voted on. I mean, Pinochet and Castro would laugh at the notion that that has anything to do with martial law. This is a process under our rules that requires a vote. It requires debate. It requires transparency. The simple fact of the matter is we have to move a budget. This Nation needs the spending blueprint, it needs the discipline, it needs the restraint that a budget provides. Then the appropriators, as my friend from Georgia has discussed, the appropriators take over. And they can pass within that box that we have put Federal spending in, in the Federal budget, 11 different bills that deal with each component of government: defense, veterans, transportation, energy and the environment, military quality of life, the whole range of issues that then are debated again in committee, in subcommittee, on this floor, in the conference with the Senate. This is a transparent process, a patently transparent process where people are free to watch their Members actively, aggressively, work to take language out of bills, to put language in the bills, to shift formulas around to benefit high-growth States or to protect low-growth States from having those monies shifted around; to put more money into veterans and less for the arts, or more into the arts and less for the Corps of Engineers, or more for the Corps of Engineers because of Katrina; to set aside emergency funds because we know that every year there will be a drought or a wildfire or a hurricane or an earthquake. All of those huge issues that are embodied in over $2 trillion in Federal spending are here today in the form of the Federal budget. This bill, this resolution, allows us to move forward with that process that began months ago, that began on a bipartisan basis in the Budget Committee, that was debated extensively in the Budget Committee, that was marked up in the Budget Committee, and will end up on the floor of this House today. This is an open process, it is a transparent process. Anyone who has observed this debate can see that it involves a great deal of viewpoints about a great deal of very important issues. And that is the position we find ourselves in here today. It is a healthy process because it is a fundamental decision about the direction that Americans' hard-earned tax dollars will be taken. Will those tax dollars find their way into bloated bureaucratic programs? Will they find their way into duplicative programs? Will they find their way back into a surging economy? Will they find their way into investments in the cure for cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease and a whole host of other ailments? Will they fund our troops in the theater of war? That is the decision we are positioned to move forward on here today. 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. 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, House Resolution 817 is the rule that provides for debate on House Concurrent Resolution 376, which is the Federal budget, the bill that establishes the Federal spending priorities for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for the outyears in 2008 through 2011. As a member of both the Rules Committee and someone who serves on the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for the House's consideration. This rule makes in order three substitute amendments, three different viewpoints on the direction that Federal spending should take for the coming fiscal year. Each of those will be debatable for 40 minutes. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution. I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, with a resolution that allows us to complete the debate and passage for the House budget resolution for fiscal year 2007. It is a work product over many, many weeks, beginning with Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt in the Budget Committee, along with all of the Members of this House to bring it to fruition here today. The resolution continues policies that have helped to continue a strong U.S. economy. We have included savings for working Americans with $228 billion in further tax reforms. We account for the tax cut, the tax reforms, that this House passed last week by a vote of 244-185 to extend 2001 and 2003 tax relief and preventing automatic tax increases from taking place. That bill was signed into law today by the President, again preventing tax increases from coming on the backs of the American people. Those provisions included alternative minimum tax relief, that insidious tax that was proffered under Chairman Rostenkowski's reign at the Ways and Means Committee under Democratic rule, that is now taking into its arms, grasping within its reach millions of middle-class Americans who unknowingly are being swept into a net of higher taxation; House-passed pension bill; and other tax relief. The continuation of these successful economic policies is generating record revenue levels for the Federal Government without increasing taxes. In other words, a strong and growing economy is bringing additional revenue into the Federal Government as a result of enhanced economic activity brought about by lower tax barriers. While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned dollars, we also enact a responsible spending plan that exercises control and restraint. I am proud that once again this House has delivered a budget that practices conscientious spending. Our goal is to stem the ever-expanding outflow of Federal dollars. We hold nonsecurity discretionary spending to a near freeze and create mandatory savings, mandatory being that portion of the budget which now makes up over 55 percent of Federal spending. It is essentially on automatic pilot, and if it is not brought under control, it will consume two-thirds of Federal spending within the decade. We bring about mandatory savings of nearly $7 billion over 5 years. Together these policies, the policies of economic stimulation and fiscal restraint, will reduce the deficit by more than half, from the $521 billion projected in 2004 to under $200 billion in 2009. House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending level that is equal to the President's budget at $873 billion. As is the case with our bifurcated budgeting and appropriations process, the discretion lies with the House Appropriations Committee to determine the final allocation of these funds. This budget essentially freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending with only a .1 percent increase over last year's level, and as an additional savings method, this budget caps the advance appropriations. In the area of mandatory spending, we provide a total of $1.5 trillion in entitlement spending. In an effort to control this automatic outflow of Federal dollars, the budget resolution calls for mandatory spending reforms from a number of different committees, allowing regular order to reign, along the authorizing committees, to find the proper waste, fraud, duplication and inefficiencies using their own expertise in the various subject matters. These savings total $6.75 billion over 5 years. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen costs that arise in the future. Every year somewhere in America there is an earthquake or a flood, or a hurricane, or a wildfire, or a drought, or a massive snowstorm that requires Federal spending that was unforeseen. But the fact that it happens every year means that we ought to be able to foresee that something bad is going to happen. We may not know exactly what it will be, it may not rise to the level of Katrina in scale and scope, and, heaven help us, we hope that it does not, but we know that emergencies will arise. This budget plans for those emergencies, and we set aside in addition $50 billion toward what we anticipate will be a wartime supplemental request, and again set aside nearly $6.5 billion for other emergencies stemming from natural disasters. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work of this Budget Committee, Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, for pushing forward a budget that has fiscal discipline, restraint. It incorporates real reforms on the mandatory side as well as providing for the tools that allow this economy to continue to grow and strengthen. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, obviously this is one of the most important debates of the year as it lays out the blueprint, the outline for Federal priorities. Where we place our priorities is generally where we allocate funding, and the Republican budget divides those priorities between creating incentives for people to continue to grow their businesses, to create an atmosphere of record low unemployment which we enjoy in this country today of 4.8 percent, creating incentives for people to purchase a new piece of equipment, add a new assembly line, add a new store, take on a new employee, fiscal restraint to go along with that economic growth. Fiscal restraint on the discretionary side where there is a near freeze in discretionary spending, and on the mandatory side which is gobbling up the budget at a record rate, where we for the second year in a row, something that is unprecedented in modern budgeting history, for the second year in a row are looking for savings on that mandatory side of the ledger that so many previous Congresses have been afraid to touch, and bringing about important reforms so that people have confidence in where their hard-earned tax dollars are going. Mr. Speaker, I see that my friend from Massachusetts has a number of speakers, and I will reserve the balance of my time and look forward to a thorough vetting of this important issue.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raised the issue of education funding. I would point out that the facts are a bit counter to her assertion. Take special education, something that has long been a priority of both sides of the aisle. Special education funding goes up for the sixth consecutive year, an increase of $100 million this year, which is an estimated $1,500 per student, reaching almost 7 million students who have special needs. On Pell Grants, the budget provides $12.7 billion in available Pell Grant aid, for an average grant of nearly $2,500. More than 5.2 million students would be eligible for these grants, an increase of 60,000 students over the previous year. Title I, those schools that serve the most in need, the resolution provides nearly $13 billion for title I grants to help schools in the high poverty communities move ahead with No Child Left Behind; $1 billion for the Reading First program, and increased funding for charter schools, magnet schools, voluntary public school choice, all substantial funding for these very important programs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Massachusetts has had some very harsh words for some Members of this body. I would query the gentleman from Massachusetts, if he would agree, how much is enough spending for the gentleman from Massachusetts?

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this negotiation, this process that yields this budget, recognizes that we have a number of challenges at this point in time, and all points of view recognize that we have to create an environment, a climate for economic growth and strength, and we have to have fiscal restraint. There is not a blank checkbook, as some, perhaps some from Massachusetts or other parts, might suggest where it is just an ongoing, empty, bottomless pit of spending. You have to be responsible about the taxpayers' money. You have to draw lines around it and prioritize, and we have done that in this budget. In the minority, you have the luxury of not having to rally behind any one particular proposal. In fact, that is why there are two different substitutes offered that offer at least two very different viewpoints from your own caucus. We have the obligation, we have the responsibility to actually move a product that changes lives. We have the responsibility to actually pass a budget that implements spending controls on an over $2 trillion Federal budget and put us on a path to cutting the deficit while still securing a climate that allows economic growth and prosperity to continue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is becoming more and more clear that there is never enough spending, although we will undoubtedly hear from speakers later in the evening who will talk about how they would have fiscal restraint over here, more spending over here, more spending over here and more fiscal restraint over here. They have that luxury being in the minority. But the bottom line is education funding has gone up year after year after year. Special education funding is at record levels, far higher than it was when the other team was in charge. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), my good friend from the Budget Committee.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentlewoman, who has apparently not had an opportunity to review the budget, that there is an additional $3.1 billion reserve fund for domestic priorities; $3.1 billion additional for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. And in addition to that, we budget for emergencies. We draw lines around the restraint that is necessary to keep the deficit on a path to be cut in half in 5 years. We keep the economy growing. They rail against the $70 billion that were involved in tax reconciliation that prevents taxes from going up today, yet their own budget has $150 billion. Which is it? They talk about not having enough money in our side of the budget, and yet they rail about the deficit. You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you are on the floor of the House arguing against a responsible budget plan. This bill lays out a responsible roadmap towards shrinking the deficit, keeping the economy strong and growing, and being able to look constituents in the eye about the levels of spending. It does not open up a bottomless pit of spending, as some would prefer on the other side of the aisle, where enough is never enough. We recognize that trade- offs have to be made in businesses, in families, and in the Federal Government, and it is important that we look at both sides of the ledger, discretionary and mandatory. The only thing that my friends on the other side of the aisle could find to clap about in the State of the Union Address was our President and our leadership's noble attempt to rein in mandatory spending, something that both parties' think tanks on each side of the ideological spectrum and administrations of each political party have agreed is in desperate need of help. Yet they can only take glee in the fact that they shut down the first real attempt to reform mandatory spending in a generation. This budget lays out a framework for reform, restraint, and economic growth, and they are trying to have it not just both ways, but three or four or five different ways. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California and the speaker before him from Tennessee made reference to the Blue Dog budget, and, in fact, there was even reference to how difficult it is to produce a budget. Well, apparently it is so difficult they couldn't do it because there is no Blue Dog substitute. I tip my hat to the Progressive Caucus. They managed to produce a budget that we will debate on this floor. It is an alternative view of where this Nation ought to be headed. I don't agree with it, but they made the tough decisions to put it together, embody it in an amendment, and put it to debate on this floor. I tip my hat to Mr. Spratt, the distinguished ranking member of the committee. They have a substitute amendment. The Blue Dogs are all bark and no bite. No budget substitute was offered. Apparently putting together a budget that met their own internal divisions proved too difficult in the end. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. I would ask the gentleman where the Blue Dog budget is? Where is the Blue Dog substitute amendment? We are looking for it. We can't find it. There is no Blue Dog substitute amendment. It is back on the porch. It is in the pound. It is in the kennel. I don't know where it is. There is a progressive substitute. There is a Spratt substitute. There is no Blue Dog substitute.

Mr. PUTNAM. There is not a Blue Dog substitute.

Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.