Adam Putnam

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. There have been three references to a Blue Dog substitute that is mythical. It is as mythical as the $727 billion tax gap, Wizard of Oz smoke and mirrors that is in one of the other substitutes. It is as mythical as the numbers that they use to pay for their increased spending. There is no such thing. There is not a substitute amendment.

Mr. PUTNAM. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear we made our point. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Wisconsin with whom we have worked on the budget. The challenges I see with the Democratic substitute are ones that we have pointed out earlier. They depend upon money that doesn't exist to make their numbers work, a tax gap of $727 billion that the IRS can't find. Well, if the IRS can't find it, does the other side know where it is? If we have been looking for it for all this time, but they know where it is to the point that they have budgeted it, $727 billion to make their numbers work, then they must have some better insight as to where that gap is. It is smoke and mirrors. The CBO won't even score it. The CBO scores it as a zero revenue raiser. And yet they are depending on it for $727 billion. They only allocate $150 billion in their substitute for tax relief. And yet we have had opportunities on this House floor for half that amount that they have rejected. We had opportunities to prevent the AMT from impacting millions of middle-class Americans. Rejected. Preventing capital gains rates from going up which have allowed revenues to the government to increase, 11, 12 percent. Dividend taxes, preventing those from going up. They have rejected that. But they put $150 billion in their own substitute, which doesn't even cover the child tax credit, the marriage penalty, the death tax, the whole host of other issues. The numbers don't add up. Ours is the responsible, comprehensive blueprint. We deal with a freeze, a near freeze on discretionary spending, non-defense discretionary spending. We deal with the mandatory side of the ledger which is now over half of Federal spending, something that the Blue Dogs claim that they are concerned about, something that fiscal hawks on the other side claim that they are concerned about; and it is nowhere to be found in their substitute. Ours is the only budget that is comprehensive, responsible, and honest about the challenges that are facing this great land. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two clarifications. One, to my friend from Massachusetts, I would clarify that the rule he seeks to repeal is commonly known as the Gephardt rule. Secondarily, I would clarify the clarification made by my friend Mr. Spratt that on page 51, lines 13 through 19 of the legislation known as the Spratt amendment, there is tax relief that is provided; the additional revenue loss is offset such as through the recovery of a portion of unpaid revenue, commonly known as the tax gap, which we referred to. So that is a portion of their amendment.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. We like to give credit where credit is due, and being big fans of intellectual property rights, since we protect intellectual property, the real creative genius in that belongs to Mr. Gephardt. To my friend from Massachusetts, we have had a speaker come in since I said to you that I had no further speakers, and I would inquire as to whether you objected to allowing him to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. PUTNAM. Very well. I would yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 114 I was unavoidably detained at the White House. Had I been present, I would have noted ``yea.''

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue. This is another situation where the Democrats were for it before they were against it, before they were for it, before they were against it again. It has been interesting to watch this debate unfold as fingers have been pointed now since the end of last year about a culture that they have described as being corrupt, and yet here they come today to oppose a bill that addresses many of the same issues that they have been screaming about for the past 4 months. The Policy Committee did exhaustive work, Mr. Speaker, in bringing together groups of Members to talk about these issues. Reforming the institution is among the most important and also among the most difficult issues to do, because everyone involved has an innate understanding of the issues that we are dealing with and the needs of the House from the perspective of their particular district. There was widespread agreement that disclosure, sunshine, accountability should be the three pillars upon which we build this reform effort. And we did that. When it comes to issues like travel, as Mr. Cole has described, who has been a leader in a bipartisan effort to reform those practices, it has been a very difficult path, but one which has yielded bipartisan results in the form of the amendment that we will be considering later. When it comes to making sure that there is an opportunity for the public to know what goes on in this institution and what interest groups that are attempting to lobby the Congress are doing, we increased the reporting requirements. We increased the penalties for those people who would take advantage of the public trust that they are given by the voters and by the electorate. When it comes to the issues of making sure that we have a functioning ethics committee, that is the most important piece of this process, increasing the leverage to make sure that that committee is one that is functioning appropriately. So in sum, Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to me that people would say that in this case, after 4 months of decrying the status of things, that nothing is better than disclosure requirements, that nothing is better than transparency, that nothing is better than greater accountability. The foundation upon which this bill is crafted is something that every Member can go home and talk to their constituents about. It is something that will improve the work of this institution and begin the process of restoring the public trust in the people's Chamber.

Mr. PUTNAM

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 774 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to address three of the points that the distinguished ranking member made, and I would point out that we appreciate her bipartisan efforts in crafting this bill, the underlying bill that the rule addresses, that came out of the committee on a voice vote. First, the program that she categorized, that has been categorized, I apologize, Madam Speaker, the program that has been categorized as an ``illegal eavesdropping program'' had in a previous press release been characterized in this way: ``As the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.'' That was the statement of the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee as it relates to what has now been characterized by saying it is illegal eavesdropping. Secondly, this question of Iran reports, the Iran crisis scares the dickens out of me. It is a very serious issue for this entire Chamber, for this entire Nation. It is a country that is not only engaged in what could be a speculative threat against its neighbors and the United States and the world as a whole, but are bringing in cameras to show that they are breaking IAEA seals, along with their red-hot rhetoric coming out of their President calling for the destruction of our ally, bragging about the uranium enrichment capabilities, talking about the difference between P-1 and P-2 centrifuges. It is a very serious issue, one that all Members of Congress should make themselves aware of. As chairman of the policy committee, I was joined by my Energy Subcommittee in going to New York on Monday to receive such a briefing, the kind of briefing that every Member of Congress is entitled to. As members of the House Intelligence Committee, they are entitled to even higher-level briefings on the Iranian situation at their request. So, the requirement, the responsibility, for us to engage the administration, to engage the Intelligence Community, to engage the appropriate persons who are tracking this crisis is on us. And it is not a mere every-90-day exercise. It should be an ongoing exercise as developments come in through the media and through other open sources that call on us to further update our awareness of what is a very dangerous situation. Thirdly, this idea of zero funding for the Civil Liberties Protection Board, that is an issue within the White House budget. It is not germane to the intelligence authorization bill, it is not an issue that we can fund, and it was ruled out of order for that reason. It is a matter for the appropriators who are dealing with the White House budget line, not for the Intelligence Community's overall budget. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 774 is a structured rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration. This is the fifth intelligence authorization bill that this House has considered since the tragic events of September 11, which changed this institution's outlook on intelligence. It has certainly changed our intelligence community's approach to collection and analysis. H.R. 5020 is the first intelligence authorization that is based on a budget request fully determined by our new Director of National Intelligence, again reflecting the changes, reflecting the evolution, the progress of our approach to keeping America secure, protecting our citizens, protecting our forces abroad through an ever-changing architecture. The DNI, created in H.R. 10, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, created this new Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a responsible authority that would oversee and orchestrate a coordinated effort by the entire intelligence community composed of 15 different intelligence agencies. This legislation today continues the sustained effort and long-term strategy to achieve optimum performance in human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery intelligence, open-source intelligence, analysis, counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterterrorism. This bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System. In addition to funding these agency activities, the legislation contains other noncontroversial intelligence community housekeeping matters that will help create a more efficient and effective intelligence community. The legislation reflects recent administrative action and formally includes the Drug Enforcement Administration in the intelligence community and authorizes its activities conducted within the National Intelligence Program. It also requires the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct a regular strategic review of intelligence capabilities against threats, similar to the Quadrennial Defense Review, and limits the DNI's authority to hire civilian personnel in excess of the specifically authorized numbers to no more than 2 percent of the authorized amount of employees. To more formally increase oversight, the bill specifically provides that reporting requirements contained in the classified annex will be considered as required by the underlying law. Additionally, it requires a comprehensive inventory of special access programs conducted within the National Intelligence Program to be provided to the committee in classified format. This provision was included in the House-passed bill for fiscal year 2006 as well. The underlying bill also contains language offered by the ranking member, Ms. Harman, that expresses the sense of the Congress that the DNI should promptly examine the need for establishing and overseeing the implementation of a multilevel security clearance system across the intelligence community to leverage the cultural and linguistic skills of subject matter experts and individuals proficient in foreign languages that are deemed critical to our Nation's security. I am pleased with the efforts of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Chairman Hoekstra and his ranking member, Ms. Harman, have done yeoman's work, with the assistance of their committee, on a bipartisan basis to produce this bill. It is a perfect example of how Congress can achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our Nation. I commend them for their hard work. I urge the Members to support the rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman acknowledged in the beginning of his remarks that this is a bipartisan bill that enjoyed unanimous support coming out of committee. As we move forward on the other issues of contention, we certainly look forward to that debate. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to one of this institution's experts on national security, a member of the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a graduate of one of America's fine service academies.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on the concern about Iran. As I said earlier, it is a huge issue and a major international crisis for all of us to be tracking on a very routine basis, especially those members of the Intelligence Committee who have access to a higher level of information than the rest of us. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, I want to address this issue of leaks briefly. Before presenting this rule to the House, I took it upon myself to read the bill. And because of the nature of the bill, it is only available in Intelligence Committee space. And all Members have the opportunity to review the material that we are going to be voting on later today. In the context of this discussion about leaks, I was reminded that at the beginning of every Congress, upon our election, we, all Members of this House, have to sign something saying that we recognize that House rules prevent us from disclosing classified information. In addition, when you go to read the bill that we are here today to consider, you sign another form reaffirming that you have taken this oath, this obligation to not disclose classified information. That is what Members of Congress have to do. When you join the CIA, you sign a standard secrecy agreement that says that you are going to keep the things that you are working on secret to protect the interests of our Nation. You are not going to go writing books about it, you are not going to make a movie about it, you are not going to cash in on this Nation's security. When you have access to sensitive compartmented information, you sign yet another nondisclosure agreement, again to drive home the point to the employees who are guarding the very secrets that keep us safe and free that you cannot capitalize on America's secrets. This was very clear to the leaker. This was made very clear to Members of Congress. There is no double standard. What the individual did was against the law, was a complete breach of the secrecy agreement that that individual signed upon becoming an employee and then having progressively higher levels of access to more and more sensitive information. It is abundantly clear that what she did was wrong.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respect the gentleman's perspective. That is why this bill is so important, number one; and number two, it is why it is so vitally important that our representatives on that committee, that our House Members on both sides of the aisle on the House Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence, ask the correct questions, are given the proper orientation, dig into these issues, make this committee a priority, because they are the rest of this House's eyes and ears on those very sensitive issues. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, the cultural differences in this House are intriguing. Hailing from the South, we would label ``cockamamie'' a theory where the President would conspire to break the law and invite Members of the other party in on the deal. We would call that a pretty cockamamie theory. And so when the President, in an effort to keep America safe and to monitor members of al Qaeda who are communicating with people inside our borders, probably not checking the weather, probably not seeing how the Yankees or the Mets are doing, but plotting very dangerous, tragic, consequential events to destroy our way of life, to cause mayhem, to cause loss of life, we want to know what they are up to. And the President, under this cockamamie theory, conspired to protect us, in the gentleman's words illegally protect us; but he did so in a way that brought in a team of lawyers, reviewed the program every 45 days, and invited members of leadership from both parties, from both Houses of the legislative branch, to be in on that discussion. That is a cockamamie theory that he was conspiring to break the law in that regard. He was fulfilling his oath to protect this Nation.

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

Mr. PUTNAM. Reclaiming my time, I recognize that the gentleman's use of ``cockamamie'' was directed at another aspect of this debate. But I stand by my comment that the President of the United States did not conspire to engage in any illegal, inappropriate activity by, first, calling a team of lawyers and, second, calling the leadership of the opposite party. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), another member of the House Intelligence Committee, another leader on national security issues for us.

Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New Jersey is a very capable member of the Intelligence Committee, and surely he is not suggesting that covert actions of the United States Government should be made available to every single Member of Congress. Surely the gentleman is not suggesting that every classified program that this United States is engaged in should be available to every single Member. I would invite the gentleman to respond. Would the Manhattan Project have been available to every single Member who asked about its cost, the number of employees, where the activity was going on, how many people were involved? Would the gentleman have suggested that every Member of Congress would have been clued in on that, even when the Vice President wasn't?

Mr. PUTNAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.